My solution to scanning with borders & sprocket

A

Andrea Taurisano

il cimento
Local time
2:40 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
999
Hello everyone

I've been very frustrated trying to get decent scans without investing too much in a super mega scanner (I have an Epson 4490), especially cause in addition to decent quality I want the possibility to scan the borders and sprocket holes. I had also posted a thread here on RFF asking if the Reflecta RPS7200 professional does the sprockets, which unfortunately it doesn't..

Now, I seem to have found a home made solution that gives me both consistently good (to my requirements) quality and free way to scanning all of the negative.

If you're interested in how I solved my problem, on this blog post is how. Not that I came up with any great invention, but we gotta help each other, right?
 
I get your frustration. If this works for you, then OK. Quality wise, it would probably make more sense to invest in a better scanner, or to make multiple photos with a digital camera and stitch. An alternative, would be to wet print, and scan the prints later.
On a side note, I do not understand, why you like the sprocket holes so much. Personally, I find all the mythology of presenting the entire frame, never cropping, etc a bit childish. It's true that HCB did this, but it is also true, that Lagerfeld is wearing driving gloves even when he is going to the loo. A bit of rational thinking never hurts in life.
 
There is something wrong with your negative scans. The image extends into the sprocket holes. That is both unusual, and does not correspond to the image of your negative strip in the scanning jig.
 
I just lay the negative, emulsion down, the on scanner glass (Epson v700) and use AN glass on top of the neg. Will need to flip in post and you have to control the dust (5 surfaces) but it works fine if I need the entire frame. Also need to make sure you use the scanning guide. Filed down the stock Epson holders previously but they only work with VERY flat negs.
 
faberryman said:
There is something wrong with your negative scans. The image extends into the sprocket holes. That is both unusual, and does not correspond to the image of your negative strip in the scanning jig.
Click to expand...

Thanks. The images you refer to are made with a little pinhole camera that I, after assemblying it, modified just so that it now exposes the border and sprocket area, something arguable (depending on taste) but nothing misfunctioning in other words. The same can also be done adapting a Holga 120 to accepting 35mm film.
 
newsgrunt said:
I just lay the negative, emulsion down, the on scanner glass (Epson v700) and use AN glass on top of the neg. Will need to flip in post and you have to control the dust (5 surfaces) but it works fine if I need the entire frame. Also need to make sure you use the scanning guide. Filed down the stock Epson holders previously but they only work with VERY flat negs.
Click to expand...


Well, my concept is the same, but my Epson 4490 does not manage to scan a negative on the glass surrounded by nothing. For some reason, even though the lamp in the bottom is off when the upper one is on scanning negatives, it produces absurd fringing, like a bar code (in color or gray shades depending on the scanning mode) along the whole length of the scan. This does not happen if i cover the part of the glass where there is no negative. I guess it's due to reflections bouncing around.
 
Interesting read, for my 120 negs I use an epson V600 and for not too large prints I'm satisfied with the quality, but flatness of film is still a problem. As general taste the sproket holes are not my preferred style, but in some cases I would like a different look and can be fun to have them. I'll try your solutions, thanks
robert
 
I understand your desire to have a larger negative, but there are already solutions for this that avoid having holes all over the image ;-)

Regards,

Sven
 
Where the intention is just to have a larger negative, the most convenient solution would depend on the circumstances and the ultimate objective. In my case, the objective was to establish the image coverage of an antique midget camera, for which film rolls are not available commercially. In principle, I could, with greater difficulty, have cut a strip from e.g. 120 film in the dark bag, but it was easier and cheaper to use a length of expired 35mm ;-) .
 
Just to clearify: It's not like I need a larger negative and don't know other ways to go than exposing the sprocket of 35mm film (actually I had for years a Hasselblad and sold it without ever regretting). It's simply that photography for me is pure experimentation, it's sort of a game I play for my own fun and expression. I experiment with different formats, films, developing techniques, postprocessing, paper types.. Sometime, but only sometimes, it's fun to go the Lomography way, or expose the sprocket. But sprocket aside, I always want to scan the WHOLE frame and at least a thin border on each side of it.
 
mfogiel said:
On a side note, I do not understand, why you like the sprocket holes so much. Personally, I find all the mythology of presenting the entire frame, never cropping, etc a bit childish. It's true that HCB did this, but it is also true, that Lagerfeld is wearing driving gloves even when he is going to the loo. A bit of rational thinking never hurts in life.
Click to expand...

Scanning the sprocket holes might be a whole another converstion, but it's a nice option to have.

But scanning the whole frame... Well I for one want to at least scan the whole frame so I have it all to work with in post. I don't need to always present the whole frame in the end, but I want to start with the whole image area of the neg and work it down from there. To me it sounds dumb if the technology limits what I can show from the frame. Next I would have to start taking the pictures with that limitation in mind.

Short version: I want to crop only when the picture needs it and decide myself when it needs it.
 
The has to be a holder on the glass if you're scanning negs or transparencies or else you get what you've just described. You need to find a way to replicate the edge of the holder so it fools the scanner. Either sacrifice a holder and butcher it so you can scan the entire negative or make a mask with black acetate or cardboard. Has to be snugged up against the far edge of the glass platen.

or get a v700 ;)
 
newsgrunt said:
The has to be a holder on the glass if you're scanning negs or transparencies or else you get what you've just described. You need to find a way to replicate the edge of the holder so it fools the scanner. Either sacrifice a holder and butcher it so you can scan the entire negative or make a mask with black acetate or cardboard. Has to be snugged up against the far edge of the glass platen.

or get a v700 ;)
Click to expand...

The former is exactly what I did. As for the latter: how does the V700 hold a stiff / bent negative flat, while still letting you scan at least a bit of the border? I thought it used the same cheesy negative hodlers as my 4490, only with double capacity (24 frames on the glass instead of 12),
 
see my earlier reply about negs on glass under anti newton glass. it's how I scan 8x10 negatives or batches of 120
 
Just to be clear, there are distinct issues featuring in the discussion here :-

1) Structural: Use of the negative directly on the platen, e.g under ANR glass, perhaps with improvised masking outside the film, or otherwise.

2) Software: Whether the particular scanner software does, or does not, avoid the sprocket holes (being not masked by the scanner's normal negative folder) by default when setting the scan parameters. (I am wording this in general terms, because different manufacturers' software may use different strategies; I don't know their details, the 'how' doesn't affect my point.)

My first posting
citizen99 said:
I found that my CanoScan software, like your Epson scan software, did not include the sprocket holes, but VueScan could. Subsequently, I found a tutorial here.
Click to expand...
related to scans of the negatives directly on the platen of my CanoScan 8800F ; the normal scanner negative holder was not used.
In the particular case of the CanoScan software, extending the scan frame to encompass the sprocket holes caused the colour rendering to 'collapse' to a washed-out, blue-ish image, the software evidently having been designed to 'see' this as being outside the 'correct' image area for calculation of colour balance etc.
Just FWIW. Other manufacturers' software may behave differently.
Viewscan, on the other hand gave me control of the desired image area 'out of the box' :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom