There are problems with this approach, including even illumination
(most light boxes/tables aren't close) and access to a copy lens with
the ability to produce a reproduction that is undistorted with good
corner resolution. I've worked on specing these set ups for museums,
galleries and the like, and you really wouldn't want to try this with
a standard lens and light table unless you don't care about quality.
If you're just looking to capture something for visual reference, then
sure, it's adequate.
If you don't have a good copy setup, you'd be better off with a
scanner... money-wise and quality-wise
Eric Goldstein
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Richard Urmonas <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jan,---
A method gaining popularity these days is to use a digital camera to
photograph the negative. If you already have a digital camera with good
macro capability and a light box it is a very low cost solution.
I have an Epson V500 which is a predecessor of the V600. I have not worked
on it too much but my scans of b+w have been less than satisfactory.
Perhaps with some work I could improve the results. From memory the true
optical resolution is around 1200 dpi.
Richard Urmonas
13 December 2017 15:13 David Stumpp <photos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Jan,
I've used the Epson V500 for years now. It's not the best for 35mm, or at
least I've never been able to set it up satisfactorily. For medium format,
it's been a great scanner for the price. The Epson scanning trays are
abysmal, though. I bought height adjustable scanning trays and anti-Newton's
rings glass from Better Scanning, and that made a huge difference. I will
eventually opt for a newer model, because I'd like to scan six 6x6 exposures
in one go. I'm currently scanning three at a time.
Dave
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of John Wild <jwild@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 13 December 2017 22:58
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Low Cost Flat-bed slide/neg Scanners...
Jan, I have a Canon 9000F Mk1.
I do not use it much for film because I have dedicated film scanners. With
the film holders, I am not convinced that the film is kept flat because the
holders seem flimsy although I have not seen poor results, but when compared
to a MF film scanner the results are not as good. The Canon is cheaper (my
model was anyway) than the Epson, which I think is very highly rated. The
Canon can only take 35mm and 120 whereas I think the Epson can take 5x4
should that be required. Some scanners can take more than one strip too if
you have a lot to do.
Canon software is OK. I use a Mac and I did not find that there was an
update which worked with the latest versions of OSX for my Mk 1 scanner.
I did a comparison article in
John
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Jan Decher <wanderjan@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 13 December 2017 19:30
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Low Cost Flat-bed slide/neg Scanners...
Hi Everyone,
We probably over this one before. I need to buy a decent flat-bed photo
scanner for my 35 and 120 negatives and slides. At work I have the Epson
700 which delivers very high quality. At home I was going to buy a less
expensive model. Right now my choices here in Germnay seem to be:
Canon CanoScan 9000F Mark II
or
Epson Perfection V600 Photo Scanner
Any experience with these?
Thanks,
Jan
