I don't know that it's terribly inappropriate to the direction of this thread - though hopefully phototone will forgive my terse tone. A scanning back requires an extra optical system and structural system which is not controlled in the way that a good scanner is. Illumination is another issue - though, it's the same problem in a traditional enlarger - but in reverse. An enlarger would compensate and a scanning back would compound the natural falloff. On a scanner, illumination happens on a per-pixel (or row of pixels) basis.
At any rate, the result would be inferior to simply using a scanning back on a 4x5 - since it's first-generation - where using the back as a repro device is simply an interpretation of the film itself through an additional optical assembly. Hope that makes sense.
I certainly agree that a scanning back is not optimized for scanning transparency or negative materials, rather it is optimized for scanning subjects that would otherwise be shot using flim in the same camera. However, tons of people do this, (I have a scanning back and subscribe to the owners forum, where issues like this are discussed) and it would be plenty good enough for posting on the net, or making a smaller print. (Smaller than the original negative).
So I wonder how the original poster got that sample image in the first post? AFAIK, there is no known flat-bed scanner that could scan this, and I have no idea about the maximum size of drum scanners.
Any scan, or digital copy of the original ULF image is a compromise. I think we all agree on this.
That is a wonderful camera!
I would love to have ago at something similar myself, but lenses are the limiting factor, I think. Really long lenses do not appear often, at least not in this part of the world...
Have you any pics of the lenses?
Please can you explain a little more about your development technique? When you are rolling the film around in the dish... Is this off the spool? If so, how do you get it to re-roll without sctratching it?
I find it difficult to visualise how this works.
I have a lot of 9.5" aero film so I am curious as I have struggled to process this in long lengths in the past.
The neg could have been scanned in sections on an A3 format scanner - i.e. Lino Circon or something. Though it wouldn't work on a drum scanner in sections because it wouldn't fit in the drum.
Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE
I was only suggesting that using the camera under those circumstances would be moot if the aerial photograph of the film from the back were the ONLY means of output. I just figured - well, why not just use it for the original scene?
Quite an amazing camera!
And a somewhat ironic surname given the camera
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)