From: PhotoGecko Austin (gecko@photogecko.com)
Date: 09/04/03-10:54:40 AM Z
Gordon,
I wonder if a portable light box--you know, the kind used for viewing
negatives--turned up-side-down onto the scan bed might do the trick. .
. ? --at least on flatbed models equipped for smaller transparency
adapters. What I'm picturing is a scan of, say, an 8x10 negative sheet
with the dinky little 4x5 adapter plugged in but off to the side of the
scanner, and a 8x10 3500k light box inverted over the scan bed. . . .
I may give that a try this week once the hammers stop flying.
Oh, and thanks Ed B. for the good report on Microtek. (When you get a
chance, Ed, drop by and see what we're up to on South First Street!)
Best to all,
John
________________________________
John Campbell
PhotoGecko Studios & Gallery
1413 South First Street
Austin (by-God!) Texas 78704
(512) 797-9375
On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 11:01 AM, Gordon J. Holtslander
wrote:
> I wonder if its possible to make a scanner use a larger transparency
> adapter than the manufacturer intended.
>
> The adapter merely provides a different (transmitted) light source
> rather
> than the scanners internal source for reflected light.
>
> We have a small epson transparency adapter. Out of curiosity I took it
> apart. All that is inside is a very small lighting filament and a set
> of
> reflectors and diffusers to provide a diffuse even lighting.
>
> If one could determine the approximate lighting level, and get the
> scanner
> mechanism to travel a greater length in transparency mode it might be
> possible to get a scanner to do big transparancies.
>
> Who wants to do experiments with their expensive scanner :)
>
> Gord
>
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, PhotoGecko Austin wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Jack
>>
>> I'm running the Epson 1600 family, as well. And an Imacon for
>> strategic medium format scans. What I'm needing is to be able to slap
>> down a full page of negatives to scan a reliable "contact sheet" for
>> very basic quick corrections (levels, curves, etc.) to work from. A
>> full frame (8x10 at least) transparency adapter (at a decent
>> resolution) would be very helpful. Most flatbeds that I've
>> encountered
>> have a SMALL transparency adapter (like 4x5, or less), regardless of
>> their visual acuity (resolution).
>>
>> It has never made sense to me that transparency adapters had to be
>> smaller than the scan bed. The Microtek seems to solve the
>> problem--at
>> least in terms of its specs. And I'm curious as to
>> its reliability.
>>
>> I don't know the Epson 3200. What size transparencies can it handle?
>>
>> There must be answers, given all these questions.
>>
>> ;~>
>>
>> Go easy,
>> John
>>
>> ____________________________
>> John Campbell
>> Photogecko Studios & Gallery
>> 1413 South First Street
>> Austin (By God!) Texas 78704
>>
>> (512) 797-9375
>>
>> www.photogecko.com
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:21 PM, Jack Fulton wrote:
>>
>>> on 9/3/03 2:20 PM, PhotoGecko Austin at gecko@photogecko.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Microtk ScanMaker 9800XL
>>> John
>>> This sounds really nice. We have two of the Epson 1600 dpi units
>>> and
>>> they are superb. 3200 is like a stop more than 1600 but the new
>>> technical
>>> advances for scanners has made some fabulous units and this looks
>>> like
>>> one.
>>> The new 3200 Epson is a honey. I have readily made 16 x 20 prints
>>> from
>>> 35mm.
>>> Jack Fulton
>>> San Francisco Art Institute
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon J. Holtslander Dept. of Biology
> holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112 Science Place
> http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of Saskatchewan
> Tel (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
> Fax (306) 966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:08:59 PM Z CST