PDA

View Full Version : Film & Scanning = the worst of both worlds?


Soeren
12-25-2010, 07:07
Hi Roger (et al)
In the " what is film to......." thread you said something like the above. Since I was considering a Epson 700 or maybe 750 scanner to do scans of 6X7cm to 4X5" slides and maybe some 13X18cm B&W negs I would like you to elaborate a bit on that .
Best regards

mfogiel
12-25-2010, 08:12
It looks like Roger is busy with his Christmas dishes, so maybe I can show you my opinion.
1- "worst of both worlds" I think was primarily addressed at B&W process, because the state of the art B&W process is still from a silver negative to a silver wet print.
However, in colour, the state of the art today is probably in digital image acquisition in the camera, and inkjet printing.

Myself, I use a hybrid process in B&W, and I basically no longer shoot colour. However, I have shot some colour before, and I have tried Epson V750, and subsequently moved to Nikon CS9000.

First: the good news - for scanning 4x5 inch or 13x18cm B&W, Epson will be perfectly acceptable, providing you do not want to enlarge beyond 6 times.

Second: the not so good news, is that scanning slides on an Epson will reduce the Dmax and introduce a visible colour profile alteration of the original image. While I imagine, you could correct the colour profile with some smart photoshop action, the Dmax will be inevitably clipped.

Moreover, scanning 120 film on an Epson is running into 2 problems difficult to resolve: film flatness, and max resolution. Even with Doug Fisher's holders and a glass insert, most films will develop a "belly" and will never be completely flat. Then, you have to shim your holder to look for a sharp plane, and lastly, even in a theoretically ideal case of a perfectly flat and sharp film plane, you do not go above 2200 DPI resolution.

I believe, the optimal use of the V750 would be if you are prepared to wet mount LF scans ( in Europe, the V750 does not come with the wet mount tray accessory).

A better solution in my opinion, would be to buy a used Imacon scanner which covers up to 4x5 size, or to buy a Nikon CS9000 for the MF and an Epson flatbed for the B&W LF, and shoot colour on 120 film only. A simpler yet solution for colour, would be to shoot it outright in digital.

FrankS
12-25-2010, 08:16
Film + scanning is the best process IMO because one gets to use cool old school cameras, get archival negatives, have the option of wet printing, and convenient digital files.

imokruok
12-25-2010, 09:32
Film + scanning is the best process IMO because one gets to use cool old school cameras, get archival negatives, have the option of wet printing, and convenient digital files.

Agreed, apart from the time - unless you have others do the scanning!

GSNfan
12-25-2010, 09:44
During preview I make a selection and only scan those at the highest DPI setting. Scanning every frame is indeed time consuming.

kuzano
12-25-2010, 09:51
Film + scanning is the best process IMO because one gets to use cool old school cameras, get archival negatives, have the option of wet printing, and convenient digital files.

Digital will never be truly archival if you agree with all the logical arguments for the breakdown of digital archiving:

1) long standing corruption of digital files stored on magnetic media
2) Changes in media/hardware technology for reading files in the future
3) Changes in file formats
4) file corruption from migrating files to newer media over time (every 10-15 years)
5) massive numbers of images lost from losing just one piece of media, because of the tendency to store high numbers of images on one media piece. (Begs question... should digital images be store 1 per disk or card if valuable, as would be the case with film?)

This is just a minor list of potential for digital degradation over time. Proper negative/transparency storage does has matured in place and does not suffer evolving technological anomalies of digital.

LeicaM3
12-25-2010, 09:58
Digital will never be truly archival if you agree with all the logical arguments for the breakdown of digital archiving:

1) long standing corruption of digital files stored on magnetic media
2) Changes in media/hardware technology for reading files in the future
3) Changes in file formats
4) file corruption from migrating files to newer media over time (every 10-15 years)
5) massive numbers of images lost from losing just one piece of media, because of the tendency to store high numbers of images on one media piece. (Begs question... should digital images be store 1 per disk or card if valuable, as would be the case with film?)

This is just a minor list of potential for digital degradation over time. Proper negative/transparency storage does has matured in place and does not suffer evolving technological anomalies of digital.

+1
.................

gho
12-25-2010, 10:26
What I like about film is, that in the end I have all my negatives tangible on the desk. I could produce wet prints or transform them into a digital file. No big deal.

In the end, I do not have to preserve a hard drive or a computer, because all the information is stored in the negative and I am sure that future generations will have a way to transform the information in the negative into a digital file, if needed.

literiter
12-25-2010, 11:08
Film + scanning is the best process IMO because one gets to use cool old school cameras, get archival negatives, have the option of wet printing, and convenient digital files.

Yep! If one needed a reason to continue to use film ( and one doesn't ) these would be a good reasons.

Indeed these are the very reasons I continue to use film.

Roger Hicks
12-25-2010, 12:57
Dear Soeren,

A long reply is needed, and it's late. But I'll start at least.

For 35mm B+W, there's no contest for me: B+W film + wet printing. B+W doesn't scan well (except chromogenics) and I much prefer the tonality of wet prints. By 13x18cm I'm happy enough with scans but still prefer the tonality of a wet print -- even to the extent of scanning a contact print rather than a neg.

For colour... Well, top-flight 35mm (slow slide film, tripod, etc., plus a top-flight scanner) gets you M9 quality for much less money, and easy filing/image searching. A good but not outstanding scanner should excel an M9 with MF. With LF you're well ahead and have more control of the image via movements.

With colour neg, 35mm Ektar 100 is up there with slide and the new Portra 400 offers incredible dynamic range, BUT you've all the hassle of scanning and making 'contacts', so I prefer digital. It's cheaper, too, especially at some labs' prices: at 25€ for a 36-exp film processed and printed, that's 4 rolls/100€, 40 rolls/1000€, 400 rolls/near enough 2x M9. A lot therefore depends on why you're shooting, and how much. In particular, whether it's professional or for fun.

And I regard film (colour or mono) as more archivally permanent, despite those who drone on about 'migrating' files. Apparently. much of Hollywood agrees with me.

Hope this helps,

Cheers,

R.

Soeren
12-27-2010, 02:21
Thanks all for your replies, very informative. Roger, you say topflight scanner. What is that in your eyes e.g. make, model? Looks as if I can get decent quality out of an epson but sacrifice Dmax. any cure for that? Nice to know my ol film bodies will do just fine for another 12 years :cool:
Best regards

btgc
12-27-2010, 02:43
I think about scans as yet more compact form of contacts, which can be occasionally printed on digital printers, just like grabbing a shot of coffee in chain coffee shop.

gavinlg
12-27-2010, 02:50
It's good in small numbers, but when you have 15+ rolls of 35mm film to scan it starts to make feel pretty romantic about the digital camera workflow.

Jamie123
12-27-2010, 03:17
Thanks all for your replies, very informative. Roger, you say topflight scanner. What is that in your eyes e.g. make, model? Looks as if I can get decent quality out of an epson but sacrifice Dmax. any cure for that? Nice to know my ol film bodies will do just fine for another 12 years :cool:
Best regards

I don't know what Roger would say but I would consider a topflight scanner something like a Hasselblad/Imacon Flextight, a proper drum scanner or a high end flatbed like a Creo.
The Epson V700 is a decent scanner for MF and LF. Not excellent but decent. By that I mean that the quality will most likely be good enough for proper sized prints (maybe up to A3) but you won't get the most out of your negs. I use a Nikon 9000 scanner for 6x7 which is probably the best you can get under $5k. That being said, I used to use an Epson 4990 (V700 predecessor) and was perfectly happy with the quality. The only thing Epson flatbeds really aren't good at is scanning dense slides. Here the Nikon is much better as it has an adjustable light source.

As for "worst of both worlds" or "best of both worlds" it really depends on which way you look at it. I have a Canon 5DII which is a pretty good 35mm digital camera. However, for my photographic style it's crucial that I get very soft tonal gradations which I can't get from 35mm digital. I'd have to shoot mf digital but a proper digital back costs about $450/day in rental which I can only afford on paid jobs. On personal projects I have no choice but to use medium format film and scan it myself. It's a major PITA and it would be much easier to shoot digitally but I just can't afford it at this point. Also, shooting film would be much less of hassle if I could have the lab make contact prints and then scan my selects but, again, I can't afford it.
So if you ask me shooting film and scanning is the best quality you can achieve for the least amount of money. But it's also the most work. (BTW, I'm talking about color as I hardly ever shoot B&W.)

Roger Hicks
12-27-2010, 06:12
Jamie has it. The lowest-quality dedicated 35mm scanners I'd consider are now both out of production: Nikon and Konica/Minolta. And the 'worst of both worlds' scenario definitely referred to 35mm not MF.

My K/M 5400 is misbehaving and I'm really not sure what to do if it dies.

Cheers,

R.

GSNfan
12-27-2010, 06:21
The aggravation of scanning, especially 35 film is undeniable. I had scanned at least 16 frames before scanner software crashed and all that work was lost so i had to rescan again.

for 35 film to really make a come back. there must be a better and less expensive not to forget less time consuming method of scanning the negatives.

Roger Hicks
12-27-2010, 06:30
. . . for 35 film to really make a come back. there must be a better and less expensive not to forget less time consuming method of scanning the negatives.

It's called an enlarger...

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Cheers,

R.

12-27-2010, 06:42
I used to think that development of B&W and scanning of negatives was a good-enough work-flow. But since I started on a class on wet printing, I am amazed by the quality of a wet-print. For example, I could burned a white patch and still recover details which would have been impossible with digital scanning. I now think of scanning as a preview tool, which I will select keepers as wet-printing candidates.

benlees
12-27-2010, 06:58
I used to think that development of B&W and scanning of negatives was a good-enough work-flow. But since I started on a class on wet printing, I am amazed by the quality of a wet-print. For example, I could burned a white patch and still recover details which would have been impossible with digital scanning. I now think of scanning as a preview tool, which I will select keepers as wet-printing candidates.


It's funny. I just started wet printing and have had the opposite experience. My V700 will get all the highlight detail no problem. It is the wet printing that is much more difficult to get the right detail in the highlights. Flash the paper, a lot of burning in. Quite a bit of work, really! Contrasty negs. are tricky!

That said, I find my scanner indispensable for all the reasons already stated.

GSNfan
12-27-2010, 07:07
It's called an enlarger...

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Cheers,

R.

maybe in the future, at the moment wet printing is impractical for me.

robert blu
12-27-2010, 08:32
Interesting thread. I'm in between the best and the worst option and am not able to take a definitive position. My style is not shooting like a gun machine, and scanning itself is not so bad. Some good music and it goes. But it takes time and if by "scanning" you consider the time you need before post processing to spot the dust from the file (clone stamp or similar) it becomes annoying. And the spots are many times in the wrong place (like the eyes). For this reason an all digital process should be better, but I'm somehow afraid of these immaterial images. I know many things about various and multiple backup (my scans are on three different hard disc) but I feel more relaxed with my negs in their folder. But under the Christmas tree i found a new toy, a digital one...just to make some experience...
robert

sepiareverb
12-27-2010, 08:57
The aggravation of scanning, especially 35 film is undeniable. I had scanned at least 16 frames before scanner software crashed and all that work was lost so i had to rescan again.

for 35 film to really make a come back. there must be a better and less expensive not to forget less time consuming method of scanning the negatives.

Before I got VueScan I hated everything about scanning film. Now I don't hate the interface, just everything else. I find the digital print from color negative workflow to take much longer than just making a wet print, but the results (in my set-up) are vastly superior. That said, I don't shoot color film any longer- color is all digital for me now.

It's called an enlarger...

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

Cheers,

R.

+1!:D

250swb
12-27-2010, 23:37
Digital will never be truly archival if you agree with all the logical arguments for the breakdown of digital archiving:

1) long standing corruption of digital files stored on magnetic media
2) Changes in media/hardware technology for reading files in the future
3) Changes in file formats
4) file corruption from migrating files to newer media over time (every 10-15 years)
5) massive numbers of images lost from losing just one piece of media, because of the tendency to store high numbers of images on one media piece. (Begs question... should digital images be store 1 per disk or card if valuable, as would be the case with film?)

This is just a minor list of potential for digital degradation over time. Proper negative/transparency storage does has matured in place and does not suffer evolving technological anomalies of digital.

All very specious arguments. Storing images digitally is all about backup. Technology gets better over time not worse, so arguments about corruption are ludicrous. And there is always a point that lasts for many years where any migration from one standard to another can take place before redundancy can set in.

And then there is the value of 'archival' storage if the house is burning down, which is easier to rescue, one hard drive or 20 years of negative files? :rolleyes:


Steve

Roger Hicks
12-28-2010, 00:06
All very specious arguments. Storing images digitally is all about backup. Technology gets better over time not worse, so arguments about corruption are ludicrous. And there is always a point that lasts for many years where any migration from one standard to another can take place before redundancy can set in.

And then there is the value of 'archival' storage if the house is burning down, which is easier to rescue, one hard drive or 20 years of negative files? :rolleyes:


Steve

Dear Steve,

Which is in itself a specious argument. Easy in theory; time consuming, more difficult than it sounds, and understandably often neglected by those who live in the real world, rather than the virtual world of computing.

Cheers,

R.

Matus
12-28-2010, 00:37
I would not go into issue of archiving (I have both - film AND digital files. The digital part is more costly to archive)

The scanning is a hassle and takes time, but as I just prefer the look of film I keep shooting it. I know that detail-wise for 90% os the time I would get more out of Canon 5DII than I get from 35mm film. I do not mind - I mostly use 35mm to get those "fast shots". I take Mamiya 6 if I am after large prints. Things may change with the Fuji X100 coming tough (I use fixed 35mm lens compact rangefinder right now)...

Unfortunately I do not have the possibility to make darkroom BW prints (I hope this will change in the future), so I am left with scanning and digital printing for now.

I scan my 6x6 and 4x5" with a flat-bed. If I want better scans I send single images to be scanned with either Coolscan 9000 or Imacon X5 what is (as long as the volume is low) still a reasonable option price-wise. I rarely scan 35mm with the flat-bed - it is just not worth the time (and the scanning software keep crashing ..)

If I would not be shooting 4x5 I would probably bit the bullet and get the Coolscan 9000.

andreios
12-28-2010, 02:05
For B&W 35mm only, does anyone make 5x7 or 8x10 silver wet prints specifically for scanning, perhaps with an Epson V700?


I do it, quite often.. I have an epson V500 and I always need approximately one glass of whisky per 2 rolls of 35mm film to prevent me from crushing the bloody thing. However, with MF it's somehow much more sensible.

tyrone.s
12-28-2010, 02:17
The best of all worlds. You have the neg, the scan and the opportunity to change your mind later on.

Mcary
12-28-2010, 03:22
I've found that due to the extra time and work required for shooting film and scanning vs shooting digital that I'm much more picky with film as too which shots are worth editing. Which usually means out of the roll or two of B&W 35mm film that I shoot and process each week I generally only scan five or six frames and sometimes even less then that.
That being said I'm very please with the results I get when using my Minolta IV and sending the files out to be printed at up to 10x13 on Ilford Digital B&W paper.
Are the images as smooth and perfect as what I use to get with the 5D or even with the M8 no, but if they were why would I be bothering with shooting film?

Soeren
12-28-2010, 04:08
Jamie has it. The lowest-quality dedicated 35mm scanners I'd consider are now both out of production: Nikon and Konica/Minolta. And the 'worst of both worlds' scenario definitely referred to 35mm not MF.

My K/M 5400 is misbehaving and I'm really not sure what to do if it dies.

Cheers,

R.

So do you when the Cosina sc1235 will be on the marked wink wink cosina:D
Best regards

zerobuttons
12-28-2010, 04:26
maybe in the future, at the moment wet printing is impractical for me.
This puts the finger on a factor this discussion doesn´t calculate with - only one post so far mentions it:

If you consider "wet-work" the ultimate, but this is just not an option for you right now, why not just go as far as you can? Which for most, myself included, will be photographing on film and "enlarging" through scanning. If using a real enlarger one day becomes viable for you, you will have the negatives.

Steve M.
12-28-2010, 04:37
I don't like scanning, but it's just something to get done with if I'm going to inkjet print. Lately, my method of working is very easy. I let Walgreens or someone similar do development of my 35mm C41 B&W and put the files on a CD. These files are then edited in Photoshp and uploaded to Winkflash, Snapfish or MPIX, and a few days later my optical prints are in my hands. Couldn't be simpler, and the results are very, very good.

Ronald M
12-28-2010, 04:39
Just would like to add, if you think regular black and white film does not scan well, try a shorter development time and/or a different film.

My negs are made to print on a Focomat IC on #2 paper so they are a bit low in contrast. Scanners like low contrast.

Even so, some films do not scan well even if they are developed to print well on above. Plus X is one. Beautiful prints, clipped scans. Developer makes no difference. I have bracketeted developing times and there is no good time for scanning. There are some times for less demanding people, just not for me.


tri X is easy scan, so is Delta 100, and my current favorite T Max 100 & 400

If you insist on scans that are on difficult film, you can always double scan, one for shadows, one for highlights, and combine the two images with HDR photo realistic effect or combine two layers with a luminescent mask in Photoshop. You just tripled the work load, but is does work perfectly.

Film is dirty. Although I have 3 micron water and HEPA air filters there are emulsion defects you see on scans that you would never see in a optically printed negative. I have a compulsion to repair them. No dust and scratches or IR cleaners do it to my satisfaction and maintain a sharp image. This can be a time consuming manual task.

I have switched to Nikon full frame digital cameras which I find a delight to use and all kinds of problems go away like finding the proper film and DIY or competent third party processing. I can make 4 exposures and transfer them to my computer and not wait for a roll to be finished.

Back up storage is the main issue. The Macs use time Machine auto back up.
In addition, there are two external drives that I move files to for storage. You might say I have a triple back up system. Time involved is nothing compared to film work.

I will also challenge film and digital. Nikon D3 is one fine camera and I will put it up against any film image in that format. I can change curves to match any film
and add grain isolated to the mid tones and it will be of any quality I desire.

Downside is there is no digital home printing that looks as good as a silver print. I have had prints made on all the high end ink jets and also get samples from Epson on their latest whizbang machine.

I send the files to a Pro Lab with a laser printer and they come back looking like the best I ever did in my darkroom. I get to do all the manipulation to perfection, they mess with the paper and chemicals. It is up to me to calibrate the monitors and do the soft proofing.

The biggest downside is my wonderful Leica cameras are semi retired. Nikons digital is just not the same machine. Leica`s M8 & 9 digitals still have too many issues plus they are too thick.

Just my take on the whole thing.

thegman
12-28-2010, 05:07
I shoot exclusively film, but I think it's clear that it's easier to protect digital files than negatives. You can back up as much as you like, on-site and off-site. If you want physical backups, you can back up to DVD or something. I know Hollywood backs up to film, but they have large budgets, humidity controlled safes etc. If you have access to all that, maybe film is indeed a better backup medium.

For the rest of us though, digital is much easier, but you do have to show care, with backups on reliable services like Amazon S3.

I say all that as someone who pretty much never shoots digital, but I think archival, except maybe at the top end, is better done digitally.

btgc
12-28-2010, 06:23
Regarding digital archives - be sure to scan at highest possible resolution and quality before letting your film get lost or burnt. Once you have low-res jpegs and no film anymore you'll discover beauty of lo-fi printing. If you have film you always can scan it using current, more advanced scanner/software than decade ago.

AFAIK my digital pals are debating whether they should save huge RAWs of everything they shoot or sufficiently large jpegs (as it seem today) are enough.

Colin Corneau
12-28-2010, 06:58
...

AFAIK my digital pals are debating whether they should save huge RAWs of everything they shoot or sufficiently large jpegs (as it seem today) are enough.

TIFF's are a better bet for that than JPEGs

jasonhupe
12-28-2010, 07:15
I must be the minority because I dont mind film scanning. I dont scan whole rolls. I dont make contacts but just scan the images that strike me on the lightbox. If I can get one or two great images per roll that Im doing well. I think scanning is the best of what I have, I would rather have wet silver prints, but that is not happening anytime soon. So until then, I can scan and make books and prints when I want.

tlitody
12-28-2010, 08:37
to the OP.

Since you are scanning 6x7 and up you should be OK with an epson v700. Your 4x5 and 5x7 should be fine to print to 20x16 and 30x20 with very good quality. Your 6x7 will be fine too if its fine grained. Using pyro developers for B+W will make your scans very smooth too as well as controlling highlights extremely well.
35mm film is a problem and pyro developers don't give the finest grain.
Colour should be OK too except the most contrasty positives which a flatbed will struggle to cope with.

ASA 32
12-28-2010, 11:03
I'm fortunate to own a Konica/Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro scanner (what a mouthful!), along with some spare parts and bulbs, and the US-based K/M service center that has serviced my scanner is not far from my home. I scan both 35mm and 6x7 Provia 100 transparencies with SilverFast AI. I'm very happy with the results, but I dread the day my scanner dies.

250swb
12-28-2010, 12:19
Dear Steve,

Which is in itself a specious argument. Easy in theory; time consuming, more difficult than it sounds, and understandably often neglected by those who live in the real world, rather than the virtual world of computing.

Cheers,

R.

You sound like the sort of guy who doesn't back up your PC either Roger? It all depends on how much you choose to neglect, like cleanliness in the darkroom, one false move and film will come back and bite you in the bum just as digital will on your hard drive. But on hard drives all you need are two that store all your images and ask one to back up the other, without any intervention other than 'do this'. Get your negatives to try that, or have an employee copy them, or god forbid you wake up at night worrying about contaminents in the water when you washed them thirty years ago.

So why is it that somebody can be darkroom Tsar and be the master of technique and not spend less time backing up a hard drive?


Steve

tlitody
12-28-2010, 12:25
I'm fortunate to own a Konica/Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro scanner (what a mouthful!), along with some spare parts and bulbs, and the US-based K/M service center that has serviced my scanner is not far from my home. I scan both 35mm and 6x7 Provia 100 transparencies with SilverFast AI. I'm very happy with the results, but I dread the day my scanner dies.

Abd how well does it handle 4x5 and 5x7 :)

Roger Hicks
12-28-2010, 12:34
You sound like the sort of guy who doesn't back up your PC either Roger? It all depends on how much you choose to neglect, like cleanliness in the darkroom, one false move and film will come back and bite you in the bum just as digital will on your hard drive. But on hard drives all you need are two that store all your images and ask one to back up the other, without any intervention other than 'do this'. Get your negatives to try that, or have an employee copy them, or god forbid you wake up at night worrying about contaminents in the water when you washed them thirty years ago.


Steve

Dear Steve,

Sorry to disappoint you but EVERYTHING on my PCs is fully backed up on external drives. It's the 'migration' theory that I regard as specious. On old drives it's extremely tedious, assuming you have large numbers of digital images (as I do), and it also assumes a continuity that simply does not exist when the original photographer is dead or even incapacitated, whereas negs can lurk quietly in a dry attic for centuries.

I do however know quite a lot of people who don't back things up, but instead of sneering at them, I see where they're coming from.

Cheers,

R.

250swb
12-28-2010, 12:42
Dear Steve,

Sorry to disappoint you but EVERYTHING on my PCs is fully backed up on external drives. It's the 'migration' theory that I regard as specious. On old drives it's extremely tedious, assuming you have large numbers of digital images (as I do), and it also assumes a continuity that simply does not exist when the original photographer is dead or even incapacitated, whereas negs can lurk quietly in a dry attic for centuries.

I do however know quite a lot of people who don't back things up, but instead of sneering at them, I see where they're coming from.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, I have piles of negative folders that are archiving themselves away as we speak, I can hear them now, silence. So I don't know why you should think I am sneering, that is something you found in your head, not mine. But if you have files on a hard drive and you really want to back them up I can't think why you should be defensive about it. Do it, if may not be as great as your preference for negatives, but what else are you going to do, cut off your nose to spite your face?

Steve

wgerrard
12-28-2010, 14:41
I find scanning boring and rather non-creative, like scrubbing down the shower walls in the bathroom. Needs to be done, but I wish it didn't.

Negative Archiving: Being disorganized, and seeing no downside in that, I throw negative holders onto a great stack and then, every so often, I put them in a three-ring binder. No cataloging whatsoever. Makes it difficult to find things, but I need to do that very, very rarely.

Digital archiving: Not that much of a hassle if you use you head. I back up to an Apple Time Machine (works automagically), to a little RAID drive (I wrote a script that mounts the drive at 4 am, launches my backup software, then unmounts the drive, sends me email confirming the backup, and then puts everything back to sleep), and I also use a commercial offsite backup facility (first backup was a huge pain because it was so bloody slow to move all that stuff; it's been transparent since).

The future of backup is of the offline variety. Let them deal with moving from one generation of tech to the next.

al1966
12-28-2010, 17:51
To those that know about these things, would there be any advantage of taking a scanner and rebuilding the light source? I was pondering making the light source variable in its power, say one stop either way. I have built audio to a high standard from the ground up.

tlitody
12-28-2010, 19:11
To those that know about these things, would there be any advantage of taking a scanner and rebuilding the light source? I was pondering making the light source variable in its power, say one stop either way. I have built audio to a high standard from the ground up.

fairly pointless since you have brightness control in your scan software and/or in raster image editor so its only use would be for grossly under or over exposed negatives/positives.