Is this acceptable for the gallery

Discussion in 'Color: Film, Paper, and Chemistry' started by jmailand, Jul 20, 2006.

  1. jmailand

    jmailand Member

    Messages:
    151
    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Location:
    Belmont Mich
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just processed some c41 images taken with my Horizont panorama camera. I not set up in my darkroom to make color prints so I have to scan If I want to put any of them in the gallery. I have 2 ways to scan them, with my Canon flatbed scanner with is not very good with making sharp scans of small negatives, or using my dedicated Minolta film scanner which make much better 35mm scans, but will only let me scan "one" fame at a time. With the Minolta scanner I scan both halves of the "same" negative a reassemble them with a simple stitch program. I was wondering if this digital reassembly of a "one frame, one shot" negative would be considered acceptable for posting in gallery. If use the Canon scanner I have to "unsharp mask" the hell out of the them just to make the look like the true sharpness in the negative. With the Minolta film scanner I don't have to do any sharpening, which seems to me less of a digital manipulation than using a simple stitch program to get to 2 halves of one negative back together.

    Anyway I was looking for opinions on how people feel about this.

    Thanks James.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2006
  2. jmailand

    jmailand Member

    Messages:
    151
    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Location:
    Belmont Mich
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    revision to first post.

    I should ad that by saying "one frame" at a time for the Minolta scanner , I mean it will only scan at the 24 by 35mm "regular" frame/negative size. The Horizont takes a 24 x 65mm frame/negative picture, with a one scanning/sweeping motion of the lens onto the film, thus it is a true panorama camera.

    James,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 20, 2006
  3. Mick Fagan

    Mick Fagan Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,109
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Location:
    Melbourne Au
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    James, I have a Horizon camera, I make a small print and scan that.

    Basically, if you are fiddling to get a true representation of your negative/print, it shouldn't matter.

    My take on it is:- one does have to do some fiddling, to get the electronic version looking remotely like the analogue original.

    Mick.
     
  4. roteague

    roteague Member

    Messages:
    6,671
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Kaneohe, Haw
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Negative/transparency scans are generally allowed in the gallery. I wouldn't have a problem with what you are asking, but others may not feel the same way, so let's give them a chance to respond. I'm glad you asked.
     
  5. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member Admin

    Messages:
    9,323
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Exactly.
     
  6. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi James.

    If you plan on making a lot of panoramic photographs you might consider getting hold of one of the Epson Perfection series of flatbed scanners. They also scan negs . The interesting part is you can also get them to scan the whole strip as well as individual frames. This came in very handy when I was making double exposures and wanted to see where to crop the frame.

    Here is a scan I made just now using my Epson Perfection 2480 Photo. As you can see it covers almost four frames, which should be plenty for scanning Horizon frames.
     
  7. ricksplace

    ricksplace Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Thunder Bay,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    IMHO, we have to digitize any image to post here. Scan 'em, stitch 'em, and post 'em, and we can all have a look.

    Rick.
     
  8. DBP

    DBP Member

    Messages:
    1,896
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Location:
    Alexandria,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That's why I bought mine. It does a decent job, too, as evidenced by my latest photo posted.
     
  9. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,232
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    What we seem to be faced with is either a poor scan or a much better scan to look at, enjoy, critique etc. The only difference being that the better scan has to be stitched.

    As the whole gallery can only exist by scanning anyway i.e. involves a digital process then surely it's a no brainer to allow the stitching scanner. All it does is to give us a better representation of what is on the neg. Even were we to insist on it being a print scan, I'd still want the best i.e. most authentic, representation of waht's on the print by whichever scanner achieved this.

    pentaxuser
     
  10. jmailand

    jmailand Member

    Messages:
    151
    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Location:
    Belmont Mich
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just uploaded to my gallery a example of what I thought was the best from the first roll I developed. (called Still Lake)

    I should add to my original post that my Canon flatbed is their top of the line 9950f with FARE their version of Digital ICE. While my Minolta is the Dual Scan IV.I also have a Epson 1650 Perfection flatbed. I just think having true lens optics with focusing like the Minolta is just better than any flatbed scanner. Too bad Canon and Minolta both stopped making dedicated film scanners.

    James,