RE: pinhole-discussion-digest V1 #229

i don't have the answer to your scanning problem, but i'm glad you asked
because of all the photos that folks shared, they are beautiful!

>From: owner-pinhole-discussion-digest@spitbite.org
(pinhole-discussion-digest) >Reply-To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
>To: pinhole-discussion-digest@spitbite.org >Subject:
pinhole-discussion-digest V1 #229 >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:59:00 -0800
(PST) > >pinhole-discussion-digest Tuesday, March 1 2005 Volume 01
: Number 229 > > > >Please DO NOT QUOTE the entire digest when replying
to a posting, >only quote the message you are replying to. > >Included in
this issue: >[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives >RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong
negatives >RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >RE: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives >RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong
negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong
negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong
negatives >[pinhole-discussion] grass store >RE: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong
negatives >Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >
>Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 06:49:18 -0800 >From: "Marcy Merrill"
<marcy@merrillphoto.com> >Subject: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong
negatives > >Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked through the archives and
couldn't find >anything about scanning long negatives. I've made a
pinhole camera using an >old Kodak movie can.
www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm >It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm film.
So, there's one exposure on a piece of >film that's about 2 feet long.
I've got a scanner that'll scan negatives up to >5x7. So I can scan this
negative in bits and paste it together. My problem is >that each scan is
slightly different and the end result shows where everything >was
pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND it doesn't look very good.
Is >there a better way? I suppose I could make a contact print and scan
that and I >might have a little bit better result. Thanks in advance!
-Marcy > >www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >------------------------------ >
>Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:50:51 EST >From: Michelbayard55@aol.com
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Hi
Merrill, in my opinion I would go to the grass store and buy 1/4 in. by
>2ft. plate glass and contact print them: what's a scanner? Mickey >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 07:20:32 -0800
>From: "Marcy Merrill" <marcy@merrillphoto.com> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > > > Hi Merrill, in my
opinion I would go to the grass store and buy 1/4 in. by > > 2ft. plate
glass and contact print them: what's a scanner? Mickey > >Mickey: A
scanner is something you use to ... well ... you take this >beautiful
piece of film ... and you've transformed the silver on it so that >it's
made this beautiful image....then you use a scanner to put this
>beautiful image into your computer. You do this so you can become very
>frustrated and print out only very ugly prints. >See, I can do the
contact print thing, but then I've just got this little >print. I want
bigger prints too. My largest enlarger will do 8x10 negs. I >suppose I
could enlarge the two foot long negative in three pieces and put >the
paper together (or SCAN the three prints). But I was hoping for an easy
>way out. -MM > >PS: The "grass" store? Hmmm ... whatchoo been smokin'? >
>www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue,
1 Mar 2005 09:24:29 -0600 >From: "Tom Miller" <tomwmiller@comcast.net>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Hi
Marcy, > >I tried scanning in pieces two or three years ago and ran into
the >same problem. The scanner was an Epson, and I was using the Twain
>import to Photoshop software. Every scan was "corrected" by the
>scanning software and couldn't be stitched together becuase the
>correction made to each piece was too radically different to be fixed
>inside Photoshop. The place where I bought the scanner told me there
>is nothing that can be done. > >The "correcting" problem was greatly
alleviated when I downloaded a >newer version of Epson Scan software. In
the configuration window, >color tab, there is set of radio buttons for
the type of color >correction to make. I chose "No Color Correction" and
it helped a >lot. My guess is that the software you're using would have
a switch >like this. > >Here is recent but still poor example of
scanning. I have tried to >smooth out the two places where the scans
were stitched together, but >it is one *(^&%~$ of a lot better than
before.
>http://f295.tompersinger.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=CP,m=1109204155 >
>Tom > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From:
owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > >
[mailto:owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org]On Behalf Of > > Marcy
Merrill > > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:49 AM > > To:
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > Subject: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives > > > > > > Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked
through the archives and > > couldn't find > > anything about scanning
long negatives. I've made a pinhole > > camera using an > > old Kodak
movie can. www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm > > It's got 20 holes and
uses 35mm film. So, there's one > > exposure on a piece of > > film
that's about 2 feet long. I've got a scanner that'll > > scan negatives
up to > > 5x7. So I can scan this negative in bits and paste it > >
together. My problem is > > that each scan is slightly different and the
end result > > shows where everything > > was pasted....AND it takes too
darn long ... AND it doesn't > > look very good. Is > > there a better
way? I suppose I could make a contact print > > and scan that and I > >
might have a little bit better result. Thanks in advance! -Marcy > > > >
www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:29:46 -0600
>From: "Tom Miller" <tomwmiller@comcast.net> >Subject: RE:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >I just wrote: > > > I
have tried to > > smooth out the two places where the scans were stitched
> > together, but > > it is one *(^&%~$ of a lot better than before. > >
http://f295.tompersinger.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=CP,m=1109204155 > > >
>Actually, I have NOT tried to erase the lines where the sections were
>stitched. > >Tom > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar
2005 11:06:09 -0500 >From: Brian Reynolds <reynolds@panix.com> >Subject:
Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Marcy Merrill
wrote: > > Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked through the archives and
couldn't > > find anything about scanning long negatives. I've made a
pinhole > > camera using an old Kodak movie can. > >
www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm > >
film. So, there's one exposure on a piece of film that's about 2 > >
feet long. I've got a scanner that'll scan negatives up to 5x7. So > >
I can scan this negative in bits and paste it together. My problem > >
is that each scan is slightly different and the end result shows > >
where everything was pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND it > >
doesn't look very good. Is there a better way? I suppose I could > >
make a contact print and scan that and I might have a little bit > >
better result. Thanks in advance! -Marcy > >If your scanner can handle
5x7 film, why don't you scan in the 7 inch >direction? > >You don't
mention what type of scanner you have. If your scann is >supported, you
might want to try Vuescan. > > <URL:http://www.hamrick.com/> > >One
of its features is to allow you to lock the scanner exposure after
>previewing part of the roll. That should make it a bit easier to
>stitch the parts back together. If you overlap the scans a bit, you
>might be alble to use panorama stitching software to rejoin the scans
>into one image. > >- -- >Brian Reynolds | "It's just
like flying a spaceship. >reynolds@panix.com | You push
some buttons and see >http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens."
-- Zapp Brannigan >NAR# 54438 | >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:03:50 -0700
>From: Pinhole Blender <chris@pinholeblender.com> >Subject: RE:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Marcy, > >I used
panorama stitching software to stitch my long panoramas together. >I
still had problems with my image size. Sometimes one side of my image
>would be taller the the other side. The Edit>Transform>Distort command
>in Photoshop helped with some. This image isn't perfect but I have
>blown it up to 8 feet wide,
>http://home.earthlink.net/~peregoy/Blender/Gallery/CP/Mia.html
>Photoshop now includes stitching software in its CS version under
>File>Automate>Photomerge which works fairly well. If you have this
>select the option to keep all layers then you can adjust each for
>exposure to fine tune your results. When scanning you should scan with
>at least 30% overlap so that the software can match the image up. There
>are way to do this without CS or a stitcher program. A good description
>is in Scott Kelby's book photoshop for the digital photographer. There
>are 25 steps in it so I can't explain it here. > >Chris >- -- >Pinhole
Blender >chris_at_pinholeblender.com >http://www.pinholeblender.com > > > >
-------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [pinhole-discussion]
scanning loooong negatives > > From: "Marcy Merrill"
<marcy@merrillphoto.com> > > Date: Tue, March 01, 2005 9:49 am > > To:
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org> > > Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked
through the archives and couldn't find > > anything about scanning long
negatives. I've made a pinhole camera using an > > old Kodak movie can.
www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm > > It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm
film. So, there's one exposure on a piece of > > film that's about 2 feet
long. I've got a scanner that'll scan negatives up to > > 5x7. So I can
scan this negative in bits and paste it together. My problem is > > that
each scan is slightly different and the end result shows where everything
> > was pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND it doesn't look very
good. Is > > there a better way? I suppose I could make a contact print
and scan that and I > > might have a little bit better result. Thanks in
advance! -Marcy > > > > www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:44:40 -0700
>From: Pinhole Blender <chris@pinholeblender.com> >Subject: RE:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Watch out when
scanning along the long dimension of your flatbed >scanner. These have a
section that must be kept clear when using the >transparency adapter. On
my epson the film holder has a slot at the >top. If your long piece of
film runs into this area the scanner will >not be able to calibrate
itself. > >Chris >- -- >Pinhole Blender >chris@pinholeblender.com
>http://www.pinholeblender.com > > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >
From: "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@panix.com> > > Date: Tue, March 01, 2005
11:06 am > > To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > > > Marcy Merrill
wrote: > > > Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked through the archives and
couldn't > > > find anything about scanning long negatives. I've made a
pinhole > > > camera using an old Kodak movie can. > > >
www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm > > >
film. So, there's one exposure on a piece of film that's about 2 > > >
feet long. I've got a scanner that'll scan negatives up to 5x7. So > >
> I can scan this negative in bits and paste it together. My problem > >
> is that each scan is slightly different and the end result shows > > >
where everything was pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND it > >
> doesn't look very good. Is there a better way? I suppose I could > > >
make a contact print and scan that and I might have a little bit > > >
better result. Thanks in advance! -Marcy > > > > If your scanner can
handle 5x7 film, why don't you scan in the 7 inch > > direction? > > > >
You don't mention what type of scanner you have. If your scann is > >
supported, you might want to try Vuescan. > > > >
<URL:http://www.hamrick.com/> > > > > One of its features is to allow you
to lock the scanner exposure after > > previewing part of the roll. That
should make it a bit easier to > > stitch the parts back together. If
you overlap the scans a bit, you > > might be alble to use panorama
stitching software to rejoin the scans > > into one image. > > > > -- > >
Brian Reynolds | "It's just like flying a spaceship. > >
reynolds@panix.com | You push some buttons and see > >
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | what happens." -- Zapp Brannigan > >
NAR# 54438 | > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:57:58 EST
>From: Michelbayard55@aol.com >Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning
loooong negatives > >Hi Merrill, in my opinion I would go to the grass
store and buy 1/4 in. by > > 2ft. plate glass and contact print them:
what's a scanner? Mickey > >Mickey: A scanner is something you use to
... well ... you take this >beautiful piece of film ... and you've
transformed the silver on it so that >it's made this beautiful
image....then you use a scanner to put this >beautiful image into your
computer. You do this so you can become very >frustrated and print out
only very ugly prints. >See, I can do the contact print thing, but then
I've just got this little >print. I want bigger prints too. My largest
enlarger will do 8x10 negs. I >suppose I could enlarge the two foot long
negative in three pieces and put >the paper together (or SCAN the three
prints). But I was hoping for an easy >way out. -MM > >PS: The "grass"
store? Hmmm ... whatchoo been smokin'? >OOps,sorry, Elmer Fudd
was hanging out with me and helped with the >spelling...Mickey >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:45:32 -0800
>From: "Marcy Merrill" <marcy@merrillphoto.com> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Brian wrote: > If your
scanner can handle 5x7 film, why don't you scan in >the 7 inch > >
direction? > >Here's the weird thing. If my film overlaps the edges, the
scanner won't >scan in the longer direction. It'll allow for overlap when
scanning >horizontally though. I don't know why.... I always thought it
was something >wrong with my scanner until read Chris' post about the
calibration problem >with the transparency adapter. Ha! It's not just me!
> > > If your scann is > > supported, you might want to try Vuescan. > >
> > <URL:http://www.hamrick.com/> > >Thanks for the reference. I see
that my scanner is supported and I may check >into it. -MM >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:49:40 -0800
>From: "Marcy Merrill" <marcy@merrillphoto.com> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Tom wrote > The
"correcting" problem was greatly alleviated when I >downloaded a > >
newer version of Epson Scan software. > >Newer software ... now there's a
novel idea. > > > Here is recent but still poor example of scanning. I
have tried to > > smooth out the two places where the scans were stitched
together, but > > it is one *(^&%~$ of a lot better than before. > >
http://f295.tompersinger.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=CP,m=1109204155 > > >
> Tom > >Where the heck were you? Gotta be either the North Pole or
Minnesota. I like >how clear the shots are! -MM >
>www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue,
1 Mar 2005 09:54:05 -0800 >From: "Marcy Merrill" <marcy@merrillphoto.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Thanks
Chris: Your image is an inspiration! THAT'S what I'm looking for! >Looks
like the general consensus (so far) is new software. I'm taking a
>negative or two up to the lab today. They've got a bigger scanner and
maybe >it won't be so tough to stitch fewer scans together. Thanks to all
who've >replied to my questions! -Marcy >PS: I might consider stopping by
the grass store on the way... >www.JunkStoreCameras.com >- ----- Original
Message ----- >From: "Pinhole Blender" <chris@pinholeblender.com> >To:
<pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org> >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:03 AM
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > > > >
Marcy, > > > > I used panorama stitching software to stitch my long
panoramas together. > > I still had problems with my image size.
Sometimes one side of my image > > would be taller the the other side.
The Edit>Transform>Distort command > > in Photoshop helped with some.
This image isn't perfect but I have > > blown it up to 8 feet wide, > >
http://home.earthlink.net/~peregoy/Blender/Gallery/CP/Mia.html > >
Photoshop now includes stitching software in its CS version under > >
File>Automate>Photomerge which works fairly well. If you have this > >
select the option to keep all layers then you can adjust each for > >
exposure to fine tune your results. When scanning you should scan with >
> at least 30% overlap so that the software can match the image up. There
> > are way to do this without CS or a stitcher program. A good
description > > is in Scott Kelby's book photoshop for the digital
photographer. There > > are 25 steps in it so I can't explain it here. >
> > > Chris > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005
10:08:24 -0800 (PST) >From: "Eric S. Theise" <mataro@cyberwerks.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Marcy
Merrill writes: > > See, I can do the contact print thing, but then I've
just got this little > > print. I want bigger prints too. > >An option
that hasn't been mentioned is: make a really fine contact >print, actual
size, then scan the contact print in a drum scanner. >This would most
likely require an expensive trip to a service bureau, >but that seems a
clean path to larger prints. > >NewLab in San Francisco has these in
their equipment list, for >example: > > Drum scanners: > Heidelberg
S3900, max size 20 x 25, up to 18400 dpi > Heidelberg Primescan, max
size 20 x 25, up to 11000 dpi > >- --Eric >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:10:56 -0500
>From: George Smyth <george.smyth@gmail.com> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Marcy - > >The thing
to do is to turn off the automatic features on your scanner. > As you
scan each segment the scanner adjusts its settings to make the >"best"
reproduction of each segment. Unless they are exactly the >same, it will
alter the results so that each segment is different. >The same idea is
used when taking a panoramic image using a camera - >an exposure should
be manually eastablished and used for each segment, >otherwise it will be
difficult to match when putting them back >together (I know, I have been
taking panoramic pictures of minor >league ballparks I have been visiting
over the past several years -
>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/hmpi/Projects/Ballparks/Ballparks.htm). >
>Cheers - > >george > > >On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 06:49:18 -0800, Marcy Merrill
<marcy@merrillphoto.com> wrote: > > Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked
through the archives and couldn't find > > anything about scanning long
negatives. I've made a pinhole camera using an > > old Kodak movie can.
www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm > > It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm
film. So, there's one exposure on a piece of > > film that's about 2 feet
long. I've got a scanner that'll scan negatives up to > > 5x7. So I can
scan this negative in bits and paste it together. My problem is > > that
each scan is slightly different and the end result shows where everything
> > was pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND it doesn't look very
good. Is > > there a better way? I suppose I could make a contact print
and scan that and I > > might have a little bit better result. Thanks in
advance! -Marcy > > > > www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:22:59 -0600
>From: Traci Bunkers <bonkers@bonkersfiber.com> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >I had the same
problems back in December when I started experimenting >with multiple
exposures on a 120 camera where I was advancing the film >only part way.
I had posted to the list about maybe getting anti-newton >ring glass so I
could just lay the negative on my scanner (Epson >Perfection 2450). I
wanted to do this because the neg was too long for >the 120 neg holder
that came with the scanner. And Chris (Pinhole >Blender) suggested I make
my own: > >On Dec 8, 2004, at 5:34 PM, Pinhole Blender wrote: > > > I
used black mat board and cut an extra long negative holder. I > >
measured > > the height of the negative in its present carrier and found
that it was > > the same height as the black mat board would make it.
Just line the mat > > board up to your present holder and trace its
outline then extend the > > 120 area in the direction of your light. On
my epson scanner there is a > > cut out section at the top that the
scanner uses to set the calibration > > with. Make sure you cut this area
out as well. I just tape my negatives > > to this holder and position it
on my scanner. I laminated my holder so > > that tape pulls off easily
but a layer of packing tape around the > > edge's should work. This seems
to work well when I scan my pinhole > > blender images.. > > > > Chris >
>What I did differently than Chris was I made little guides on my new
>holder to slide the film into. That way I don't have to laminate the
>holder or tape the neg to it. It worked great and only cost a few
>dollars for the black matte board. But yes, your film still can't cover
>up that top cut-out section where cailbration happens. > >Here's one of
mine--but it's not a pinhole. It's from a Leader camera I >bought from
someone on the list.
>http://www.bonkersfiber.com/art/photos/leader/longtractorpano.jpg >
>This was scanned in one piece--the vertical lines are from where I had
>advanced the film part way and took another picture. >Traci Bunkers
>Bonkers Handmade Originals >Tub Legs Zinestress
>http://www.bonkersfiber.com > >Check out the classes I'm teaching at
>and ArtFest http://www.teeshamoore.com/artfest2005.htm > >On Mar 1,
2005, at 11:45 AM, Marcy Merrill wrote: > > > Brian wrote: > If your
scanner can handle 5x7 film, why don't you scan > > in > > the 7 inch >
>> direction? > > > > Here's the weird thing. If my film overlaps the
edges, the scanner > > won't > > scan in the longer direction. It'll
allow for overlap when scanning > > horizontally though. I don't know
why.... I always thought it was > > something > > wrong with my scanner
until read Chris' post about the calibration > > problem > > with the
transparency adapter. Ha! It's not just me! > > > >> If your scann is >
>> supported, you might want to try Vuescan. > >> > >>
<URL:http://www.hamrick.com/> > > > > Thanks for the reference. I see
that my scanner is supported and I may > > check > > into it. -MM > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:30:56 +0000
>From: cflagg4@mchsi.com >Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning
loooong negatives > >Boy that question woke up the list! Glad to see
someone is still out there >working. :-) >I happened to get a nice
program with my new Canon i860 printer called Photo >Stitch. I works
pretty well for me. On some large 11X14 pinhole paper >negatives this
program worked pretty well. I'll try to remember where I have >them
posted. >The scanner I have at school will scan up to an 8X10 in the open
masked area, >it's an older Acer. The newer Epson only does 35mm and
slides and has a >stinky little light in the lid. My Acer has a 8.5 X 11
light up lid. >I scan big negatives at school and send them home via
email and stitch them at >home. >Just my two bits for the cause. >Chuck >
> > > Tom wrote > The "correcting" problem was greatly alleviated when I
> > downloaded a > > > newer version of Epson Scan software. > > > >
Newer software ... now there's a novel idea. > > > > > Here is recent but
still poor example of scanning. I have tried to > > > smooth out the two
places where the scans were stitched together, but > > > it is one
*(^&%~$ of a lot better than before. > > >
http://f295.tompersinger.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b=CP,m=1109204155 > > >
> > > Tom > > > > Where the heck were you? Gotta be either the North Pole
or Minnesota. I like > > how clear the shots are! -MM > > > >
www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 10:38:00 -0800
(PST) >From: Murray Leshner <murrayatuptowngallery@yahoo.com> >Subject:
[pinhole-discussion] grass store > >That would be in Canada then, right?
>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1
Mar 2005 14:41:16 -0600 >From: "Tom Miller" <tomwmiller@comcast.net>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Marcy
wrote: > > > Where the heck were you? Gotta be either the North Pole or >
> Minnesota. > >Ya, Minnesota. > > > I like > > how clear the shots are!
-MM > >Thank you for the compliment, too. > >Tom >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 13:01:31 -0800
>From: "Richard Heather" <rheather@slonet.org> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Cut the neg in 3
sections and scan them all at once in the 5x7 window. Cut >and paste to a
new image on the computer. Do you cut the negs to store them >in sliives
or do you keep the long roll? >Richard Heather >- ----- Original Message
----- >From: "Marcy Merrill" <marcy@merrillphoto.com> >To:
<pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org> >Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 6:49 AM
>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > > > > Okay
you buncha geniuses, I poked through the archives and couldn't find > >
anything about scanning long negatives. I've made a pinhole camera using
> > an > > old Kodak movie can. www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm > >
It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm film. So, there's one exposure on a piece
> > of > > film that's about 2 feet long. I've got a scanner that'll scan
negatives > > up to > > 5x7. So I can scan this negative in bits and
paste it together. My problem > > is > > that each scan is slightly
different and the end result shows where > > everything > > was
pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND it doesn't look very > >
good. Is > > there a better way? I suppose I could make a contact print
and scan that > > and I > > might have a little bit better result. Thanks
in advance! -Marcy > > > > www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:05:57 -0500
>From: "Guy Glorieux" <guy.glorieux@sympatico.ca> >Subject: Re:
[pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives > >Hi Marcy, > >I've
experimented with overlapping images on 120 film and I've run into the
>same kind of problems as you. > >My approach was to contact print the
negatives on paper, to scan the print >in sections and to blend the scans
into one another (through layering on >PhotoShop) so as to make the final
image seamless. >Check the images at:
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/guy.glorieux/pnhl27Ang.htm
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/guy.glorieux/pnhl28Ang.htm
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/guy.glorieux/pnhl29Ang.htm > >The task was more
complex when Tom and I talked about showing the image from >the Flying
Pinhole Camera to a significant size (10 in. by 10 feet). In the >end, I
took the negative to a specialized lab who made a two-part
>high-resolution scan of the 36 in. color negative and blended the two
parts >together into a 500MG file. The 10 feet image was printed from
this file >with a tremendous amount of detail in all parts of the image.
>A poor quality scan had been made initially through the
>contact-print/scan/blend method and is shown at
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/guy.glorieux/flyingpinhole.htm
>http://www3.sympatico.ca/guy.glorieux/fp02.htm > >In the end, my
experience has been that the trick to get fairly decent >homemade loooong
scans from either a positive or a negative is to make sure: >1. that all
the automatic features of the scanner/scanware are turned off, >2. that
there is no light leak in any part of your scanning system (I cover >my
scanner with a black cloth when the material to be scanned exceeds the
>dimensions of the plate), and >3. that there is lotttts of overlap to
blend individual parts into the large >final image. > >This said, if you
need a really fine print for exhibition purposes, go the >extra bucks to
get a service bureau to make the scan. It's not half as >expensive as it
used to be and it's really worth it in terms of quality of >print! >
>Best, > >Guy > > >- ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marcy Merrill"
<marcy@merrillphoto.com> >To: <pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org> >Sent:
Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:49 AM >Subject: [pinhole-discussion] scanning
loooong negatives > > > > Okay you buncha geniuses, I poked through the
archives and couldn't find > > anything about scanning long negatives.
I've made a pinhole camera using > > an > > old Kodak movie can.
www.merrillphoto.com/canorama.htm > > It's got 20 holes and uses 35mm
film. So, there's one exposure on a piece > > of > > film that's about 2
feet long. I've got a scanner that'll scan negatives > > up to > > 5x7.
So I can scan this negative in bits and paste it together. My problem > >
is > > that each scan is slightly different and the end result shows
where > > everything > > was pasted....AND it takes too darn long ... AND
it doesn't look very > > good. Is > > there a better way? I suppose I
could make a contact print and scan that > > and I > > might have a
little bit better result. Thanks in advance! -Marcy > > > >
www.JunkStoreCameras.com > >
_______________________________________________ > > Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > > pinhole-discussion mailing list > >
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > > FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html >
>------------------------------ > >End of pinhole-discussion-digest V1
#229 >**************************************** >
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Wed Mar 2 11:54:53 2005