Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/24/2003 9:39:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
kevin@... writes:
Snip>
> The problem is that the contrast of the positive is drastically 
> different from the contrast of the negative or any negative film that I 
> shoot.  So what is in the deep shadows on the positive is barely in the 
> shadows on the negative.
> 
> I thought polaroid film was used for proofing all the time -- is type 
> 55 wrong for proofing, do people compensate in printing, or was I just 
> off base to start with.
> 
> Thanks,>>
> I don't know if I would say type 55 is a proofing film. Most polaroid film 
dosen't give you a negative. In my experience Type 55 needs to be overexposed to 
produce a good neg for printing. This is NOT the film commercial shooters use 
for proofing. Those that use this film(type55) are using it to get that neg.  
I shoot it at 25-30 to get negs I like. The negs do scan very nicely. If the 
positive looks great, I would say you need another stop in exposure to get a 
good negative from that film for printing or scanning. Any neg under exposed is 
going to be very problematic.
There are several other Polaroid positive films 100,400asa, color and B&W to 
proof your lighting and exposures, and they are cheaper than type 55, but 
you'll have too shoot a traditional neg after the proofs check out. I do believe 
Type 55 produces beautiful negs. Any pro camera shop that sells a variety of 
Polaroid films should be able to get you where you want to go.
Steve Meyers



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve-

> In a message dated 5/24/2003 9:39:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> kevin@... writes:
> Snip>
>> The problem is that the contrast of the positive is drastically
>> different from the contrast of the negative or any negative film that 
>> I
>> shoot.  So what is in the deep shadows on the positive is barely in 
>> the
>> shadows on the negative.
>>
>> I thought polaroid film was used for proofing all the time -- is type
>> 55 wrong for proofing, do people compensate in printing, or was I just
>> off base to start with.
>>
>> Thanks,>>
>> I don't know if I would say type 55 is a proofing film. Most polaroid 
>> film
> dosen't give you a negative. In my experience Type 55 needs to be 
> overexposed to
> produce a good neg for printing. This is NOT the film commercial 
> shooters use
> for proofing. Those that use this film(type55) are using it to get 
> that neg.
> I shoot it at 25-30 to get negs I like. The negs do scan very nicely. 
> If the
> positive looks great, I would say you need another stop in exposure to 
> get a
> good negative from that film for printing or scanning. Any neg under 
> exposed is
> going to be very problematic.
> There are several other Polaroid positive films 100,400asa, color and 
> B&W to
> proof your lighting and exposures, and they are cheaper than type 55, 
> but
> you'll have too shoot a traditional neg after the proofs check out. I 
> do believe
> Type 55 produces beautiful negs. Any pro camera shop that sells a 
> variety of
> Polaroid films should be able to get you where you want to go.
> Steve Meyers

Thanks.  I have used it for the negative and I like it at 25.

I had understood that to get a good positive you should expose it 
between 64 and 100 so I figured it would work for proofing - whether I  
changed the exposure by two stops and kept the negative or shot one of 
my regular choices.

Perhaps there is a better choice that matches the contrast of a 
negative better.

--
Kevin Gulstene
www.dockwalker.com

On Saturday, May 24, 2003, at 10:27  PM, sdmey4@... wrote:

> In a message dated 5/24/2003 9:39:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> kevin@... writes:
> Snip>
>> The problem is that the contrast of the positive is drastically
>> differ
>> I thought polaroid film was used for proofing all the time -- is type
>> 55 wrong for proofing, do people compensate in printing, or was I just
>> off base to start with.
>>
>  This is NOT the film commercial shooters use
> for proofing. Those that use this film(type55) are using it to get 
> that neg.
>
Oh yes it is - at least it's the only film I use for proofing. 
Especially in architecture and interiors, it's necessary to know that 
you have good depth of field, and the negative is the only way to check 
it. I just rip it off and look at it with a loupe, no need to develop 
it or anything. Also, yes, it is contrastier than the film. However, if 
I want the transparency to look "like" the 55 positive, I underexpose 
the transparency one stop and push 1/2 and it get exactly what I want. 
Also, I shoot both Portra NC and VC negative films with it. If I want a 
print to look like the transparency (which looks like the polaroid) I 
use the VC. It's more contrasty.

But, Kevin is certainly right. The contrast of the positive is 
drastically different. You just have to get used to it.

Barbara
>
>
Barbara White Architectural Photography
http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com

I have the same issue.  I've never used artificial light for portraits, but
now I'm pressed into service to do that, in situations where available light
isn't going to work.  I use 55PN quite a bit, and after a while you get
pretty adept at judging a good neg from the underexposed print (the
Polameter).   I will say the 55PN negative is really excellent for scanning.
It should be a champion portrait film given its smooth tonal range.  Anyway,
I'm ordering a lighting outfit from Alien Bees.  I was wondering the same
thing, the quickest way to experiment with lighting.  Since it is a studio
setting, won't it work to plug a point and shoot digital camera, like the
Olympus C4000 into a notebook and get instant feedback?  Then you could
calibrate to 55PN with a flashmeter once you get the formula down, burn one
to verify that the print is indeed light, then use the film to get a great
negative.  That's probably what I'll try.

--Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Gulstene" <kevin@...>
To: <digitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 11:39 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55


>
> I had hoped to use Polaroid's type 55 film to help me understand
> portrait lighting.  I have never really done these in a serious way and
> hoped to use the positive of the film to see the changes immediately as
> I changed the lighting.
>
> The problem is that the contrast of the positive is drastically
> different from the contrast of the negative or any negative film that I
> shoot.  So what is in the deep shadows on the positive is barely in the
> shadows on the negative.
>
> I thought polaroid film was used for proofing all the time -- is type
> 55 wrong for proofing, do people compensate in printing, or was I just
> off base to start with.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> --
> Kevin Gulstene
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

> thing, the quickest way to experiment with lighting.  Since it is a studio
> setting, won't it work to plug a point and shoot digital camera, like the
> Olympus C4000 into a notebook and get instant feedback?  Then you could
> calibrate to 55PN with a flashmeter once you get the formula
> down, burn one
> to verify that the print is indeed light, then use the film to get a great
> negative.  That's probably what I'll try.

LOL

I love this for years I have used Polaroid to proof for film (and of course,
quite often with type 55, just used the polaroid itself)

Now we are using digital to proof polaroid... :-)

This has given me almost as much of a chuckle as the digital shooter asking
how to develop B&W film, as they've never used film before....

tim

I should probably clarify.  I didn't mean using digital to proof Polaroid.
But for someone who is learning portrait lighting setup (against my will),
it seemed to make sense to experiment with a digital camera and a notebook
to see what combinations worked, learn to use the flashmeter, etc., instead
of using a lot of Polaroid.  Then after the learning curve is over and the
time came to set up and make an image for real, you would have some
additional assurance by observing the positive on a test shot.   In
anticipation of this assignment, I did take a class in photographing people
with Martha Casanave (www.marthacasanave.com) only to find that she uses
available light...BTW even though she prints only silver, she thought my MIS
quad prints looked great.

  --Ken


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Atherton" <timatherton@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 8:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55


> > thing, the quickest way to experiment with lighting.  Since it is a
studio
> > setting, won't it work to plug a point and shoot digital camera, like
the
> > Olympus C4000 into a notebook and get instant feedback?  Then you could
> > calibrate to 55PN with a flashmeter once you get the formula
> > down, burn one
> > to verify that the print is indeed light, then use the film to get a
great
> > negative.  That's probably what I'll try.
>
> LOL
>
> I love this for years I have used Polaroid to proof for film (and of
course,
> quite often with type 55, just used the polaroid itself)
>
> Now we are using digital to proof polaroid... :-)
>
> This has given me almost as much of a chuckle as the digital shooter
asking
> how to develop B&W film, as they've never used film before....
>
> tim
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

In a message dated 5/25/2003 11:29:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
barbara@... writes:

> > This is NOT the film commercial shooters use
> >for proofing. Those that use this film(type55) are using it to get 
> >that neg.
> >
> Oh yes it is - at least it's the only film I use for proofing. 
> Especially in architecture and interiors, it's necessary to know that 
> you have good depth of field, and the negative is the only way to check 
> it. I just rip it off and look at it with a loupe, no need to develop 
> it or anything.Snip >

Barbara, certainly you can see this film as problematic for Portrait proofing 
like the original poster was using it for. At anyrate, I would think there 
are much better choices for portrait proofing than type 55 when the shooter is 
looking for an accurate positive proof.
Respectfully,
Steven Meyers


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I too, shoot MF film but am going to start proofing my studio lights with digital camera. It is even more convenient, less expensive and faster than polaroid to check out lighting shadows, ratios, background balance etc. Trouble is, not many med priceddigital cameras have the PC cord plug-in. Which digital camera are you using.?
Alan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ken Carney 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 10:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55


  I should probably clarify.  I didn't mean using digital to proof Polaroid.
  But for someone who is learning portrait lighting setup (against my will),
  it seemed to make sense to experiment with a digital camera and a notebook
  to see what combinations worked, learn to use the flashmeter, etc., instead
  of using a lot of Polaroid.  Then after the learning curve is over and the
  time came to set up and make an image for real, you would have some
  additional assurance by observing the positive on a test shot.   In
  anticipation of this assignment, I did take a class in photographing people
  with Martha Casanave (www.marthacasanave.com) only to find that she uses
  available light...BTW even though she prints only silver, she thought my MIS
  quad prints looked great.

    --Ken


  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Tim Atherton" <timatherton@...>
  To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
  Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 8:06 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55


  > > thing, the quickest way to experiment with lighting.  Since it is a
  studio
  > > setting, won't it work to plug a point and shoot digital camera, like
  the
  > > Olympus C4000 into a notebook and get instant feedback?  Then you could
  > > calibrate to 55PN with a flashmeter once you get the formula
  > > down, burn one
  > > to verify that the print is indeed light, then use the film to get a
  great
  > > negative.  That's probably what I'll try.
  >
  > LOL
  >
  > I love this for years I have used Polaroid to proof for film (and of
  course,
  > quite often with type 55, just used the polaroid itself)
  >
  > Now we are using digital to proof polaroid... :-)
  >
  > This has given me almost as much of a chuckle as the digital shooter
  asking
  > how to develop B&W film, as they've never used film before....
  >
  > tim
  >
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
  other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
  >
  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
  >
  > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
  unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
  page.
  >
  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
  > - Include your full name with your message.
  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
  them short.
  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
  resources on the homepage.
  >
  >
  >
  >
  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  >
  >


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kevin,

The speed of the positive is twice as great as the negative. If you expose the positive at ISO 100, expose the negative at ISO 50. You may even have to go lower. Test a bit.

This is the nature of the film. When exposed correctly, though, the type 55 negative is beautiful.

Cheers,
Jeffrey Fass
http://www.happyeyeball.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Gulstene 
  To: digitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 12:39 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55



  I had hoped to use Polaroid's type 55 film to help me understand 
  portrait lighting.  I have never really done these in a serious way and 
  hoped to use the positive of the film to see the changes immediately as 
  I changed the lighting.

  The problem is that the contrast of the positive is drastically 
  different from the contrast of the negative or any negative film that I 
  shoot.  So what is in the deep shadows on the positive is barely in the 
  shadows on the negative.

  I thought polaroid film was used for proofing all the time -- is type 
  55 wrong for proofing, do people compensate in printing, or was I just 
  off base to start with.

  Thanks,


  --
  Kevin Gulstene


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

As I continue to contemplate a good strategy for my existing B & W MF & LF
negatives, and as Clayton Jones wisely suggested I consider a flatbed
scanner to do this with as I learn the process. Can anyone suggest a good
scanner for the purpose? Clayton suggested an Epson 1640SU which I
understand is a 1600dpi scanner. I am seeing that Epson now has a 3200 dpi
scanner. Since I am starting from scratch, I would like to know if others
consider this a good way to go. What problems might I face, or to put it
another way, what alligators live in this swamp?

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Tony



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tony,

I'd be wary of flatbed dpi claims.  They may have that many receptors, but
the actual sharpness and information is not, in my experience, close to what
a true film scanner will produce.  After all, a lens that can cover 8.5
inches is not going to be able to compete with a lens that is designed to
just cover 2.25 inches, all else being equal.  My Epson 1600 Expression Pro,
for example, captures a reasonably good 800 dpi, but that's about it.  For
MF snapshots and internet photos that's fine, but for display prints it's
not.

For my MF negatives, the Nikon 8000 is the first scanner I've had that comes
close to doing justice to the negatives.  Before that, I'd enlarge my MF
negatives to 8x10 internegatives and then use the Epson 1600 scanner.  While
that combination actually could pull slightly more resolution from a MF
negative, the flare was so much worse that the Nikon 8000 that the Nikon's
overall image was much better.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
____________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Anton Pickard [mailto:lightworx@...]
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 12:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Scanners for B & W


As I continue to contemplate a good strategy for my existing B & W MF & LF
negatives, and as Clayton Jones wisely suggested I consider a flatbed
scanner to do this with as I learn the process. Can anyone suggest a good
scanner for the purpose? Clayton suggested an Epson 1640SU which I
understand is a 1600dpi scanner. I am seeing that Epson now has a 3200 dpi
scanner. Since I am starting from scratch, I would like to know if others
consider this a good way to go. What problems might I face, or to put it
another way, what alligators live in this swamp?



Many thanks in advance.



Tony



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Alan, I have the Olympus C4000 4-megapixel camera.  I use it for infrared,
thinking there wouldn't be another use for it until now.  There is a
multi-pin flash input.  However...the setup menu gives you a choice of flash
input plus "flash", or just "flash", presumably the on-camera flash unit.
So my concept may be doomed unless I can disable the on-camera flash or
block it in some way.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Zimmerman" <azimmerman1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55


> I too, shoot MF film but am going to start proofing my studio lights with
digital camera. It is even more convenient, less expensive and faster than
polaroid to check out lighting shadows, ratios, background balance etc.
Trouble is, not many med priceddigital cameras have the PC cord plug-in.
Which digital camera are you using.?
> Alan

Thanks to all those who posted answers.

I thought about using a digital camera to proof but the focal lengths 
are so different between the digital camera and the camera I be using 
that I didn't think it would be suitable. Also, the digital camera I 
have doesn't allow full control of the aperture and shutter speed so I 
don't think that is an option for me.

 From your answers it seems that a little experiential judgment (and the 
correct EI) is required if I'm going to use T55 positives to proof 
lighting setups for portraits when the final image will be made on a 
silver negative -- or choose another polaroid film where the positive's 
contrast range is closer to that of the negative film.

Thanks again.

--
Kevin Gulstene
http://www.dockwalker.com

At 03:09 PM 5/26/03 -0400, you wrote:
>As I continue to contemplate a good strategy for my existing B & W MF & LF
>negatives, and as Clayton Jones wisely suggested I consider a flatbed
>scanner to do this with as I learn the process. Can anyone suggest a good
>scanner for the purpose? Clayton suggested an Epson 1640SU which I
>understand is a 1600dpi scanner. I am seeing that Epson now has a 3200 dpi
>scanner. Since I am starting from scratch, I would like to know if others
>consider this a good way to go. What problems might I face, or to put it
>another way, what alligators live in this swamp?
>
>
>
>Many thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>Tony
>

Tony,


>Go here for a good review:  http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html  Ihave the 
>E3200 and it is the greatest for my needs. The E2450 is also excellent and 
>very cheap now.


AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us

T59 *might* be a more sane approach.

BC

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Kevin Gulstene 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 6:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Little OT -- Polaroid 55



  Thanks to all those who posted answers.

  I thought about using a digital camera to proof but the focal lengths 
  are so different between the digital camera and the camera I be using 
  that I didn't think it would be suitable. Also, the digital camera I 
  have doesn't allow full control of the aperture and shutter speed so I 
  don't think that is an option for me.

  From your answers it seems that a little experiential judgment (and the 
  correct EI) is required if I'm going to use T55 positives to proof 
  lighting setups for portraits when the final image will be made on a 
  silver negative -- or choose another polaroid film where the positive's 
  contrast range is closer to that of the negative film.

  Thanks again.

  --
  Kevin Gulstene
  http://www.dockwalker.com


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Alan, Billy and Paul for your replies. I read the review on the E3200
and from the looks of it will be suitable for the time being. I hope I can
try out a Nikon 8000 at some point, but I frankly cannot justify the price
tag until  I have more experience scanning.

 

Thanks for all your help.

 

Regards,

Tony

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Zinn [mailto:AZinn@...] 
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 8:01 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners for B & W

 

At 03:09 PM 5/26/03 -0400, you wrote:
>As I continue to contemplate a good strategy for my existing B & W MF & LF
>negatives, and as Clayton Jones wisely suggested I consider a flatbed
>scanner to do this with as I learn the process. Can anyone suggest a good
>scanner for the purpose? Clayton suggested an Epson 1640SU which I
>understand is a 1600dpi scanner. I am seeing that Epson now has a 3200 dpi
>scanner. Since I am starting from scratch, I would like to know if others
>consider this a good way to go. What problems might I face, or to put it
>another way, what alligators live in this swamp?
>
>
>
>Many thanks in advance.
>
>
>
>Tony
>

Tony,


>Go here for a good review:  http://www.photo-i.co.uk/index.html  Ihave the 
>E3200 and it is the greatest for my needs. The E2450 is also excellent and 
>very cheap now.


AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=17050191
82:HM/A=1564416/R=0/*http:/www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60164797&partid=3170
658> 


 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=251812.3170658.4537139.1512248/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1564416/rand=124327636> 


Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Having never been happy with the scans I have received of 120BW negs 
I thought I would try an alternative method. Since they are quite 
compentant with Printing, I had them do an 8x10 glossy of it instead 
and keeping it on the flat side ie. detail everywhere.

I then scanned this on an Epson 1640 (High end amateur flatbed) at 
1200 dpi 16bit and got a thoroughy nice image, scanned the way I 
wanted. The end purpose was to print 20"x30" which it did with ease 
and room to spare. 

It's reliable and cheap and doesnt depend on often less than 
knowledgable scanner operators

Garry Sarre

www.sarre.com.au