Re: pinhole-discussion-digest V1 #232

pinhole-discussion-digest wrote:

>pinhole-discussion-digest Saturday, March 5 2005 Volume 01 : Number 232
>
>
>
>Please DO NOT QUOTE the entire digest when replying to a posting,
>only quote the message you are replying to.
>
>Included in this issue:
>Re: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>Re: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives
>RE: [pinhole-discussion] Negative Scanners
>Re: [pinhole-discussion] Negative Scanners
>RE: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives
>Re: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:36:00 +0000
>From: Rago Waring <ragowaring@btinternet.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>
>I hole-heartedly agree. The holy grail is the picture that exposes all
>the myths of light bending refraction.
>Do I hear a pin drop at the mention of this abomination? In the
>beginning there was diffraction and images were clean and good. Now
>the world is pervaded by (lenses) - try saying that word without sound
>like a snake - and we a cleaved from what is good and diffuse by the
>sharpness of images. It is easier to pass through the aperture of a
>pinhole than it is to see clearly using a lens.
>
>Alexis
>
>
>On 5 Mar 2005, at 4:27, Guy Glorieux wrote:
>
>
>
>>Wolfgang Thoma asked:
>>
>>
>>>Can you explain what is the problem with the "full frontal XXXX
>>>camera": that it is a XXXX camera or "full frontal"? If I regard the
>>>camera, it seems to be perfectly normal ( with the exception of the
>>>XXXX, of course)
>>>taco
>>>
>>>
>>Well, you know, I mean... Hmmm...
>>
>>It's that normal people make photographic images in the proper manner
>>- you know, with a pinhole where light hits directly the
>>photo-sensitive emulsion. I always find it a bit rude to look at
>>cameras that deliberately chose to rely on a L*** (you know, these
>>shiny disks of highly polished convex glass) to actually bend light
>>(imagine!) in order to make a photographic image.
>>
>>We'd rather not mention the word L*** in this group (and I apologize
>>for having done so in my first email). And we just don't look at
>>cameras that don't have their L*** decently covered (unless the camera
>>is gently turned sideways to avoid showing the offensive light-bending
>>device).
>>
>>With digital being the norm in our society, it's becoming more and
>>more difficult to avoid exposure to this kind of glass material. I
>>recall having read somewhere that a growing number of photographers
>>have actually stopped using any silver-based material alltogether in
>>their work!!
>>
>>Shocking, if I may say so! I just can't fathom the depth of such
>>perversion.
>>
>>I'm sure you know that the internet is littered with web sites showing
>>pictures of this so-called technologically-advanced photographic
>>equipment. Not even a word of caution to warn-off people who consider
>>that a "decent exposure" should be long enough to require correction
>>for reciprocity failure!
>>
>>But thank God, this group and other similar fora are actively working
>>at safeguarding proper photographic manners. The 5th WorldWide
>>Pinhole Photographic Day, on Sunday April 24, will show the strength
>>of this momentum.
>>
>>With very best regards,
>>
>>Guy
>>
>>... -:)) _______________________________________________
>>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: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:32:59 +0100
>From: Hughes Mertens <hughes@asveyou.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 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 ]
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 05:01:25 -0700
>From: Pinhole Blender <chris@pinholeblender.com>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] Negative Scanners
>
>Tom,
>At home and at school I use Epson brand scanners. My home scanner is the
>2450. It has a 4 inch by 9 inch transparency adapter. this was so you
>could scan 4x5 and long strips of 35 and 120. The new scanner they have
>is the 4870. I think it has a 6 inch by 9 inch transparency area. It
>also has an optical resolution of 4800 dpi. The list price is $399.99.
>If you don't need to do 4x5 they have another scanner with 4800 dpi
>resolution that does long strips of 120 or 35, its the 4180 scanner and
>it sells for $199.99. You should be able to get these through you local
>computer store or good camera shop. I've bought 5 so far from
>http://servicephoto.com/
>
>Chris
>- --
>Pinhole Blender
>chris@pinholeblender.com
>http://www.pinholeblender.com
>
>
>
>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Negative Scanners
>>From: "Tom A Lindsay" <pinhole-guy@juno.com>
>>Date: Fri, March 04, 2005 11:24 pm
>>To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
>>
>>Hello All,
>>
>>I'm interested in learning which negative scanners are the best and
>>easiest to work with. This e-mail goes back to the "scanning loooong
>>negs" topic. Anyone with info on the subject is welcome to respond. I
>>also need to know where to get the scanner and the prices for them.
>>Many thanks from a longtime pinholer,
>>
>>"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
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:30:31 -0500
>From: "f/256" <penate@rogers.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] Negative Scanners
>
>- ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tom A Lindsay" <pinhole-guy@juno.com>
>
>
>>I'm interested in learning which negative scanners are the best and
>>easiest to work with. This e-mail goes back to the "scanning loooong
>>negs" topic. Anyone with info on the subject is welcome to respond. I
>>also need to know where to get the scanner and the prices for them.
>>Many thanks from a longtime pinholer,
>>
>>
>
>Tom,
>
>There are at least 2 major issues in scanning negative that are longer than
>what your scanner allows. To start, you need a scanning application able to
>scan 2 or more parts of a long negative, using for all of them the same
>corrections (or non at all). Once you have that, you would need to stitch
>the images.
>
>As for a suitable application, I know that SilverFast Ai is able to do that
>(see this:
>http://www.silverfast.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2429&highlight=panoramic
>
>To stitch the images, you could do it manually (see the bottom of
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/panoscans.htm ) or use software to help you
>do it, there is a plethora of applications out there or you could use what
>some think is the best, but very difficult to use, PTAssembler+Panorama
>Tools+Photoshop combination. The expert on this method is Max Lyons, he
>uses digital cameras to make panoramic (or not) images with outrageously
>combined resolutions, he probably has the record with an image consisting of
>196 different images stitched together to form a over 1 billion pixels!!
>See it here: http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm and do not miss
>his gallery http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/index.html or at least take
>a look to this smaller one, just 340 megapixels!
><http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/cgi-bin/image.pl?showFileName=DC_IMG_6256
>- -IMG_6318_National_Building_Museum_Interior.jpg&gallery=0> and make sure you
>click on the link to the crops of the full size image.
>
>I too am looking for a flat bed scanner capable of doing 4x5 at least. If
>you ask me at this moment what scanner I would buy, the answer would be
>Epson 4870 PRO, the pro version comes with SilverFast Ai and also with
>ArcSoft Panorama Maker. I am not suggesting that scanner is the one you
>should buy, but it should definitely be in the list to consider.
>
>Something else, unless the intention is to stitch images for the web and not
>for printing them, you would need a fast computer and lots of memory. How
>fast and how much memory would depend on the size of negatives and the
>resolution they are scanner at.
>
>Guillermo
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:46:17 -0500
>From: "Andy Schmitt" <aschmitt@warwick.net>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>
>Hear, Hear! harrumph, harrumph
>
>i still want one of those $15,ooo digital backs for my 4x5 pinhole... 8o)
>andy
>
>- -----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
>[mailto:owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org] On Behalf Of Guy Glorieux
>Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 11:27 PM
>To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>
>
>Wolfgang Thoma asked:
>
>
>>Can you explain what is the problem with the "full frontal XXXX
>>camera":
>>that it is a XXXX camera or "full frontal"? If I regard the camera, it
>>seems to be perfectly normal ( with the exception of the XXXX, of course)
>>taco
>>
>>
>
>Well, you know, I mean... Hmmm...
>
>It's that normal people make photographic images in the proper manner - you
>know, with a pinhole where light hits directly the photo-sensitive emulsion.
>
>I always find it a bit rude to look at cameras that deliberately chose to
>rely on a L*** (you know, these shiny disks of highly polished convex
>glass) to actually bend light (imagine!) in order to make a photographic
>image.
>
>We'd rather not mention the word L*** in this group (and I apologize for
>having done so in my first email). And we just don't look at cameras that
>don't have their L*** decently covered (unless the camera is gently turned
>sideways to avoid showing the offensive light-bending device).
>
>With digital being the norm in our society, it's becoming more and more
>difficult to avoid exposure to this kind of glass material. I recall having
>
>read somewhere that a growing number of photographers have actually stopped
>using any silver-based material alltogether in their work!!
>
>Shocking, if I may say so! I just can't fathom the depth of such
>perversion.
>
>I'm sure you know that the internet is littered with web sites showing
>pictures of this so-called technologically-advanced photographic equipment.
>Not even a word of caution to warn-off people who consider that a "decent
>exposure" should be long enough to require correction for reciprocity
>failure!
>
>But thank God, this group and other similar fora are actively working at
>safeguarding proper photographic manners. The 5th WorldWide Pinhole
>Photographic Day, on Sunday April 24, will show the strength of this
>momentum.
>
>With very best regards,
>
>Guy
>
>... -:))
>_______________________________________________
>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: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:16:46 +1300
>From: Kate Mahoney <honeyk@paradise.net.nz>
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] scanning loooong negatives
>
>I always photograph large work in preference to scanning and stitching,
>because I have access to a good digital SLR. The time factor alone would
>make it more worthwhile. I am in the process of persuading my school to
>start up a digi reproduction system instead of making slides and one of
>the reasons that scanning is a no-no is because it is more
>time-consuming (by a large factor) and the reproduction quality is
>worse.
>Cheers
>Kate
>
>
>- --
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 4/03/2005
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 19:16:40 -0500
>From: "Daryl Duckworth" <duckworth@creativegalleries.com>
>Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>
>Me too. Price ought to come down in about 5 years.
>
>- ----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Schmitt" <aschmitt@warwick.net>
>To: <pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org>
>Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 10:46 AM
>Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] 8 x 10 Bag Camera...
>
>
>
>
>>Hear, Hear! harrumph, harrumph
>>
>>i still want one of those $15,ooo digital backs for my 4x5 pinhole... 8o)
>>andy
>>
>>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of pinhole-discussion-digest V1 #232
>****************************************
>
>
>
If you want a scanner which not only scans negatives up to 8X10 inches,
but does so with greater accuracy and through greater density (so it
doesn't dropout highlight detail, look at the Microtek i900. these
scanners are flat beds with a separate tray underneath for negatives.
Price -$600.
_______________________________________________
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 Sun Mar 6 08:11:49 2005