Leica LTM Cleaned Summar captures girls on the town.

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Sanders,

I'm curious about your scanning technique ... negatives by nature are curly little devils and sitting them on the glass it would seem to me that little of the neg will be at the plane of the glass surface and with the scanner lid down there will be plenty of space to accommodate the curl with the gap left by not having the holders in there ... well it would be that way with my 700. Is the 4990 different in it's design or do you have some way of getting your negs to lie very flat?

Does this make sense? :)

I think I'm going to do some experimenting with my scanner tonight!
 
I think using his suggestion of having something to hold either side of the frame down would alleviate most of the scanning issues that are due to curling. Was meaning to try it tonight but got sidetracked a bit so it'll have to wait until the weekend.
 
FrankS said:
Keith, the scanner lid should press the negs flat against the bottom glass.
Click to expand...

That isn't the case for my 4490, as the lightbox diffuser doesn't lay flat against the glass so there's a fair amount of room for neg flexing.
 
Frank ... it would do this in reflective mode but with the carriers removed there is a hell of a space in there with the lid firmly down. I can think of some solutions that would involve fabricating something. A piece of newton glass over the top of the negs would work I would imagine ... the weight should hold them flat down on the surface. :)
 
I have an Epson 3200, which I think is mechanically similar to the newer Epsons. There is a large gap (maybe 8-10mm high) between the glass and the lid, so nothing will press anything against the glass. On the other hand, the plane of focus is not at the glass, but 1mm above it so that the best focus is at the film holder frames and a slight sacrifice is made for scanning documents. Perhaps the curl of the film got lucky and lifted the working area 1mm off the glass?
 
Keith said:
Sanders,

I'm curious about your scanning technique ... negatives by nature are curly little devils and sitting them on the glass it would seem to me that little of the neg will be at the plane of the glass surface and with the scanner lid down there will be plenty of space to accommodate the curl with the gap left by not having the holders in there ... well it would be that way with my 700. Is the 4990 different in it's design or do you have some way of getting your negs to lie very flat?

Does this make sense? :)

I think I'm going to do some experimenting with my scanner tonight!
Click to expand...

I use only films that handle well -- TXP in sheets, Tri-X
400 in roll film, and Foma 200 in 35mm. All of these
films lay fairly flat. I can flatten them completely with
rulers, coins and whatnot. Coins on the corners of 5x7
TXP negatives suffice. With other formats, I weight down
the pieces adjacent to the frame I am scanning.

On the odd occasion I've shot a curly film like Efke, I
flatten the strip by laying a sheet of anti-Newton-ring
glass on top of the strip and scanning through the glass.
The weight of the glass should suffice, but you can add
more weight on top of the glass if the glass by itself isn't
enough.

It is said that the optimal focal point of the Epson flatbeds
is 1 mm above the glass. In my experience with the 3200
and 4990, you lose nothing of substance by scanning with
the negative flat against the glass -- the DOF forgives the
difference.

I've scanned thousands of B+W negatives like this without
a problem. I am sure the tech guys can give a zillion
reasons why this is a bad way to scan, but it works for me.

Sanders
 
A little OT, but how can you get away w/ calling them "girls"? I thought NY fems rejected that term about 20 years ago (hahahahha).
 
Sanders, Great shots... again!! I'm amazed at the quality of the scans. I'd imagined a dedicated neg scanner (Nikon?) would've been necessary for this quality. I was planning to buy the Nikon Coolscan LS-V, despite it's limited to 35 mm. Now that I take a good look at your photos I'm not so sure the Epson wouldn't work. Does it come with software that rids artifacts (digital ice)?
 
HuubL said:
Sanders, Great shots... again!! I'm amazed at the quality of the scans. I'd imagined a dedicated neg scanner (Nikon?) would've been necessary for this quality. I was planning to buy the Nikon Coolscan LS-V, despite it's limited to 35 mm. Now that I take a good look at your photos I'm not so sure the Epson wouldn't work. Does it come with software that rids artifacts (digital ice)?
Click to expand...

I have the 4990 and Yes, it comes with Digital Ice. It's best not to have to use it because it will turn a 3 minute scan without Ice into a 20 minute scan with Ice.

/T
 
Sanders, your portfolio is great. I subscribed right now to flickr just to be able to see it and i'm not sorry that i did.
I also niticed Jim Adams "your friend" there.
I love the "polaroid" series of that guy, on PN.
 
Bill58 said:
A little OT, but how can you get away w/ calling them "girls"? I thought NY fems rejected that term about 20 years ago (hahahahha).
Click to expand...

My tongue was lodged firmly in my cheek
-- a reference to their playful nature in front
of the camera. They are most definitely
women. Had they been men, I would have
titled it "boys on the town" for the same reason.
No disresepect intended, I swear.
 
HuubL said:
Sanders, Great shots... again!! I'm amazed at the quality of the scans. I'd imagined a dedicated neg scanner (Nikon?) would've been necessary for this quality. I was planning to buy the Nikon Coolscan LS-V, despite it's limited to 35 mm. Now that I take a good look at your photos I'm not so sure the Epson wouldn't work. Does it come with software that rids artifacts (digital ice)?
Click to expand...

Huub, I think it does, but I never use it. I'm always afraid the
machine will blot out things that are meant to be there, that it
thinks are dust motes. So I try to keep the scanner glass
clear, and clean them up in PS afterward.

I am sure there are reasons to get a better scanner -- maybe
if I wanted to print 20x30 inches on an inkjet printer, then it
would matter. But I scan for the internet only, as I am printing
in the darkroom, and for my purposes the flatbed provides
more than ample detail.

I once had the Microtek 120tf dedicated MF film scanner. I
sold it and went back to the flatbed because I found the
output too grainy for my tastes. The Epson flatbed gave
creamier skintones. As any Summar shooter will tell you:
Sharper is not always better. :D

Sanders
 
Pherdinand said:
Sanders, your portfolio is great. I subscribed right now to flickr just to be able to see it and i'm not sorry that i did.
I also niticed Jim Adams "your friend" there.
I love the "polaroid" series of that guy, on PN.
Click to expand...

Pherdinand, thank you for the compliment. Yes, I consider Jim
Adams my friend, and I owe him a huge and unrepayable debt
of gratitude. It was Jim who introduced me to my wife Melanie
who, in addition to all the wonderful things that makes her
the great joy of my life, is an incredible artist and photographer
in her own right -- the benefit being, of course, that she shoos
me into the darkroom when I am avoiding it, when most
husbands have to fight for darkroom time. And Melanie is
my most reliable critic -- she deserves the credit for much of
what I get right as a photographer.

But for Jim, there would be no Melanie in my life. So, yes,
Jim Adams is my friend, and I am forever in his debt.

Sanders
 
As a point of interest I tried scanning a negative last night with the 'Sanders Method' ... bloody disaster! :p
Laid the negative imulsion side down on the glass and away I went ... probably the worst scan I have ever done ... it was a mile out of focus and had a severe lack of tonality.

Oh well! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom