Garet Denise (garet@rmi.net)
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 19:15:34 -0700
I'm not really sure what the point is here. If you are going with a
35mm original, then why not just get a small scanner dedicated to
transparencies. If you are going with a larger format original, then
why would you go through all those extra printing steps that introduce
potential problems and increase contrast before getting a digital
file? If you are starting with a large format then presumably you are
interested in the highest quality. Why not get a high quality scan
from the original. Am I missing a point here, or did you inherit a
large format camera and/or have a fat wallet?
Garet Denise
garet@rmi.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Makris <nick@mcn.org>
To: Alternative Photography <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 11:47 AM
Subject: Scanning 8X10 reflective negatives
>This subject has undoubtedly be discussed before, however, the
thought keeps
>returning.
>
>Has anyone ever printed a transparancy on, say 8X10, RC paper,
thereby
>creating a continuous tone negative? Then scanning that negative as
>reflective art; and then using, dare I say, standard output to create
the
>contact negative.
>
>This plays into my decision as to whether to buy a film scanner or
use my
>flatbed scanner as described.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Nick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43