A while back Jeff asked about the feasibility of using the Epson 4990 for batch scanning 35mm negatives / slides. Last night I had to do something like that for a client. I had about 40 color negatives that needed to be scanned for output at say 300 dpi 8 x 10.
A couple of quick impressions: the 35mm holder is a pain to load. I was doing color negative film. It goes emulsion up into the carrier and boy it wanted to curl up and I had a lot of trouble getting it to lie flat. As you know you can put four strips (6 negs each) into the holder. Yes, there is a little notch to slide the film under at one end, but not at the other. I got the stuff in okay, but it is just not the same as using a good sturdy negative holder for a film scanner.
I was using VueScan. Next problem was that in the preview, I really couldn't get all four strips lined up properly so that I could scan all four strips at once. This might have been easier to deal with if I was using the Epson Twain interface. Don't know. But I lined things up so I could do one strip at a time.
Size @ 4800 dpi input scan is 15 x 23 inches. But in my opinion, you'd be crazy to use this to scan 35mm negs. at that resolution unless your film scanner was broken. Remember, you are adding two surfaces that can and will contain dust, hair, and other unwanted junk. Remember that the negative is just not lying as flat as it would with a dedicated film scanner. In other words - my quick pronouncement is that for 35mm negatives, I'd still use it if I had to do a large scanning job where the quality of individual scans could be mostly for the web or for knowing what you had (indexing). But for the real thing - where you want to get everything you can out of the negative / slide - I'd still jump to a film scanner.
The same, obviously is not true for the Medium Format and large format negatives where I'm dealing with one negative at a time and you can put the negative on the sweet spot of the scanning glass, and you are prepared to clean each neg. up as needed.
5 comments:
Jeff, if the main purpose is proofing, you'd do better with something that can hold 36 frames. I have an odd way of proofing where I'll look at the stuff on a light box and if there's anything remotely appealing on a strip I'll run that strip through the film scanner as large pre-scans which doesn't take too long. If I'm dealing with people and expressions - then I'll do a full proof on the flatbed.
Fascinating stuff Dave, I would interpollute the negative before establishing a correlation between the emulsion and the d-max and then use several substitute layers to achieve a higher effervescence and also to subdue any conflict between the competing tones and then I'd polish all the pixels for at least half hour before adding some more secret tricks which I think I'll keep to myself...
"...then I'd polish all the pixels for at least half hour before adding some more secret tricks which I think I'll keep to myself..." - Matt
I have been polishing the pixels all morning with windex. You see I am not against giving out tips. In order to pull the pixels from the chip, you will need ten feet of PCV tubing, a copper pot, and several hundred pounds of corn. After the clear flammable liquid drips out, you will be able to clean as many pixels as you can find -- oh - no - not pixels, pixies. Sorry.
Semi-annual sale: you never really know do you. Orders came in at a good clip, but how do I know whether they are the result of the sale or not? My marketing is not that advanced yet.
Matt: WARNING. DON'T READ THIS. I KNOW IT WILL DRIVE YOU TO TEDIUM.
Craig:
http://www.stu-artsupplies.com/
I'm using Museum White M11 board and having them do the mat cutting for me. In fact, I just got a $500 shipment today from them. Looks good. The idiot UPS man did his best to smash the box but didn't quite drop it hard enough on the corner. Everything arrived in good shape.
This is not a "high-tech" operation. You call and speak with an actual woman that has been working there for a long time. I basically tell them that the mat size is say 11 x 14 and the picture size is 8 x 10 and they just take off a 1/4 inch all around so the window is actually 7.5 x 9.5 and that's it. You order backs separately.
You can also buy much cheaper non-bevel window mats, i.e. die-cut.
The main difference (other than price) between them and say Light Impressions is that the mats at Light Impressions are in set sizes, not custom cut.
Anyway - Stu-Art is good so far.
Post a Comment