[rollei_list] Re: Rodinal, TMax, scanning

  • From: Bob Smith <notraces@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 09:14:30 -0400

Carlos -

Thanks for that. It's the first I've ever heard a correlation between Newton 
rings and underexposed negs. 

I also find it interesting you get a better scan by laying the neg directly on 
the glass. I have the holders from Doug Fisher I use (unless I'm using either 
my Nikon 9000) and they are really great - very easy to adjust - and I simply 
take a piece of ANR glass and lay it over the negative (120) to keep it nice 
and flat. I have the holder adjusted so the neg ALMOST touches the glass. I 
avoid any touching of the glass because of the possibility of Newton rings.

I may try to scan a few negs directly on the glass to see if it makes a 
difference. I've been shooting 4x5 sheets and don't like the Epson holder - so 
I may give those a go.

Interesting - and thanks!

Bob


On Mar 22, 2011, at 1:08 AM, FreeLists Mailing List Manager wrote:

> rollei_list Digest    Mon, 21 Mar 2011        Volume: 07  Issue: 053
> 
> In This Issue:
>               [rollei_list] Rodinal, TMax, scanning
>               [rollei_list] Re: Rodinal, TMax, scanning
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Bob Smith <notraces@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [rollei_list] Rodinal, TMax, scanning
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 09:11:28 -0400
> 
> I read this from Sanders this morning and I wanted a little clarification - I 
> could be misinterpreting the thought. I've never heard of underexposed negs 
> causing Newton Rings. Am I understanding this correctly? I spent many years 
> selling both high-end drum scanners (Hell Graphics / Linotype / Scitex - 
> along with flatbed scanners from Iris / AGFA, etc) - and I never recall 
> hearing Newton rings can be caused by underexposed negatives. Now I'm curious 
> and just looking for some clarification.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Bob Smith
> 
> "I am curious to hear more about your experience in scanning 
> underexposed film directly on the glass.  My experience is that it
> is a nightmare, because of the Newton rings caused by the bare
> substrate on the glass (a problem I rarely encounter with a lot
> of developed emulsion in a well-exposed negative).  How do
> you avoid this problem with underexposed negatives on the glass?"
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:58:25 -0300
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Rodinal, TMax, scanning
> From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> I only could say I share the same experience with Sanders regarding to
> scan underexposed negs as I wrote previously; we are talking about
> flatbed scanners scanning film on the glass directly, it does not mean
> you always get Newton rings with those negs but there is no doubt they
> are prone to get them, in the other hand film that received a right
> exposure is not prone to get Newton rings scanning them on the glass.
> BTW, if you scan any neg, underexposed or not underexposed without
> direct contact with the glass (f.e. using the scanner film holder) it
> would be very rare to get a Newton ring, in fact I never got one; the
> point is that scanning severely underexposed negs on the glass
> directly could allow to obtain a better scanned image but with the
> Newton rings risk.
> 
> Carlos
> 

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. rollei_list
  3. Archive
  4. 03-2011