8x10 on a lightbox

[thronobulax]

OK, so here is a scan made by sandwiching a 35mm negative emulsion-side up on a flat bed scanner with a piece of glass on top, and then laying the LED light table on top of it. I didn't have 5x4 neg handy but I'll try to get to that as well at some point.

Some very light curve adjustments and sharpening in GIMP thereafter.

This is using a very basic Epson ET-2760 office scanner, scanned at 1200dpi and 48bit RGB.

I certainly don't think this remotely competes with a V850, but it's not useless either. Like I said, this is helpful to examine negatives before I print them - sort of a digital contact sheet...

 

[thronobulax]

By comparison, here is a scan of a silver print made from that negative.

In both cases, there seems to be is definitely some reduction in quality by the forum software downshifting the image resolution. If someone really wants to see the full resolution of the Fibber McGee Scanning Solution (aka FMSS) above, I can always post somewhere on the web.

The larger point, I think, is that the FMSS is actually surprisingly useful. If/when I have time, I shall rinse-repeat with a 5x4 negative.

 

[David M]

This is rejected 10x8 neg, and I think you can see why.
This was done on the kind of flatbed scanner that seems to be included in an ordinary desktop inkjet printer. the neg is just dropped onto the glass with nothing to hold it flat. The scale on the right is from the LCD light panel. All scans done with VueScan.
I found that I had to turn the light panel down to its lowest brightness and even so, the highlights are still burned out.
I hope this is useful to someone. Clearly, more work needs to be done.

 

[thronobulax]

This is rejected 10x8 neg, and I think you can see why.
This was done on the kind of flatbed scanner that seems to be included in an ordinary desktop inkjet printer. the neg is just dropped onto the glass with nothing to hold it flat. The scale on the right is from the LCD light panel. All scans done with VueScan.
I found that I had to turn the light panel down to its lowest brightness and even so, the highlights are still burned out.
I hope this is useful to someone. Clearly, more work needs to be done.

View attachment 4476

Depending on the light panel's output, you may have to position it above the actual scanning surface a bit to get the light output down enough to capture the highlights properly.

 

[Petrochemist]

I’ve often wondered about re-photographing large format film with a digital camera. Why not simply photograph the original scene digitally?
I’m assuming that I’m missing something here, so I’d really like to know.

I shoot a lot of digital & have a big collection of lenses (including adapters that allow them to be used in tilt/shift ways. Even so I can readily get results with my 5x4 that are impossible with any of my digital kit.

Among my many projects, I am working towards simplifying photography of the ground glass (actually abraded plastic at the moment) of my monorail with a digital camera. Which might be close to shooting it digitally, but my plans are mainly related to working out coverage & assessing quality of my collection of oddball lenses.
Using the crude plastic screen allows me to see what the lens does outside the 5x4 ground glass - it's enough to get the whole image circle of the Delta 77 projector lens I mounted on Saturday. FWIW the lens is roughly a 70mm f1/2 that very nearly covers 5x4.

Once I get the coupling finished it will offer any easy way to introduce my local workshop to the advantages of playing with movements. Getting them all to try film will take longer.

 

[David M]

When I’ve photographed the ground glass, mainly for demonstration purposes, I’ve always had severe fall-off or vignetting. Worse with wide angles. When using rise/fall and shift, the bright spot moves around the screen. I didn’t find a solution.