|
Here's a scan with zero processing done other than auto tone in the scanner software: I dunno if my scanner is a piece of poo poo or what (likely), but everything comes out blurry. I had the same problem with some lab developed color film, and I was hoping it would turn out better with my own film. The only things that are relatively in focus are the specks of dust. Even everything in the plane of focus is blurry and you can't even make out any grain. I've also tried it with both VueScan and the Canon software. The scanner is a CanoScan Lide 700F. I've experimented with flattening the film down with pieces of glass but it doesn't seem to help. Maybe it needs to be raised off the glass by a couple mm? I've read that's necessary for some scanners. It's curious to me that some of the dust is focused quite well. I bought it for only $40 on kijiji so I am not too worried about tossing it for something better. This would probably belong in the scanner thread. BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Feb 28, 2014 |
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Here's a scan with zero processing done other than auto tone in the scanner software: Yeah, it sounds like your film isn't in the focal plane of the scanner. Do you not have the film holder? For your scanner it's supposed to look something like this: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Yeah, it sounds like your film isn't in the focal plane of the scanner. Do you not have the film holder? For your scanner it's supposed to look something like this: Yeah I do. It's set up properly like in the manual and I've calibrated the scanner. I'm trying a few things to push the film absolutely flat against the glass and I'll see what effect it has. BTW the film "holder" for this scanner is not quite exactly as pictured. There's actually nothing that holds the film in place, it's nothing more than a guide that more/less lets you know where to place the film on the flatbed. It can still wiggle around quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
The film usually shouldn't be directly on the glass, it should be suspended in a flat plane a few mm above the glass so that it lies entirely in the focal plane of the scanner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:The film usually shouldn't be directly on the glass, it should be suspended in a flat plane a few mm above the glass so that it lies entirely in the focal plane of the scanner. Well I flattened it down pretty hard and got a better scan this time around, but as you can see there's the ugly rings on the left there. Any tips on how to make a homemade riser so I can try it a bit raised up? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
Those rings are what you get when you have it pressed up against the glass. They're newton rings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Well drat, I can't seem to get a decent scan unless I press the film hard against the scanner. I am sandwiching the film between the scanner glass and another thin piece of glass from a picture frame. Too bad about those newton rings, because I can't think of another way to hold it down perfectly flat without obstructing the backlight. Maybe I'll take this to the scanner thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Does betterscanning.com make a film-holder for your scanner? or that will fit your scanner?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Nope, I already found that site while searching for solutions. I think I might just sell it for what I paid and then save up for a V600
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
Why a V600 vs V700?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Why a V600 vs V700? Probably the $400+ price difference.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Probably the $400+ price difference. Brainfart. V600 vs. V500. I see the similarity in their MSRP but it seems that used V500s are everywhere. bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy with my light box. I'm going to set it up to "scan" with my SLR. 12 6x6cm shots at a time! I'm going to take a "calibration shot" so I can subtract the background. I'm hoping it works well enough to get decent quality images. I did some shots on my cell phone and it came out okay except for horrible compression (two JPG saves).  I ran out of single frames so now I'm having to cut the strips of four down. Probably another 200 frames or so to go. Edit: before anyone complains, I fixed the orientation on all the shots earlier today. The above "scan" was from last night. It's odd. Done if the frames have the content match the orientation of the edge markings, some are opposite. Edit 2: these are from '55 ± 1 year or so. My dad is the baby in the family photo, which puts this Christmas '55. carticket fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Brainfart. V600 vs. V500. I see the similarity in their MSRP but it seems that used V500s are everywhere. The V600 has a larger film window, so you can scan more medium format film at once. For example the V500 is tragically just a tiny bit short of being able to scan two 6x7 frames at once 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Finally got this bitch-rear end 8x10 x-ray film to play nicely: Before I was developing in trays and getting these terrible negatives, very dense and very low in contrast. So I decided to just chuck the sheet right into a patterson tank and sloosh it around with some Rodinal and see what happens. Finally got something I can do some alt-printing with. Interestingly enough, its rated at about 125 ISO, and dev in 1:100 Rodinal for 6min with typical agitation/inversions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:Maybe helpful to UK dorkroomers; a photography student mate of mine told me that Poundland sells film. It's 24 exposure Agfa VistaPlus 200. Dunno what it's like but for that price I went and picked up a couple of rolls.  Thank you for making me go to that horrible, horrible store I don't like!  I'll have a look whether the local store has them. I'm not terribly worried about performance with these, and my wallet will be very happy indeed if it gets to pay that little for film, especially film I'll just use to try to get to know my camera better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Yeah it's good to get cheap but new film to test cameras.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Well drat, I can't seem to get a decent scan unless I press the film hard against the scanner. I am sandwiching the film between the scanner glass and another thin piece of glass from a picture frame. Too bad about those newton rings, because I can't think of another way to hold it down perfectly flat without obstructing the backlight. Maybe I'll take this to the scanner thread. Try emulsion side down to possibly prevent or minimize the rings. If you want to be a crazy man, get some cheap mylar ( http://www.pearlpaint.com/shop-Mylar-Sheets_6935_6934.html ) and some naphtha ( http://www.homedepot.com/p/Klean-Strip-1-Qt-Varnish-Maker-and-Painter-s-Naphtha-QVM46/100122813?N=c5bmZ5yc1v ) Windex is also useful. There's some more info at http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html , but if you're a real man you don't need the tape, squeegee or roller. Kami fluid is basically naphtha, I think, but more expensive. And gently caress that poo poo where you use new mylar, use that poo poo over and over. NOTE: This is dangerous. The fumes give me a headache and probably cause brain damage without proper ventilation, and the fluid is very flammable because it's basically lighter fluid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Try emulsion side down to possibly prevent or minimize the rings. Well this is stupid. At least go buy a proper respirator if you're going to gently caress around with chemicals like that!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
It's also a little over the top for someone who should probably start by just getting a better scanner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Well this is stupid. I have proper ventilation, the danger with naphtha is vapor buildup (and harm to the environment, I don't think you can even buy it in California?). It's literally lighter fluid, but ronsonal isn't as pure as it used to be since zippo's acquisition of the brand. For reference, the faint smell of pot marijuana pot smoke from down the hall gives me a headache. MrBlandAverage posted:It's also a little over the top for someone who should probably start by just getting a better scanner. edit: this stuff is actually a bit more expensive than the canned stuff 
notlodar fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I have two respirators, but I typically avoid anything that would actually require one. Cool. Lighter fluid isn't going to change the location of his scanner's focal plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Cool. Lighter fluid isn't going to change the location of his scanner's focal plane. It can make "pressing it hard against the scanner" easier, which is the only method he said works, and prevent some newton rings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
Yeah I got a 1 year old in the home so I'm not too keen on the toxic fumes idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Speaking of toxicity, I made an Argyrotype of that negative to see how the x-ray film goes with the alt-printing: X-ray Test by mr_student, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Speaking of toxicity, I made an Argyrotype of that negative to see how the x-ray film goes with the alt-printing: Your alt-printing stuff is really cool. Is there anything that can be done with medium format negatives and without a huge investment in time and wierd chems?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Your alt-printing stuff is really cool. Is there anything that can be done with medium format negatives and without a huge investment in time and wierd chems? Alt printing means you're stuck with contact prints or a digital internegative, but if you're willing to live with that, cyanotype printing is about as easy as falling off a bike. You can even buy the paper off of Amazon, and you just rinse in water afterwards. I think everything else is in the "weird chems" department, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
remboved
atomicthumbs fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Mar 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:Your alt-printing stuff is really cool. Is there anything that can be done with medium format negatives and without a huge investment in time and wierd chems? Just as Yond Cassius said, it's pretty much all contact printing, so you'll be making some pretty small prints with medium format negs. But printing out digital negs on overheads to decent sizes with the right curves give pretty good results too. I chose the Argyrotype process as the first alt-printing to try, as its a relatively new process created to be simple. All you do is spread the solution (which you can buy premixed in kits) with a cotton bud across paper (I just use semi-matt Epson printing paper), put it in a contact printing frame or just something that can keep the negative and paper in contact, and put it in the sun for 20mins. There is no dev step, just chuck it in water for around 15min, then tone and fix and you're done. And the spreading of the solution/dev can be done in a dim room, I just use the bathroom with the blinds drawn in the middle of the day, you can still see very easily but there is no direct sunlight in the room. As mentioned there are cyanotypes, which can be even simpler, but I didn't want to end up with blueish prints. Salt printing with Ambrotypes is the next goal, with an aim to putting a decent set together and hopefully show somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
My city stuff. wip by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr  wip by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 09:48
|
|
|
Nikon D800 huh?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Nikon D800 huh? Yeah, you've never taken pics of your negatives instead of using a scanner? It works pretty well with a little bit of planning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
It's also a billion times faster. Align negative, click, done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Too bad you can't use IS like a miniature version of shift movements to get better resolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Has anybody tried one of these adapters to replace the mercury PX625 in an older film camera? It sounds like a pretty good deal if you don't want to deal with short-lived zinc-air batteries or figuring out how to adjust the meter to compensate for a newer 1.55V battery (or paying somebody to do it), but the little disclaimer about 200 microamps and not working with the QL17 G-III gives me pause. Edit: There's also a US-based distributor here, but I don't know if they're the same item provided by two different companies (it looks like they're using the exact same photo of it, at least) or if they both happen to make a similar product. 404notfound fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Mar 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Yeah, the only comments on flickr I get is people being snarky about me putting digital photos in film groups. I guess I should put something in comments instead of just using tags. I have pretty bad problems with film curl on my 35mm negatives, so using my scanner wasn't really an option, and I didn't want to mess with better scanning holders and an extra surface to keep clean. Taking photo of a photo seemed like a decent solution. I think I have finally finalized my "scanning" rig. Its not as fast as it could be, but I don't want to over engineer it since it delivers results I am pretty happy with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Post pictures! Do you need a 1:1 macro lens for best results?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Yeah, the only comments on flickr I get is people being snarky about me putting digital photos in film groups. I guess I should put something in comments instead of just using tags. You could strip out the EXIF and put something like "Old timey photogram maker"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Post pictures! Do you need a 1:1 macro lens for best results? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
notlodar posted:On a full frame digital camera, yes. The draw back is the larger the format you scan, the more detail you lose That's assuming the smaller format was making use of all your resolution to begin with, which in the case of the D800 isn't likely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
