Some scanner basics please

[Grandpa Ron]

I just started shooting 4x5 negatives and processing them on an HP printer/scanner.

My approach is rather crude but effective. Basically I lay the negative on the platen, cover it with a glass plate to hold it flat, mask of the remainder of the platen with black cardboard, then leave the top open and use a deck lamp to shine through the negative when I scan. I adjust the density with sheets of white paper between the lamp and the scanner.

I have been reading about the Epson V600 scanner, It says it will copy slides.

So my question is will this or some other inexpensive scanner copy 4x5 negatives?

 

[jcdeboever]

The V600 is more than capable for 4 x 5. I have a V800 but only got it because of a sale and 18 months same as cash and the V600 wasn't in stock at the time. I have used the V600 and it does the same thing and can scan two at one time if I recall correctly. The V800 holder does one at a time. I scan them both at 3200 DPI but in reality can scan a little lower with good results.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

That would sure explain some of the marks you are getting when scanning!

Blotchy areas on photos.

Your scanning process is still using a reflective light source that's scanning the neg as a document and picking up all the very slight marks you were leaving on the emulsion (by finger and the film against film), which your scanning process was exaggerating past recognition. I can't stress enough that ALL defects on negatives will be amplified if your process is not up to scratch. If you under-expose/under-develop you will struggle to get density in the scan and ANY attempt to retrieve it in the scanning process will only enhance slight marks/grain/uneven development.

Not a V600, it only has a light source big enough for medium format, it will not scan 5"x 4".

You need an Epson V800Photo. DO NOT use a sheet of glass to *keep the negatives flat* just lay them carefully on the glass bed (with the film area guide which is just a piece of plastic that sections a *calibration strip* and allows an edge to straighten the negs to), and follow the instructions. For large format film this IS a cheap option, and also a very good one.

This is what a V800Photo does, compare it to the results you are getting and decide whether your *method* is working...

Waiting, and making simple mistakes. Lewis and Harris Pt-2

Do you observe when you glance? Lewis and Harris Pt-1

 

[Grandpa Ron]

While my method is admittedly a bit crude, it is all that is available to me right now. Working with cut film is an adventure in itself, it is a dust and scratch magnet. But that is a discussion for another day.

Since scanning the negative the usual way does not produce a usable image. An external light source shinning through the negative is necessary.

So the question is, how do these printers illuminate the negative and what models will handle 4x5 negatives?

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

So the question is, how do these printers illuminate the negative and what models will handle 4x5 negatives?

Because they have an overhead light source, it is the *usual way* to scan negatives.

And an EPSON V800Photo is designed to scan all film up to LF film, and can even handle 10"x 8". It has a cold cathode tube that follows the sensors down through the scan which records only transmitted light, (you can never switch the reflective bulb off in your scanner), rather than the cheaper fixed light with the diffused screen they use for MF and 35mm.

It is cheap at the price and I scan all my 5"x 4" with one. Alternative is to invest in a full wet darkroom, (a little more expensive...).

Look at the results compared to yours, honestly you'd be better off with 35mm and a really cheap scanner than what you're doing now...

 

[Derrel]

Have you considered using a digital camera and a macro lens to quote take a picture of your negatives? As long as the film is held perfectly flat and the camera lens is held Plano parallel to the negative, you should get a pretty good digitized image. You could if you wanted to literally tape the negatives to a piece of window glass, and illuminate that from the back side with either Flash or with continuous light. I think it would be useful to diffuse the light somewhat with either frosted mylar, opal glass, or plain paper or tracing paper that was positioned at least an inch behind the window. We have one member on here who does just this with four by five in. film negatives and his pictures look fine.

 

[Derrel]

I have an older Epson 1280 Perfection, and it scans up to 5 by 4 in film, as well as medium format and 35 mm film in strips.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Well as I mentioned I am a tinkerer or perhaps and incessant diddler might be more accurate. 35mm negatives scan into my computer at a max of 2400 dpi but the scan lines show if you try enlarge them.

My 4x5 negatives scan very nicely, once you get the light source adjusted, but it is still a rather Rube Goldberg type of set up. with a bit of post processing I have been able to make a few rather nice photos. I would like to find a better grade scanner that is made for scanning negatives.

I also have my uncles 1950's vintage Kodak contact printer. I have played with it a little but even with a seven watt bulb, I need to filter the light bulb intensity. I am trying to get about a six second or so exposure time. This is actually a winter time project when the snow and short days keep me indoors longer.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Well as I mentioned I am a tinkerer or perhaps and incessant diddler might be more accurate.

I mean this quite sincerely, and I say it only to help. There is nothing wrong with what you are doing, the direction you travel or even the results you obtain, as long as you're honest with yourself about what you actually do achieve. It's one thing to follow a path because it's different and another to convince yourself it works because that is what you wish to see.

I'll be quite clear here in saying that in the post I referenced above about the defects in the negative, it was my initial opinion that it was more than just the development. What I saw was a process that had many combined flaws, from some quite normal beginners handling marks to a scanning process that seemed to amplify their effect past recognition. Now you've explained your whole process the marks make sense.

Again, it's not because I believe that there is any lack of validity in what you do its just that you really need to train yourself to see objectively rather than convince yourself that your process is producing good results because that is what you wish to see. Too many modern photographers follow a path of teaching themselves to see *what sounds logical* rather than being objective and honest about *what is actually visible*.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Tim,

What you say is very true. However, the end goal is dictated by what the print is used for.

When trying to digitizing negatives, scratches, dust, finger prints etc. are things to be corrected in the film handling. At this point I am trying to standardize my digitization process and I am thinking a printer designed for printing negatives would make this easier.

Let's face it, if I am taking pictures of the Grand kids nobody in the family will give a hoot about a few scratched or other small flaws. If it is "cute" enough, they will not even notice if it is color or black and white. A contest photo is a completely different matter.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I've just gotten in the habit over the years of handling negatives by the edges and not touching the emulsion side, maybe it takes time to get used to doing that all the time.

As far as dust, try something like a Beseler dust gun. You use it in a quick light sweeping motion(s) along the length of the film. For the scanner I use a couple of spritzes of cleaner made for electronics like printers onto a microfiber cloth. I let it dry a bit before scanning.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

I hear what you are saying, but again I caution that you do not rationalize to support what you want to believe.

At this point I am trying to standardize my digitization process and I am thinking a printer designed for printing negatives would make this easier.

You have it in mind that incorporating this in one single machine will simplify the procedure. So let's look at your procedure...

A flatbed scanner uses a bulb alongside the scanning CCDs to measure light reflected of the surface of the item being scanned. Before each scan the CCDs are calibrated to this reflected light, the exposure is set to the light reflected by the bulb. You cannot switch this off, you cannot subtract this or it's effect on the scan.

Now I will assume that you are like me in that when I began I had in no way *standardized* my process and therefore the density of the negatives was a little random...

Basically I lay the negative on the platen, cover it with a glass plate to hold it flat, mask of the remainder of the platen with black cardboard, then leave the top open and use a deck lamp to shine through the negative when I scan. I adjust the density with sheets of white paper between the lamp and the scanner.

So each scan is hardly a *one button* solution. And given that you scan in at a set dpi I'm assuming that it isn't really a *copy* function but using the scanner part to scan then sending to the printer part, (once you have the correct number of sheets of paper). You are ending up with a relatively involved process that includes taking you hardware apart and a *suck it and see* level of calibration, (the scanner always calibrates to the reflective bulb and never to transparency bulb). I'm also assuming that your process confuses any attempt by the scanner to *auto-select* the area to be scanned and so therefore you are going through a preview and select process...

Why do you need the solution to be one single machine, is it the idea that a single machine is a single solution? You're not going to find a simple solution to scanning 5"x 4" negatives in a single piece of hardware. That sort of solution will not exist. Most people don't use 5"x 4" for convenience but for quality and tonality. If they want a *one touch* one quality then they would be shooting 35mm and MF. I'm guessing that you approach the problem as though you're using two machines controlled by the computer anyway, so why not look for a software solution rather than trying to force it to exist as a single piece of hardware?

The EPSON V800Photo has a little button on the front that can be used with utility software and a separate printer to create a *simple* solution. I don't use it so have never loaded it on my computer and so will not know how it works with 5"x 4", but it is configured to allow you to select film negatives as a source in a simple window that pops up on your screen.

Even if this is not the case, with the automation available it's easy enough to scan the negative as a negative, (so the scanner will be calibrating and exposing to transmitted light and so will automatically correct the scan to the full range of tones from black to white), and simply printing the untouched file from a single scan.

It sounds a whole lot more consistent, and a whole lot easier, a whole lot more standardized, than the process you have at the moment.

As far as dust goes, regularly clean out the changing bag. It helps to have a blower to clean the dark slides every now and then. But other than that the biggest difference I have found is in using, or having, a soft water source. I find with my present water that using a washing agent is more likely to leave marks than not using it. Also hang the film to dry in a still room where you're not kicking up the dust every few minutes by walking through it. And never assume that you need to hold the negative flat with a sheet of glass.

The other advantage to a proper scanner like the V800Photo is that the glass on the flatbed has been treated to eliminate Newton Rings, it also has a holder that has a sheet of plastic for this very purpose but it is a bit of a dust magnet and so I just lay the negatives straight on the glass shiny side down. I've not had any problems.



EDIT: It is an unavoidable truth that ALL negatives have faults and that they will ALL show scratches, dust and uneven development. Part of the trick with development/printing or development/scanning is to maximise the density range of the negative. If the relatively small changes in density due to uneven development remain relativity small then they become all but invisible. So good process to reduce them in conjunction with a process that is geared to maximise density in the negative makes them invisible.

If you have a thin negative then when scanning you need to expand the contrast to fill the space from black to white. In doing this you also expand the changes in density due to uneven development, they become visible.

Look at a negative laid on a sheet of paper, then hold it up to the light. This is the trouble that the reflective scan, (that your scanner calibrates for), has on the result. That it produces a very flat or thin scan, one with little change in density. And so you have to expand that density and with it any imperfection the scan picks up. On your previous post quite a lot of what the scanner is picking up is the changes in the surface texture, (and it look like changes in density where you warm finger has increased developer action?), which are far more visible under a reflective scan than they ever would be as pure transparencies.

Here is the same neg scanned as both reflective and transparency, and with a negative that has a good range of densities, not a flat one . The big take-away is the difference in density the scanner records. I must also add that in using the overhead light in conjunction to a scanner calibrated to the reflective light what you are actually doing is increasing the brightness of the shadows, which will make them darker and block when inverted, whilst really flattening the highlights or denser areas because you add some light to the darker reflective reading. And this is what I see in your scans.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

Tim,

Thanks for the information. I am going to print and save it . However at this point, it may be putting the cart before horse.

When I retired, I returned to photography as a hobby, after 30+ years of family photos. I decide it would be fun to restore my late uncle's turn of the last century's 4x5 view camera. It had been stripped of everything but the bellows and lens board.

I also have his 1930's vintage Kodak "Auto Focus" enlarger that had laid in the hot dusty attic for thirty some years, plus a Kodak contact printer. As you can guess, the end goal is to restore and use these devises. Why? I guess just for the fun and intellectual challenge of it.

One cannot deny the ease at which a negative can be digitally viewed, post processed and shared, hence my desire to scan the negatives. Also, it was not until I was able to scan and view the negatives, that discovered all the dust, scratches and finger prints etc. that I had not expected.

Also, I am not lost in the past, I am constantly experimenting with the capabilities of my digital camera. But there is a unique feeling of accomplishment to the use of film.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Tim,

Thanks for the information...

No worries. Good luck with the enlarger, it's definitely worth doing. The main problem I find with scanned negatives is that when they become a digital file they are treated just the same as any other digital file. And so they look like digital photos rather than film ones, which kinda loses the plot for me. I scan and print partly because I don't have a darkroom or really space for a permanent one, but mainly because making the larger A2 prints in the darkroom is harder than say A4, and a good quality printer does a pretty good job.