Digital BW, The Print

How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  After 
developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of the 
negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive idea.  
Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 36 35mm 
negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with 
scanners that I have access to?

I apologize if this has been dealt with before, but a search of the 
archives did not produce any hits.

Thanks for any help.

Steve

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 01:51:25PM -0000, Stephen Kobrin wrote:
> How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  After 
> developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of the 
> negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive idea.  
> Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 36 35mm 
> negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with 
> scanners that I have access to?
> 

While not exactly cheap I have the Epson 1680 pro that can handle 36 negs. 
Actually I can manage 41 negs if needed. The supplied film holder cannot
manage that many 35mm negs (the most I can get using the holder is 24) but
I just lay the negs flat on the glass in the arrangement I want. Sometime
I'll design my own film holder to get accurate alignment.

The problem with many flatbeds that have transparency units is that the area
covered by the unit doesn't extend to the full size of the flatbed
(A4/letter). This is a must if you want a full contact sheet. In the Epson
range I think the 1680 is the cheapest model which covers such a large area.

I have never seen any universal trannie adapters - probably because each
scanner will have a different way of turning off the lower (reflective)
light source. That, combined with the difficulties of devising a universal 
solution of even and controlled lamp illumination has probably meant that it
has never been a viable economic product.

-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...

Hi Steve,

I bought a tabloid size scanner, Epson 836XL, and use PrintFile film sleeves
to store my film anyway, so I simply lay the sheet on the scanner, with a
piece of glass on top of it, and use the transparency adapter, and scan
them.  Works great.

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:skobrin@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:51 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] contact prints?
>
>
> How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  After
> developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of the
> negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive idea.
> Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 36 35mm
> negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with
> scanners that I have access to?
>
> I apologize if this has been dealt with before, but a search of the
> archives did not produce any hits.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Steve
>

Yes, I've tried this and it works. However, if your contact sheet is 
too dark, bring it into Photoshop and play with the middle slider in 
Levels.
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I bought a tabloid size scanner, Epson 836XL, and use PrintFile 
film sleeves
> to store my film anyway, so I simply lay the sheet on the scanner, 
with a
> piece of glass on top of it, and use the transparency adapter, and 
scan
> them.  Works great.
> 
> Austin
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:skobrin@h...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:51 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > Subject: [Digital BW] contact prints?
> >
> >
> > How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  
After
> > developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of 
the
> > negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive 
idea.
> > Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 36 
35mm
> > negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with
> > scanners that I have access to?
> >
> > I apologize if this has been dealt with before, but a search of 
the

> > archives did not produce any hits.
> >
> > Thanks for any help.
> >
> > Steve
> >

Oops, sorry, I meant I've tried it with a flatbed without the 
transparency adapter. The contact sheet will probably be too dark. 
There is where you need to use the middle slider in Photoshop.

Dont expect lab quality contact sheets though with this method.
Andre

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "sceptre12345" 
<am1000@v...> wrote:
> Yes, I've tried this and it works. However, if your contact sheet 
is 
> too dark, bring it into Photoshop and play with the middle slider 
in 
> Levels.
> Andre
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> > 
> > I bought a tabloid size scanner, Epson 836XL, and use PrintFile 
> film sleeves
> > to store my film anyway, so I simply lay the sheet on the 
scanner, 
> with a
> > piece of glass on top of it, and use the transparency adapter, 
and 
> scan
> > them.  Works great.
> > 
> > Austin
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Stephen Kobrin [mailto:skobrin@h...]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 8:51 AM
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] contact prints?
> > >
> > >
> > > How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  
> After
> > > developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of 
> the
> > > negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive 
> idea.
> > > Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 
36 

> 35mm
> > > negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with
> > > scanners that I have access to?
> > >
> > > I apologize if this has been dealt with before, but a search of 
> the
> > > archives did not produce any hits.
> > >
> > > Thanks for any help.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >

on 11/6/2002 6:42 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> 
> Message: 16
> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 13:51:25 -0000
> From: "Stephen Kobrin" <skobrin@...>
> Subject: contact prints?
> 
> How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  After
> developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of the
> negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive idea.
> Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 36 35mm
> negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with
> scanners that I have access to?
> 
> I apologize if this has been dealt with before, but a search of the
> archives did not produce any hits.
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 
> Steve
> 

Steve,

I bought a UMAX Astra 1200s with transparency lid on ebay for $70.

It will scan a full sheet of 35mm film in one pass. That said, the quality
of the scan is not great, but you can see your negs in positive. And it is a
scsi scanner, and most likely no drivers are available for the latest
operating systems (I'm thinking mac system 10 here).

But at the price, it pays for itself in about 10 contact sheets vs lab
prices.
 
-Bruce

I have an old Microtek Scanmaker III with transparencyy adapter - I 
can lay a sheet of negs in their PrintFile plastic sleeve (8.5 x 11) 
for a good contact sheet. If you scan at 600dpi (max optical res) it 
gives you a large enough file to really zoom into your contacts and 
see expressions & details  far better than is possible on the old 
enlarger contact method

hth
frankg
> How do people make "contact prints" when processing digitally.  
After 
> developing a few rolls of film, the thought of scanning each of the 
> negatives and producing a contact via PS is not an attractive 
idea.  
> Are there any realative cheap scanners around that can handle 36 
35mm 

> negatives?  Or any "universal" attachments that I could use with 
> scanners that I have access to?
> 
> I apologize if this has been dealt with before, but a search of the 
> archives did not produce any hits.
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 
> Steve

16 bit scans will help here.

> Oops, sorry, I meant I've tried it with a flatbed without the 
> transparency adapter. The contact sheet will probably be too dark. 
> There is where you need to use the middle slider in Photoshop.

How's that?  Why not just use a transparency adapter?

Austin

> 16 bit scans will help here.
> 
> > Oops, sorry, I meant I've tried it with a flatbed without the 
> > transparency adapter. The contact sheet will probably be too dark. 
> > There is where you need to use the middle slider in Photoshop.

I have an Epson 2450 and at first I was just scanning my sleeved 6x7 negs one row at a time with the transparency adapter.  Lately I have just put the cover on the transparency unit and scanned the full sheet reflectively.  Then I take the image into photoshop and adjust the levels, often individually using the marquee tool.  With 16 bit I get enough info in the image for making a contact, and scanning the full sheet is much quicker.  There is some ghosting which probably has to do with stray reflections from the sleeve, it would probably be a good idea to remove them.  We are talking about contacts here, though, and I find this works fine.

> How's that?  Why not just use a transparency adapter?
> 
> Austin
> 
> > 16 bit scans will help here.

Hi,

It appears you are scanning in raw mode, which means the scanner gives you
raw data, and you read that into Photoshop and set your setpoints and adjust
your tonal curves in PS, right?  You should (if your scanner driver allows
it) be able to do the exact same thing in the scanner driver, and get 8 bit
data out of it, as the scanner scans in high bit mode (which isn't 16 bits,
but something like 12) no matter what mode you select.  The difference is
where the setpoints and tonal curves are adjusted, in the driver, or in PS.

It's really got nothing to do with "16 bit scans", but whether you can do
setpoints and tonal curves in your scanner driver, and I can't imaging a
scanner driver that wouldn't allow for that.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gaberegalbuto [mailto:gaberegalbuto@...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 2:25 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: contact prints?
>
>
> I have an Epson 2450 and at first I was just scanning my sleeved
> 6x7 negs one row at a time with the transparency adapter.  Lately
> I have just put the cover on the transparency unit and scanned
> the full sheet reflectively.  Then I take the image into
> photoshop and adjust the levels, often individually using the
> marquee tool.  With 16 bit I get enough info in the image for
> making a contact, and scanning the full sheet is much quicker.
> There is some ghosting which probably has to do with stray
> reflections from the sleeve, it would probably be a good idea to
> remove them.  We are talking about contacts here, though, and I
> find this works fine.
>
> > How's that?  Why not just use a transparency adapter?
> >
> > Austin
> >
> > > 16 bit scans will help here.

My purpose in creating a contact sheet is to have a quick, positive reference of my negs.
> 
> It appears you are scanning in raw mode, 

The Epson driver doesn't have a raw mode, I set it to auto-expose and scan in 16 bits reflective with the white cover installed.

> ...you read that into Photoshop and set your setpoints and adjust
> your tonal curves in PS, right?  

Yup, what seems to be garbage can become quite usable because with the high bit depth the information is there.

> You should (if your scanner driver allows
> it) be able to do the exact same thing in the scanner driver, 

I've yet to find scanner software as quick, easy, or powerful as PS.

>and get 8 bit
> data out of it, as the scanner scans in high bit mode (which isn't 16 bits,
> but something like 12) no matter what mode you select.  

The 2450 is 16 bit, I have a 12 bit film scanner which generates 16 bit files, and I do notice greater leeway with the Epson before I get combed histograms.

> 
> It's really got nothing to do with "16 bit scans", but whether you can do
> setpoints and tonal curves in your scanner driver, and I can't imaging a
> scanner driver that wouldn't allow for that.
> 

If need be I can adjust each image individually in PS.  If I did this with an 8 bit scan they would fall apart instantly.  This is a down and dirty method, but delivers usable contact sheets quickly with one scan and two minutes in PS.

Your points are well taken, but I find this method works well for me.  I can scan a page of 9 6x7 negs and click print in just a few minutes.

Be well,

-Gabriel Regalbuto

> > -----Original Message-----

> > I have an Epson 2450 and at first I was just scanning my sleeved
> > 6x7 negs one row at a time with the transparency adapter.  Lately
> > I have just put the cover on the transparency unit and scanned
> > the full sheet reflectively.  Then I take the image into
> > photoshop and adjust the levels, often individually using the
> > marquee tool.  With 16 bit I get enough info in the image for
> > making a contact, and scanning the full sheet is much quicker.
> > There is some ghosting which probably has to do with stray
> > reflections from the sleeve, it would probably be a good idea to
> > remove them.  We are talking about contacts here, though, and I
> > find this works fine.
> >
> > > How's that?  Why not just use a transparency adapter?
> > >
> > > Austin
> > >
> > > > 16 bit scans will help here.

----- Original Message -----

From: "gaberegalbuto" <gaberegalbuto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:33 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: contact prints?


> ...
> The 2450 is 16 bit, I have a 12 bit film scanner which generates 16 bit
files, and I do notice greater
> leeway with the Epson before I get combed histograms.
> ...

2450 has a 14bits AD converter, not 16...

Gabriel,

> > It appears you are scanning in raw mode,
>
> The Epson driver doesn't have a raw mode, I set it to auto-expose
> and scan in 16 bits reflective with the white cover installed.

It gives you high bit data that has the setpoints and tonal curve set then?
I just checked that in my 836XL driver, and you're right, I hadn't noticed
that...damn that's both stupid and smart ;-)  That's a good thing, to a
point, but they should allow you to get the raw data as well.

> > ...you read that into Photoshop and set your setpoints and adjust
> > your tonal curves in PS, right?
>
> Yup, what seems to be garbage can become quite usable because
> with the high bit depth the information is there.

As the setpoints are already set, why can't you simply get the tonal curve
right in the driver?  In the Epson driver I have there is a tonal curve
tool.  My point is, the scanner scans in high bit mode anyway, then applies
the tonal curve, then sends you the data, whether it's 8 bit or 16 bit.
It's simply a matter of where you do your tonal curve adjustment...

> The 2450 is 16 bit,

I doubt that.  No current film scanner is actually 16 bits.  It takes any
bit depth over 8 bits and puts it into 16 bits.

> > It's really got nothing to do with "16 bit scans", but whether
> you can do
> > setpoints and tonal curves in your scanner driver, and I can't imaging a
> > scanner driver that wouldn't allow for that.
> >
>
> If need be I can adjust each image individually in PS.  If I did
> this with an 8 bit scan they would fall apart instantly.

Yes, you should do all tonal adjustments in high bit mode, no doubt...but as
I asked above, what do you find better about PS than the Epson driver?  Is
it that the Epson driver doesn't have a histogram?  I haven't found one
there yet...and that certainly is a compelling reason to do it the way you
are...  Also, it appears the Epson driver doesn't have any zoom feature...
OK, I'm starting to see why I'd do it the same way you are.

> Your points are well taken, but I find this method works well for
> me.  I can scan a page of 9 6x7 negs and click print in just a
> few minutes.

Of course, and that's the most compelling reason to do something a
particular way ;-)

Setpoints are SO critical, and I wish drivers had a better tool for setting
them...like a histogram that you could zoom in on, and that would somehow
highlight the point in the image that corresponded to the point/range in the
histogram you have selected...that would allow for really accurate setpoint
setting.  Also, a way of seeing if any valid image data is being lost
because of your chosen setpoints.

Regards,

Austin

on 11/8/02 9:55 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Setpoints are SO critical, and I wish drivers had a better tool for setting
> them...like a histogram that you could zoom in on, and that would somehow
> highlight the point in the image that corresponded to the point/range in the
> histogram you have selected...that would allow for really accurate setpoint
> setting.  Also, a way of seeing if any valid image data is being lost
> because of your chosen setpoints.

Austin

This is precisely the way PS works. Hold down the option key (Mac anyway)
while setting your setpoints in Levels. I think you'll like it.

Todd

> > Setpoints are SO critical, and I wish drivers had a better tool
> for setting
> > them...like a histogram that you could zoom in on, and that
> would somehow
> > highlight the point in the image that corresponded to the
> point/range in the
> > histogram you have selected...that would allow for really
> accurate setpoint
> > setting.  Also, a way of seeing if any valid image data is being lost
> > because of your chosen setpoints.
>
> Austin
>
> This is precisely the way PS works. Hold down the option key (Mac anyway)
> while setting your setpoints in Levels. I think you'll like it.
>
> Todd

Hi Todd,

You can't zoom the histogram in PS, can you?  Does it relate the selected
histogram area to the actual image?

The Epson driver doesn't give you any setpoint ability, it appears it's all
automatic...and it doesn't give you any raw output either.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Austin
 
> You can't zoom the histogram in PS, can you?

No

> Does it relate the selected
> histogram area to the actual image?

Yes

You can't zoom the Histogram, but as you set the endpoints relative to it
the image changes to show you exactly which pixels are being clipped (or
not) by your moves. It might not look exactly as you are describing, but the
I believe the usefulness is the same. Or it's a vast improvement over any
scanner's tone tools I've used to date (Umax flatbed, Leaf45). Plus you can
zoom to any magnification, and you are working the actual image = pixels,
not a proxy image => pixels.
 
> The Epson driver doesn't give you any setpoint ability, it appears it's all
> automatic...and it doesn't give you any raw output either.

Of this I know nothing.

Todd