|
So I bought a Canon 5600 flatbed scanner that comes with a holder for 35mm film and claims to be able to scan medium format as well. My idea was to sort of rape the 35mm holder to allow me to scan a piece of 35mm film with sprocket holes, the entire width of the piece of film. Lots of people on flickr etc seem to be doing this. I have been foiled by the canon scanning software. When you set it to scan negatives it crops the scanning area down to a maximum width that is slightly smaller than the width of a 35mm piece of film. I only get the edges of the sprocket holes. This is frustrating because the weird light bar on the lid of the scanner (that illuminates negatives) is more than wide enough to light up the full width of a 35mm film. The only thing I can think to do is spend an extra $70 on the canon 8800 which has a mount (and I assume really wide light bar) for two 35mm strips side by side. Surely then the scanning software will let me see the width of a single piece of 35mm. But it seems pretty clear that there is no way this 5600 could ever scan a medium format negative. The light bar is barely wide enough for 35mm. Pretty silly since the canon web site says it can do it. God knows how.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 20:21
|
|
Associate Christ
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
You can't put in a piece of 35mm and tell it to scan a medium format negative?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 20:27
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:The only thing I can think to do is spend an extra $70 on the canon 8800 which has a mount (and I assume really wide light bar) for two 35mm strips side by side. Surely then the scanning software will let me see the width of a single piece of 35mm. Yes, the 8800 will do sprocket holes. The usual approach is not to use any film holder and just tape the film down to the glass (and clean it off afterwards). It gets way sharper results than scanning normally with the film holder, but is sort of a time suck :\
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 21:02
|
|
|
HPL posted:You can't put in a piece of 35mm and tell it to scan a medium format negative? That is what I had hoped to do. The software gives five options: Platen (regular document scanning), colour negative film, colour positive film, monochrome negative film, and monochrome positive film. When you select any of the four film options, the only size options available are 35mm film strip or 35mm slide. Now that I read the description slowly on Amazon, it says "For convenience, you can batch-scan up to six 35mm frames or four 35mm slides at once, and scanning of medium-format slides is supported as well". They also show this picture on the amazon page, which looks like some sort of medium format holder. God knows where you buy that or how you would then scan with it. I can't find any reference in the manual or the canon online faqs to medium format scanning with the 5600. dunno posted:Yes, the 8800 will do sprocket holes. The usual approach is not to use any film holder and just tape the film down to the glass (and clean it off afterwards). It gets way sharper results than scanning normally with the film holder, but is sort of a time suck :\ I imagine when you do this you are still telling it you are scanning film? In other words, when it is scanning in film mode is it physically operating in a different manner? I guess it must be because of that special lid light source. There is no way to scan a negative when the scanner is not in film mode with any sort of useful results?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 23:21
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I imagine when you do this you are still telling it you are scanning film? In other words, when it is scanning in film mode is it physically operating in a different manner? I guess it must be because of that special lid light source. There is no way to scan a negative when the scanner is not in film mode with any sort of useful results? I have it set to scan a 35mm film strip, but after previewing it complains that there are no frames to scan. You get around this by clicking the button that switches off the thumbnail mode (in the mac version of ScanGear it's the button in the absolute top left of the interface) and it lets you select an area inside the region covered by the light in the lid to scan with a rectangular selection tool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
dunno posted:I have it set to scan a 35mm film strip, but after previewing it complains that there are no frames to scan. You get around this by clicking the button that switches off the thumbnail mode (in the mac version of ScanGear it's the button in the absolute top left of the interface) and it lets you select an area inside the region covered by the light in the lid to scan with a rectangular selection tool. Yeah, I figured that bit out. The problem is that when not in thumbnail mode it limits you to an area with a width of 1476 pixels (31.2 mm). The width of the film is slightly larger than this. I think since you have the 8800 it probably shows you an area close to the width of two 35mm strips. I wish I could trick the software into showing me a wider area. This is as close as I can get: http://www.flickr.com/photos/skibler/3227201846/ other people fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jan 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 01:01
|
|
|
To go off on another tangent: When I get this scanner business sorted out the final plan is to develop my own rolls and then I can scan them myself and then I only have to go to the camera shop to buy film. http://chromogenic.net/develop There is a nice general guide here. Does their supply list seem reasonable? Ilford Ilfosol-S Developer (Liquid) for Black & White Film - 500ml Ilford Rapid Fixer (Liquid) 500ml Omega Universal Developing Tank with 2 Adjustable Reels Rexton Hyper Wet 240 Wetting Agent for Black & White Film and Paper - 4 Oz. Kalt Stainless Steel Film Clips (Set of 2) Delta Mix-Up Cup - 20oz (600 ml) This guy just uses water for the stop bath. Is that really ok? How many rolls of film am I going to completely ruin before I get this right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 22:38
|
|
|
While we're on the subject of scanners I figure I'd ask about storage procedures. Yes storage is cheap. At last check it's under $.10 a GB. However I have several thousand photos that I'd like to backup (eventually - just 1000 or so right now) I am only working from prints - no negatives. I have a Fairly cheap HP G3110. Having knocked out about 200 scans it's starting to scare me at the size of these images. Scanning 4x6" prints at 600PPI at "high bit depth" into TIF files is sitting at about 50MB each. This sucks as it's eating about 5 gigs per 100 images. Am I saving too much data? Am I too woried about being a good little archivist by going with TIF for images instead of something like JPG. Coming from Digital where RAW > jpg I assumed that TIF is better, but in reality should I be doing this? Can I work RAW like magic on a TIF that I can't on a JPG or has the ship basically sailed since these images are all coming from prints? Basically what should I be scanning to? Jpg/Tif/Other and How much resolution should I be looking for? 300/600/1200/2400?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
In case anyone is interested, I am selling a complete Bronica 645 setup. ETRSi body 120 back Polaroid Back 75mm Zenzanon 2.8 Speed Grip 2 boxes of fuji instant film Unmetered Prism All for $350 shipped and paypal'd. Thought I would throw it up here. It's a nice little setup but I bought a Pentax 67 so this is the odd man out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 03:56
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:To go off on another tangent: When I get this scanner business sorted out the final plan is to develop my own rolls and then I can scan them myself and then I only have to go to the camera shop to buy film. Water is fine for stop bath. Stop bath has a couple of functions-it stops development faster than water, but at that stage of development it doesn't make much difference, whatever is going to develop has already developed. And it helps your fix last longer, the base in the DV partially neutralizes the fix and reduces its effectiveness. Learning how to roll film onto the reels is the worst part. Ok, learning how to roll the film onto the reel in total darkness is the worst part. You might want to sacrifice a roll of outdated film for practice in daylight until you get the hang of it. 24 exp rolls are easier to work with at first. When getting your supplies, don't forget bottles for chemicals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 07:25
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:
Agreed. A changing bag will allow you to load your reels while your head stays in daylight (but your film and hands stay in total darkness). Great for those times when you're getting frustrated and continually kinking a roll of 120 and need to take a break, as opposed to standing in the dark for 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 07:51
|
|
|
Echoing the challenge of rolls. Some new film photographers worry about getting shots wrong, over/under exposure, etc. which I am sure does happen- but pretty much universally swear words are uttered the first many times you roll in a changing bag or a dark room. I initially hated my changing bag, evn though it was the largest one I could find. It's now a welcome part of my gear, and much of my frustration is from improper rolling of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 14:46
|
|
|
dunno posted:Agreed. When this happens to me (and it only seems to happen with Tri-X 120 for some reason, it's stupidly hard to load) I just throw the film into the tank; seal the tank and walk out of the dark room. I haven't tried a changing bag but I just imagine it being really constrictive in comparison to being in a dark room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 14:50
|
|
|
Soylent Green posted:When this happens to me (and it only seems to happen with Tri-X 120 for some reason, it's stupidly hard to load) I just throw the film into the tank; seal the tank and walk out of the dark room. I develop at home, so if I'm not loading in the changing bag on the kitchen table it's in the bathroom, in the middle of the night, with all the lights in adjacent rooms turned out and a towel over the window. And really, there isn't much counter space. Also, I had a lot of trouble loading my first roll in there, got frustrated and anxious in the dark and have since refused to repeat the experience, though I also do the vast majority of my developing in the morning or afternoon these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2009 15:51
|
|
|
There isn't a room or closet in my home that I could get anywhere close to light proof, so I will have to learn to use a bag. In other news, I found an old pay check at work today from last April that I never cashed. I am so good with money. So I suppose blowing an extra $70 on the fancier 8800 canon scanner is not a big deal :o. It is $200 on amazon right now. There isn't anything in a similar price range that will be any better, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 00:57
|
|
|
Thought you guys would like this: http://www.richardnicholson.com/darkroom/
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 20:11
|
|
|
How does the dpi value of a scanner translate to the resolution of a scanned image? I'd like to get about 1024x1024 out of 6x6 negatives, and I'm trying to figure out if I can do this by scanning the negatives in front of white paper in a cheap flatbed scanner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 20:22
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:How does the dpi value of a scanner translate to the resolution of a scanned image? Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but dpi = dots per (square) inch. so 1024 divided by 6 inches is about 170 dpi. I don't know what level of print quality you want, which is what I think you should be aiming for an consider that your minimum. If you need to do editing or cropping of any of your 6x6's then you'll want a higher dpi. Looking online I see the 'standard' is anywhere from 150+ all the way up to 300 dpi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 20:43
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:Maybe I'm not understanding this right, but dpi = dots per (square) inch. so 1024 divided by 6 inches is about 170 dpi. I don't know what level of print quality you want, which is what I think you should be aiming for an consider that your minimum. If you need to do editing or cropping of any of your 6x6's then you'll want a higher dpi. Looking online I see the 'standard' is anywhere from 150+ all the way up to 300 dpi. 6x6 is around 2.25"x2.25", you had a brainfart.  I assumed the scanner uses groups of dots to piece together one "more accurate" pixel at a time. Did I pull this idea out of my rear end?  Edit: I don't plan to print anything. I just want to have small copies for sharing over the web. CanuckBassist fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jan 28, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 20:52
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:How does the dpi value of a scanner translate to the resolution of a scanned image? Negatives have to be back-lit dude, sticking a white piece of paper behind it is not going to do the trick. 1024 is a pretty tiny file. My (flatbed negative) scanner does 4800dpi for negatives, which for 6x6 translates to 10800x10800 at the maximum resolution (4800*2.25).
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Negatives have to be back-lit dude, sticking a white piece of paper behind it is not going to do the trick. Yeah, that's what I figured, but the interweb tells me that people seems to be doing it that way with okay results after some level/curve adjustments.Maybe I should just wait until I have the extra cash for a 4490.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 21:01
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Thought you guys would like this: This is awesome. As mentioned in the lighting thread, I think I will get off my rear end and run a project thread of converting my garage into a studio. Making it a darkroom wouldn't be too much of a stretch either, although it's way too hot for developing during the summer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 21:14
|
|
|
I just came home with an Epson V500 scanner. I was a bit apprehensive as it doesn't feel quite as solid as the Canon models. Conclusion? It kicks rear end. Within minutes of unpacking it I have produced this. I had read that the Epson software was worse than the Canon software. I would say the Epson software is easily on par with Canon's, if not better (in OS X at least). It is certainly less restrictive. Anyway, I am very pleased. I'm glad I have this all sorted out as the last few rolls of film I dropped off I asked for development only. I would be quite stuck without a usable scanner!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:This is awesome. As mentioned in the lighting thread, I think I will get off my rear end and run a project thread of converting my garage into a studio. Making it a darkroom wouldn't be too much of a stretch either, although it's way too hot for developing during the summer. Yeah you should do that, I am actually about to go hit up a hardware store and start getting my home studio a little more organized (I live in a studio apartment just barely big enough to shoot in). I saw an enlarger out on the curb the other day and almost took it, now I wish I had.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2009 00:08
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Epson V500 scanner. I have the same and am quite happy with it as well. My only problem with it so far is that if a frame has a blown out segment or a really dark segment, sometimes that will screw with where the scanner thinks the frame ends and then it tries to scan the top of one frame with the bottom of another. Only a problem with silhouette shots or ones I've hosed up, in which case it's an appropriate punishment. You can fix it by cutting down the negatives to a single frame and scanning one at a time. A pain in the rear end, but at least it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
jollygrinch posted:I have the same and am quite happy with it as well. My only problem with it so far is that if a frame has a blown out segment or a really dark segment, sometimes that will screw with where the scanner thinks the frame ends and then it tries to scan the top of one frame with the bottom of another. Hell, the prints I got back from the developer were cropped incorrectly. Since I am scanning for sprockets I am ok with it not picking out the individual frames. I don't think any scanning software is set up for that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2009 03:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah you should do that, I am actually about to go hit up a hardware store and start getting my home studio a little more organized (I live in a studio apartment just barely big enough to shoot in). I saw an enlarger out on the curb the other day and almost took it, now I wish I had. I'd be interested to see that, I've lived in a studio (apartment) and always let it hold me back from doing stuff at home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2009 04:11
|
|
|
Here we go, the project thread is posted here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3067423 We'll see how it goes. I am hoping it doesn't turn into a sausage fest like the Post-Production thread did around the end of page one, but hey it's SA Also, someone mentioned wanting to see our cameras, and I had both my DSLR and my LF cameras close, so I snapped these of the LF:  
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2009 06:42
|
|
|
As much as I hate double replies, here it goes. I've currently got an Epson 4490, and my LF habit has me looking at a scanner that can accomodate 4x5's with a larger backlight. I am looking at the V500 and V700 - can anyone provide an opinion on either? I think the V700 is the only one with a backlight big enough to do 4x5's, and with my experience with MF on the 4490 I am thinking about getting a Better Scanning film holder for the new one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2009 04:29
|
|
|
hybr1d posted:As much as I hate double replies, here it goes. I've currently got an Epson 4490, and my LF habit has me looking at a scanner that can accomodate 4x5's with a larger backlight. I am looking at the V500 and V700 - can anyone provide an opinion on either? I think the V700 is the only one with a backlight big enough to do 4x5's, and with my experience with MF on the 4490 I am thinking about getting a Better Scanning film holder for the new one. The V500's Transparency Unit is large enough for scanning 120/220 strips. If you want to do whole 4"x5" sheet film scans, you'll need the V700 or the time and patience to scan parts of the 4x5 neg and stitch it together. I too am looking at the V500 but I don't shoot LF, so it'll do everything I need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2009 04:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not really excited about scanning LF negatives, but considering they are $100 each or so for drum scans or $11 each for generic ones from the pro shop, it's really my only option beyond making prints. I have 30 or so exposures I am waiting to get back- I may really really suck still at LF (it's hard!), and combine that with saving up for studio lights and hardware, it's on the bottom of the list for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2009 04:55
|
|
|
I just bought a V500 ($200) and I am very happy with it. I had a Canon 5600F ($130) for a few days as well. The 5600F only has a wide enough light for 35mm film/slides. The V500 has a light about 80mm wide. I think the Epson software/driver interface beats out the Canon in terms of usability and available options. The Epson is happy to scan negatives that are not in one of the proper holders. The Canon driver wasn't very fun to deal with when I tried to scan a negative that wasn't in the 35mm holder. For example, I had the Canon for a weekend and struggled with the software for hours trying to get it to scan a weird crop of a 35mm negative. I gave up and boxed it back up. When I received the Epson I was scanning odd crops of 35mm film within three minutes of hooking it up. There is the Canon 8800F ($200) that I have not tried. It has a wider light than the 5600 and comes with holders for medium format. I imagine it is closer to the V500 in capabilities (and it is the exact same price in most places). I don't know if it's light is as wide as the Epson or wider or what. Assuming the 8800F doesn't scan a much wider area than the Epson, I would recommend the Epson. The V700 is $500+ and in a whole different class. I am sure it is very nice :o. I don't know if it is worth the extra $300 though, unless the item you want to scan is simply wider than what a V500 or 8800F can do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2009 02:32
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:The V700 is $500+ and in a whole different class. I am sure it is very nice :o. I don't know if it is worth the extra $300 though, unless the item you want to scan is simply wider than what a V500 or 8800F can do. This is great feedback - thanks. I am looking to get medium quality scans from 4"x5" negatives, so it looks like I will have to wait for the V500 budget to get there. If my next set of negatives demonstrate I can operate my LF camera, then I'll go with the Epson. If the negs suck or show some kind of issue with the camera, then it will likely go on hold and I'll stick with my 4490.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2009 02:48
|
|
|
Can some one explain some scanning stuff to me? I am scanning black and white negatives. I have the option of 48-bit colour, 24-bit colour, 16-bit greyscale, or 8-bit greyscale. Obviously the less the bits, the smaller the file. I suppose I have no reason to mess with the 48 or 24-bit options, but when I scan 16-bit greyscale The Gimp says it can't work with them and that it is converting them to 8-bit for me and that I am losing information and oh god noooo. Does it really make a lick of difference if I just use the 8-bit mode? When I scan in 8-bit I just get these tiny files and I feel like something isn't right. Also, a good portion of my b&w shots taken with ISO400 film are quite under exposed. Is there an 800 speed film someone can recommend? 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
I've always scanned my black and white negatives as 8bit. Unless you're certain you need the extra information I don't see why 8bit wouldn't be enough. How tiny are the files? I've recently switched to simply saving them as JPG's and each frame is ~15MB (8bit, grayscale). What film are you currently using? Trix can easily be pushed to 800, 1600, or further if you really need it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2009 21:55
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:I am scanning black and white negatives. I have the option of 48-bit colour, 24-bit colour, 16-bit greyscale, or 8-bit greyscale. Obviously the less the bits, the smaller the file. I suppose I have no reason to mess with the 48 or 24-bit options, but when I scan 16-bit greyscale The Gimp says it can't work with them and that it is converting them to 8-bit for me and that I am losing information and oh god noooo. Negative film has a very wide latitude compared to e.g. digital cameras or slide film. In the latter this extra data isn't perhaps as critical. In B&W negative there's often a ridiculous amount of detail to be found eg. by dragging the gamma slider to some extreme. For example let's say you have a photo of a darkish room lit by a very bright window. With the scanning software's default guess, the window might be partially pure white and parts of the room nearly pure black. If you try to dig out the tonal detail from the 8 bit image, you'll end up with an ugly posterized effect. In 16 bit you'll often find that you can get a perfectly fine image of both the bright and the dark parts. You might want to combine these in the spirit of dodge and burn, or perhaps just adjust the general brightness and contrast (never with the tool called Brightness & Contrast though). As a more extreme example, let's say that the room was lit by a bright light bulb. You might even be able to extract a sharp image of the filament from the seemingly extremely overexposed area. Not that useful maybe, but kinda interesting. In my opinion the wide latitude is one of the major advantages of B&W negative, and you're pretty much throwing it away with 8 bit. It's much like whether you shoot RAW or JPEG with a digital camera, except even more significant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2009 23:37
|
|
|
sinc posted:Negative film has a very wide latitude compared to e.g. digital cameras or slide film. In the latter this extra data isn't perhaps as critical. In B&W negative there's often a ridiculous amount of detail to be found eg. by dragging the gamma slider to some extreme. For example let's say you have a photo of a darkish room lit by a very bright window. With the scanning software's default guess, the window might be partially pure white and parts of the room nearly pure black. If you try to dig out the tonal detail from the 8 bit image, you'll end up with an ugly posterized effect. In 16 bit you'll often find that you can get a perfectly fine image of both the bright and the dark parts. You might want to combine these in the spirit of dodge and burn, or perhaps just adjust the general brightness and contrast (never with the tool called Brightness & Contrast though). As a more extreme example, let's say that the room was lit by a bright light bulb. You might even be able to extract a sharp image of the filament from the seemingly extremely overexposed area. Not that useful maybe, but kinda interesting. Ah, that is interesting. I have been saving the scanner output as tif files. There are of course contract/colour settings you set before you scan. I guess there isn't some sort of raw output you can get from a scanner, like raw on a dslr? Having said that, since The Gimp only reads in photos at 8-bit, I don't know I could really do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
At least in the scanner I used to have (Dual Scan IV) the 16 bit TIFF pretty much corresponded to a RAW. I'd turn off all the automatic adjustments in Vuescan and just sort of dump the raw brightness data to the file. It does take some effort to make it look good and it whether it's worth it depends on your personal preferences of course. But understandably the default software and settings tend to be aimed at making holiday snapshots look passable. I don't really know if that's possible with all scanners and software though. And of course it's kind of wasted effort if GIMP can't handle them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 00:00
|
|
|
Kaluza-Klein posted:Ah, that is interesting. I have been saving the scanner output as tif files. There are of course contract/colour settings you set before you scan. I guess there isn't some sort of raw output you can get from a scanner, like raw on a dslr? The GIMP is a little backwards compared to today's Photoshop (actually, its mostly just that it is web graphics centric). If you're wanting to deal with 16-bit per channel tiffs on linux give Cinepaint a try.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
So lately I have been kinda stagnant with my (digital) photography, so I decided to change things up and try out an old film camera. I got the camera and a small pile of lenses for like 200 bucks on ebay. I think I have the controls mastered, and successfully loaded my first roll of film. Can't wait to try it out tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2009 02:45
|
|
