M.UMUT SARAC (drumheller@fornet.net.tr)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:25:25 -0800
Well , I worked as a prepress / drumscanner operator for 2.5 years.
If you want a real quality and highest possible resolution , I think you can
use
prepress studios which can produce 70 x 100 centimeters negatives from 35
mm negatives or from positives.
Many studios have got proof producer systems .
It means you can print your negitive film to a selected paper via this
systems.
But for me the most important thing is to select the dot shape of the film.
It can be selected from square dot shape to oval long dots.
Every dot shape produce a different kind of effect on the positive result.
I prefer oval dots , they create a smoother degrades.
For example many newspapers and magazines prefer square.
If you want ,
A prepress studio can select a area from your composition and than produce
many little negs fröm different dot shapes.
At the proof stage , you can match them and select .
My experience say , drumscanners are still better than the flatbads.
But they are really hard to operate . I used Crossfield system and Fuji
Proof Systems.
I think Fuji proof systems are still the best and the fastest. We really
worked hard to match the Kodak , Dupont and Fuji systems. Fuji is the best
at press proof systems.
By the way they can print your black and white print from cyan yellow
magenta and black colored dyes or from only black dye.
This will be change the result also.
I dont beleive Fuji is better than the Kodak at the photography market.
Best Regards ,
M. Umut Saraç
Michael wrote:
> I was using a standard flatbed (I thought it would probably not work
> before I did it and was just curious). I would think a scanner used for
> scanning transparencies would work fine for negatives but have never
> tried it.
>
> >From alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca Fri Feb 12 10:22:56 1999
> >Received: from process.sask.usask.ca by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.2-31
> #27648)
> > id <01J7NMH4HI1C9BVMT4@sask.usask.ca>
> > (original mail from omirag@mail.cruzio.com); Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:16:43
> CST
> >Received: from mail.cruzio.com (mail.cruzio.com [208.226.92.37])
> > by sask.usask.ca (PMDF V5.2-31 #27648)
> > with ESMTP id <01J7NMH0JFUK9BVNAQ@sask.usask.ca> for
> > alt-photo-process-l-expand@process.sask.usask.ca
> > (ORCPT rfc822;alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca); Fri,
> > 12 Feb 1999 12:16:05 -0600 (CST)
> >Received: from [207.251.14.14] (sa-207-251-14-14.cruzio.com
> [207.251.14.14])
> > by mail.cruzio.com with SMTP id KAA20106; Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:15:58
> -0800 (PST)
> >Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:15:58 -0800 (PST)
> >From: garimo <omirag@cruzio.com>
> >Subject: Re: scanning negatives
> >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca,
> alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >Reply-to: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >Message-id: <199902121815.KAA20106@mail.cruzio.com>
> >MIME-version: 1.0
> >Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> >Comments: "alt-photo-process mailing list"
> >
> >>
> >>I've had some experience scanning negatives on a flat bed scanner and
> >>they did not come out to well. I finally bought a film scanner for my
> >>35mm negatives, which work quite well (although it was $850). I've
> >
> >Michael,
> >I'm wondering if your scanning was on a standard flatbed or were you
> >using one built for scanning transparencies?
> >garimo
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:51