Re: scanning loooong negatives

In a message dated 4/03/05, Tom A Lindsay wrote:
>Hello Hughes,
>
>Can you tell me a little bit about your negative scanner and where you
>got it? I didn't know there was a scanner that would do negs the size you
>mentioned. And do you mind telling me the price you paid for your
>scanner?
>
>"Keep on Pinholin'",
>Tom Lindsay
>_______________________________________________
>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

Oups, there's a bit of a misunderstanding I'm afraid. My idea was
actually to use a digital camera to photograph larger prints in a
classic reprography way instead of using a scanner. Why someone would
do something in an easy way when it's possible to do make it
complicated? Are you going to ask me. Well, it's my motto I'll tell
you, but beyond that, the idea is that a camera can photograph with
its settings blocked while lots of scanners are just automatic and as
they are very intelligents, they think it's better to correct
everything. Now it's just an idea, I don't have any digital camera
myself so I don't know if it's efficient or not. Of course, the
prints you repro from must be home made or professionally made with
no different color corrections from one to the other.
If you're still interested in my scanner, I have to tell you, it's a
cheap one and not capable to scan transparencies. What I tried once
was to put a transparency on the glass and backlite it or other
option, cover the transparency with a mirror so the scanner reflects
it's own light. But it doesn't work very well with my equipment. I
keep on experimenting anyway.

-- 
Hughes Mertens ~ Photography   [ http://www.asveyou.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