U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | RE: Sorry to ask again but...

RE: Sorry to ask again but...

I have used a work-around for large negative scanning that was first brought
to my attention by Andy Darlow some years ago. Like everything else in this
world, nothing is perfect but this has been exceptionally easy and
successful. I make soft contact prints of 8x10 negatives with chloride
contact printing paper (Azo #2 paper and a European source that I do not
recall). That gives a print with quite acceptable wide contrast range. I
scan that print on my flat bed scanner and leave the negative out of the
loop entirely once I have the scanable print that I need. I know that there
are soft fine grain developers, but I never found that they held any
advantage over HC110 1:31 diluted further, if needed. I admit that this
calls for having a wet darkroom, but for those who have junked their
archival enlargers a simple 8x10 print frame, a white light bulb, water,
HC-110, fixer, and 3 trays does the job here. Joachim

-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]I am
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:36 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Re: Sorry to ask again but...

Is there a limit to dumb questions -- or do we get an unlimited supply?
I have absolutely NO intention of ever burying a neg in oil ever again for
any purpose whatsoever, but I do use my scanner in various ways & Sandy's
reply makes me wonder...

If you add a piece of glass on top of the scan bed, doesn't that spoil
focus? I realize you can raise it a fraction of an inch to fit negs into a
multiple holder, but that's not as thick as a piece of glass...  I also
have an idea my scanner wouldn't scan anyway with the added thickness of
the frame Sandy suggests, because the cover has to connect with something
or other (UMax, large flatbed-- will sometimes take an open magazine but
VERY goosey about books). So what, if any is the depth of field probably?

I have, BTW, just finished a project requiring *many* scans, but found
that anything larger than say 4 by 6 inches had to be scanned at 600, 800
or even 1000 dpi, or it simply wouldn't. (I'd get a message saying scanner
doesn't connect with the driver or words to that effect.) It's goosey in
other ways, too... possibly the softwear needs a kick in the head, but
once I figured out raising the dpi it nearly always works -- and I get
some guilt-free reading while I wait... (The scans can come in at 100 or
more megabytes but I reduce them right away, so not a problem.)

thanks in advance for enlightenment re depth of field, et al...

PS. Sandy, Clemson was in the Times today -- something about a motor
vehicle, BMW as I recall... But I take it that's not your department...?


On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Sandy King wrote:

> Matt,
> You don't want to mount directly to the scanner glass with fluid because
> there is the risk of it getting into the scanner.
> Better to have someone cut you a piece of glass that will fit over the
> scanner glass, then install a frame on this glass of the size of your
> negative, and glue the frame to the glass. This eliminates the risk of the
> fluid getting into the scanner, plus you can remove it to clean away from
> scanner itself.