Digital Contact Proof Sheets

sanking · Jul 6, 2007

This has probably come up before, but here goes again. And hopefully this topic is within APUG guidelines.

Basically, if you have exposed a roll of film and store the negatives in clear proof sheets, say Print File sheets or equivalent, you can make good contact proof sheets by simply scanning the sheets, assuming your scanner allows scans up to 8X10.

If you simply lay the plastic sheets on the scanner you may get artifacts from uneven contact of the plastic and glass. What I propose is that you have a sheet of anti-glare glass cut to fit over the scanner bed and position the proof sheet on the anti-glare side of the glass, and then flip and place on the scanner bed. The glass will apply pressure on the contact sheet, and the anti-glare side, which is like anti-newton glass, will reduce or eliminate newton rings.

If you scan at a relatively low resolution you can easily scan and save one contact sheet every 2-3 minutes. So if you have been on a trip and exposed some 30-40 rolls of film, after development you just put the film into proof sheet, scan, and print. A nice short cut that allows you to quickly see and evaluate your work.

Works with both color and b&w, just adjust the scan parameters as required.

Sandy King

Harrigan · Jul 6, 2007

I use a similar method but no anti glare and scan em right through the plastic. I've not made a regular proof sheet in perhaps 10 years or longer. After all its only a temp proof to see quickly what the image looks like (for me).

I also have a huge lino hell topaz scanner that I can proof big ULF negs with. The scanner only does 9x18" film but 12x18 reflective. By placing a clean white sheet of paper ontop my 12x16" film, and that on the glass platen I can get a decent reflective scan of my neg. I simply scan it like its a print and reverse it in the software to get a quick image proof. All I am looking at is to see if the composition is acceptable but I can actually get a good scan like this if I work at it. This does not work on cheaper consumer grade scanners that I've tried or perhaps with high FBF (film base fog).

Ole · Jul 6, 2007

I've never thought of doing it that way, for two reasons:

My scanner (Agfa duoscan T1200) scans film up to 8x10", and a negative file page is larger than that.

A Negative file page fits very well on a 24x30cm (9.5x12") sheet of paper, so I've always made my contact sheets on that size paper. Then i put contact sheets and negative file pages in the same ring binder, so that the contact sheet is on the left side and the negatives in the same order are on the right. The back side of the next contact sheet gives me a white background for the negatives, just enough to verify that I've really got hold of the correct strip.

My negative albums are in my darkroom, my PC is in a different room on a different floor. why not have everything available where it's used?

BTW - making a contact sheet print takes 15 seconds (standard exposure), then I ready the next sheet when #1 is in the (90 sec) developer. So each sheet takes less than 1 1/2 minutes to make if I have enough. And then I get down to printing, even before the contact sheets are dry.

Bob Carnie · Jul 6, 2007

Sandy
works just fine, we use a 12x18 inch platform and put up more than one sheet , scan and you can adjust each image according to taste and then print as a full enlarged contact sheet for black and white and colour
Bob

sanking said:
This has probably come up before, but here goes again. And hopefully this topic is within APUG guidelines.

Basically, if you have exposed a roll of film and store the negatives in clear proof sheets, say Print File sheets or equivalent, you can make good contact proof sheets by simply scanning the sheets, assuming your scanner allows scans up to 8X10.

If you simply lay the plastic sheets on the scanner you may get artifacts from uneven contact of the plastic and glass. What I propose is that you have a sheet of anti-glare glass cut to fit over the scanner bed and position the proof sheet on the anti-glare side of the glass, and then flip and place on the scanner bed. The glass will apply pressure on the contact sheet, and the anti-glare side, which is like anti-newton glass, will reduce or eliminate newton rings.

If you scan at a relatively low resolution you can easily scan and save one contact sheet every 2-3 minutes. So if you have been on a trip and exposed some 30-40 rolls of film, after development you just put the film into proof sheet, scan, and print. A nice short cut that allows you to quickly see and evaluate your work.

Works with both color and b&w, just adjust the scan parameters as required.

Sandy King

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jul 6, 2007

I've been thinking about keeping an electronic file of my contacts, but for some reason it never seems useful enough to me. If I had to share my contacts with a lot of people, adding indices &c, of course I would go on the computer. But for my own printing, like Ole, I just start each session with a few quick proofs from printfile, process in batch, and then proceed to start printing.

copake_ham · Jul 6, 2007

I use a dedicated film scanner so see nothing to gain by using my low-res flatbed in this manner.

And then the question arises - where is this thread going?

Seems as if folks have got some Summer scanner madness.

sanking · Jul 6, 2007

copake_ham said:
I use a dedicated film scanner so see nothing to gain by using my low-res flatbed in this manner.

And then the question arises - where is this thread going?

Seems as if folks have got some Summer scanner madness.

I don't understand your point. I am talking about making contact proof sheets of 35mm and medium formt negatives of about 8X10" . This can be done at low resolution very quickly.

If the goal is a scan of 35mm or medium format negatives with a dedicated film scanner of a resolution high enough for digital printing, this will take a very long time for just one frame. One could of course batch scan 35mm and medium format negatives with a very high end flatbed (Screen, Creo, etc.) with results comparable (or better) than the dedicated film scanners that most people use. But that is another issue.

Sandy King

copake_ham · Jul 6, 2007

sanking said:
I don't understand your point. I am talking about making contact proof sheets of 35mm and medium formt negatives of about 8X10" . This can be done at low resolution very quickly.

If the goal is a scan of 35mm or medium format negatives with a dedicated film scanner of a resolution high enough for digital printing, this will take a very long time for just one frame. One could of course batch scan 35mm and medium format negatives with a very high end flatbed (Screen, Creo, etc.) with results comparabel (or better) than the dedicated film scanners that most people use. But that is another issue.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Well the first thing is that I just don't understand is how you are going to determine the quality of a pic by using a low-res flatbed scanner to create contact sheets?

I cannot understand how a low-res neg scan will give you the image quality you would desire to determine the simple decision of sharpness vs. OOF etc. much less whether or not you want to print a given shot.

A scanned photo negative is "pixelated" to begin with - doing it at "low res" (e.g. some level of jpeg quality) would seem to prevent critical analysis of the actual quality of the negative altogether. My point in the prior post is that I would be less sceptical of your methodology if you proposed to scan in a hi-res mode (e.g. use a dedicated film scanner) as I do (e.g. resolution beyond "digital RAW" in scan quality).

I use a Nikon 5000D (and about to fire up a new 9000D so I can scan MF's). Using Nikon View software - I can readily produce a "contact sheet" of a scanned roll of film - and at, at least on a monitor, "loup-able" levels of resolution.

Now the "work flow" time of my method is somewhat longer that yours - it takes about 2 minutes to scan a 6-frame strip of 35mm negs (rendering 67mb files/frame of resolution) - but the resulting "contact sheet" is far more useful as to determining "printability" of a photo.

Now, as to the second point....

Do you now see where we can go if we continue scanner discussions here?

sanking · Jul 6, 2007

copake_ham said:
Sandy,

Well the first thing is that I just don't understand is how you are going to determine the quality of a pic by using a low-res flatbed scanner to create contact sheets?

I cannot understand how a low-res neg scan will give you the image quality you would desire to determine the simple decision of sharpness vs. OOF etc. much less whether or not you want to print a given shot.

A scanned photo negative is "pixelated" to begin with - doing it at "low res" (e.g. some level of jpeg quality) would seem to prevent critical analysis of the actual quality of the negative altogether. My point in the prior post is that I would be less sceptical of your methodology if you proposed to scan in a hi-res mode (e.g. use a dedicated film scanner) as I do (e.g. resolution beyond "digital RAW" in scan quality).

I use a Nikon 5000D (and about to fire up a new 9000D so I can scan MF's). Using Nikon View software - I can readily produce a "contact sheet" of a scanned roll of film - and at, at least on a monitor, "loup-able" levels of resolution.

Now the "work flow" time of my method is somewhat longer that yours - it takes about 2 minutes to scan a 6-frame strip of 35mm negs (rendering 67mb files/frame of resolution) - but the resulting "contact sheet" is far more useful as to determining "printability" of a photo.

Now, as to the second point....

Do you now see where we can go if we continue scanner discussions here?

First, the digital contact scan is for general evaluation, not to determine ultimate image quality. For that I would always look at the negative itself, not at a contact proof sheet, either made via scan or wet processing.

Second, I do see where we are going with scanner discussions. There will always be objections on APUG to the "digital word." However, for your information, there have been many previous threads on APUG about making contact proof sheets with scanners."

Sandy

copake_ham · Jul 6, 2007

sanking said:
First, the digital contact scan is for general evaluation, not to determine ultimate image quality. For that I would always look at the negative itself, not at a contact proof sheet, either made via scan or wet processing.

Second, I do see where we are going with scanner discussions. There will always be objections on APUG to the "digital word." However, for your information, there have been many previous threads on APUG about making contact proof sheets with scanners."

Sandy

Sandy,

As to the second point; in the last 24 or so hours at least one scanner thread was initially closed - and then resurrected but into The Lounge (where I do not go).

Another, in response, was an issue b/w the OP and the mods + Sean.

Now, as to the first point.

This is what I fail to understand.

The idea of doing a quick, flatbed, low-res scan of the negs seems to be to determine exactly what?

You said, it's for "general evaluation" but "not to determine ultimate image quality".

So then, my query is: Why bother?

Given work flow considerations, it is true that you can line up 24 or 36 ex. of 35mm negs on a flatbed scanner and render a low-res file (and presumably, print out) of them in about two or three minutes.

Whereas, I can use a dedicated film scanner and figuring three minutes each (scan time plus change over) can scan these negs, assuming 6 negs/strip, over 18 minutes.

So, I am now behind you by 15 to 16 minutes.

Except, my images are extremely high-res. I can immediately determine not only which compositions are worth considering for printing - but which are actually of sufficient "image quality" to make it worthwhile to consider doing so.

You, OTOH, need to then isolate those negs you want to "consider" and do further inspection as to actual image quality.

At the end of the day, I do not see what your methodology achieves by using a low-res flatbed scanner to produce "digital" contact sheets. Since the output you obtain then requires further inspection to determine whether or not you want to print.

sanking · Jul 6, 2007

copake_ham said:
Sandy,

At the end of the day, I do not see what your methodology achieves by using a low-res flatbed scanner to produce "digital" contact sheets. Since the output you obtain then requires further inspection to determine whether or not you want to print.

George.

OK, then don't bother with it.

Whatever floats your boat.

Sandy

copake_ham · Jul 6, 2007

sanking said:
George.

OK, then don't bother with it.

Whatever floats your boat.

Sandy

Agreed. 'Nuff said.

Harrigan · Jul 7, 2007

Since 35mm contacts are so small you can hardly get a decent proof from a contact sheet made in the dkrm anyway. You really need to enlarge them to see the critical details but of course at higher res the flatbed scanner is very useful for this as well. I proof all my images from all formats with a quick scan before spending any silver paper.

I also find clients enjoy seeing enlarged proofs onscreen for picking out the images they would like to have hand printed. Its much easier for me to scan the neg pages and show the proofs onscreen at a large scale then to do enlarged contacts. I can do real contacts but at 15 bucks each most people skip them, go figure.

Bob Carnie · Jul 7, 2007

I use the method Sandy is describing for two reasons.
Archiving of thousands of contact sheets are a pain in the ass, This method allows me to collate my work easier.
General evaluation as stated just like if I were to make regular contacts in the darkroom.
One thing that I do that may be different from others is to scan a higher rez and then pick from various rolls my first choices on a paticular project and then make an extremely large colour contact which places a *show* together and see how things work out.
I do this with all my 11x14 prints for projects I am working with as well and by ganging them up I can definately see what is not working.

Regarding the second ques, this is possible for me and it is basically what we would do a few years back, instead we would make small 3x5 proofs of each image in black and white or colour and then paste/mount them on boards and look at them the same way.

kind of like comparing the use of a microwave to reheat some soup rather than starting a fire to do the exact same thing....

different tools once again, not worth arguing over in my books.

copake_ham · Jul 7, 2007

Bob Carnie said:
....

One thing that I do that may be different from others is to scan a higher rez and then pick from various rolls my first choices on a paticular project and then make an extremely large colour contact which places a *show* together and see how things work out.....

Bob,

I think my main "point" is the level of "res" one uses.

I don't see what is obtained in sanking's "work flow" by first doing a low-res scan of the film strips - other than to be able to output all of the shots on one 8x10 printout.

While a high-res dedicated film scanner run will take longer to scan than his suggestion - it will "skip" the middle step that is necessitated by using a low-res flatbed. Namely, further scanning in high-res or visually inspecting the shots for sharpness/OOF etc.

You are using a hi-res flatbed - that is a different work flow - since it provides you with the same high quality image to determine whether to print or not without necessitating further inspection.

I know less than nothing about hi-res flatbeds since I scan 35mm with the 5000D (and soon, also, MF with the new 9000D). But I actually think we are on the "same side of the coin".

As to the "second point", that is for the mods to decide - I didn't start this thread.

Look forward to meeting you in Ft. Collins in '08!

David A. Goldfarb · Jul 7, 2007

I fiddled with this briefly a few years ago and decided it was easier just to proof on paper the normal way. I file the contacts with the negs, so having digital proofs meant having parallel filing systems, which was an added complication for me, and it also meant having to turn on the computer and find the proof when I wanted to print, rather than having it right there with the negs.

I also proof with the negs in direct contact with the paper, not through a filing page, so that I can judge sharpness with a loupe from the contact sheet. With a digital proof, it was necessary to check the neg for sharpness.

I also find that a contact print, ideally on the same paper as will be used for the print, provides a better guide to printing, relative exposure and burning and dodging before I even make the first enlargement of a negative.

I do sometimes scan negs to experiment a bit or try a few different possibilities before going into the darkroom, particularly lately when my darkroom time has been very limited, but in the end I find it less efficient than just printing and seeing how it all works out on paper.

sanking · Jul 7, 2007

copake_ham said:
Bob,

I think my main "point" is the level of "res" one uses.

I don't see what is obtained in sanking's "work flow" by first doing a low-res scan of the film strips - other than to be able to output all of the shots on one 8x10 printout.

While a high-res dedicated film scanner run will take longer to scan than his suggestion - it will "skip" the middle step that is necessitated by using a low-res flatbed. Namely, further scanning in high-res or visually inspecting the shots for sharpness/OOF etc.

You are using a hi-res flatbed - that is a different work flow - since it provides you with the same high quality image to determine whether to print or not without necessitating further inspection.

I know less than nothing about hi-res flatbeds since I scan 35mm with the 5000D (and soon, also, MF with the new 9000D). But I actually think we are on the "same side of the coin".

As to the "second point", that is for the mods to decide - I didn't start this thread.

Look forward to meeting you in Ft. Collins in '08!

I believe there may be some misunderstanding here about what a low resolution scan means to me. When I make digital contact sheets I scan at 600 dpi, which is more than enough for a 1X or even 2X magnification so that you can easily evaluate a print from the file just by looking at.

I distinguish in this way from normal flow in scanning where I rarely scan below 2400 dpi. But we are not talking about that as it would clearly be something for the hybrid forum. My opinion, and it may not be worth much on APUG with Sean and the moderators, is that this is a scanner thread that is about using a scanner as an filing system and is should be just as much accepted on the forum as, for example, a question about how to scan for the gallery. In other words, this thread is not about using digital in the work flow of actually making a print.

As for how useful this is, I think it may depend on what type of work you, how much you shoot, and how you print. I don't print any color, so making contact prints of my medium format color negatives would be something I would have to pay a lab to do if I were not able to scan them on a flatbed. And, as an alternative printer first and foremost I rarely print in silver, so setting up to make wet-processed contact sheets of my medium format B&W negatives would also be fairly onerous for me. I also believe that the digital contact is much more appealing to people who shoot a lot or who have to deal with large numbers of rolls of film. For anyone like this I truly don't see how it can not save time (and a lot of it).

Sandy King

copake_ham · Jul 7, 2007

sanking said:
I believe there may be some misunderstanding here about what a low resolution scan means to me. When I make digital contact sheets I scan at 600 dpi, which is more than enough for a 1X or even 2X magnification so that you can easily evaluate a print from the file just by looking at....

....

Sandy King

Now this may be where we may get on thin ice with the mods.

The 5000D/9000D scans at 4000 dpi - which is why I contend that I see little workflow gain in going through the low-res contact sheet scan. To me the 15 to 18 minutes time saving of scanning a 36 exp. set of negs on a low-res flatbed is negated by the fact that the resulting output will not give you the detail needed to make an informed print decision.

As David points out - he expects a print contact sheet that can be "louped" for such a decision. As Bob points out - different tools, same result - a hi-res "contact sheet" scan will give you the m/l the same - albeit you will then likely "loup" via a monitor.

But I still cannot understand why you want to add an intervening step to the process by starting with a low-res scan? It seems to me that you are suggesting doing a low-res contact sheet scan to then determine which shots should be printed as contacts that can then be louped etc.

Oh well, as you said earlier, whatever floats you boat....

sanking · Jul 7, 2007

copake_ham said:
But I still cannot understand why you want to add an intervening step to the process by starting with a low-res scan? It seems to me that you are suggesting doing a low-res contact sheet scan to then determine which shots should be printed as contacts that can then be louped etc.

Oh well, as you said earlier, whatever floats you boat....

Because high resolution scans take a huge amount of time, and what I want to create here is a contact sheet that is of the same value to me as one that I might make in the darkroom. That is, I want to be able to look at the shots I made as positives to decide which ones I may want to convert into larger prints. Same way I used to do this with wet processed contact sheets. These contact prints have just as much apparent detail as ones you would make with wet processing, but why would I want to pay a lab $7.50 to make a contact sheet of (8) 6X9 negatives when I can do it myself in a minute or two at a cost of less than a dollar. And I have shot over 200 rolls of medium format color negative film this year, so that would add up to some big bucks.

I can accept and understand that this might not be something you would find useful, but why argue with me about what I know for sure is useful to me? I understand my needs a lot better than you.

Sandy

Michael W · Jul 7, 2007

Sandy, sounds like a good system to me. One thing I'm not understanding is whether you are printing out these contacts, or do you just file them on the hard drive & screen view them?

sanking · Jul 7, 2007

goldie said:
Sandy, sounds like a good system to me. One thing I'm not understanding is whether you are printing out these contacts, or do you just file them on the hard drive & screen view them?

Absolutely I print them out, and store them right beside the negative, as I used to do with wet-processed contact prints. And they have just as much apparent detail.

I wonder, what do other people do when they expose 20-30 rolls of medium format color film and take it to the lab for processing? Do they pay for a contact sheet? I certainly would if there were a professional job and time was important to me, but I figure, why not save the money and in my own free time scan the sheets on a flatbed. The result is every bit as good as if the lab had done it for me.

Sandy

Bob Carnie · Jul 8, 2007

Sandy
As you well know I own a lab that processes film for clients from every nook and cranny.
Before Elevator there was Silver Shack, a little company I started in the photo district in Toronto 1990. for 10 years we did an amazing volume of process and contact in colour and black and white.
Today we still do a considerable volume of film, but we no longer make contact sheets. This weekend being an exception as my client from Copenhagen is here right now with 400 sheets of 8x10 film that we are processing and contacting.*this is very uncommon situation* and I believe it is because he is using large format.
Roll film has definately gone into the hands of the photographers who order *Process Only, Do Not Cut* and go to minilabs for proof prints or take them home and do exactly what you are saying, you are not alone and I believe it makes financial sense.
For clients that I am doing show work for and the film is to be part of the show , I insist on contacting the work myself. *much like taking batting practice in the big leauges* it gives me a first hand look at my clients lighting, exposure, allows me to get into their head a bit. Next stage is 8x10 proof prints of the selects and we are generous with our selection, Next is portfolio fibre prints *usually 11x14* and finally the show prints.
This allows me three swings at the film as well as a lot of discussion with my clients regarding the work, and then onto the final art prints.
We charge $8.50 a contact sheet and as you say it can add up real fast.
Damm this digital revolution, I had it made in 1994.

sanking said:
Absolutely I print them out, and store them right beside the negative, as I used to do with wet-processed contact prints. And they have just as much apparent detail.

I wonder, what do other people do when they expose 20-30 rolls of medium format color film and take it to the lab for processing? Do they pay for a contact sheet? I certainly would if there were a professional job and time was important to me, but I figure, why not save the money and in my own free time scan the sheets on a flatbed. The result is every bit as good as if the lab had done it for me.

Sandy

User Removed · Jul 8, 2007

I find it amusing how so many people today are just trying to find a way to do something that used to be done traditionally, now on a computer. It may not be anymore efficient or practical, but I think people are just fixated and really love doing things on computers compared to doing the physical work. I'm not talking about just photography related things, but also many tasks that could be done very easily, someone has found a way to do it online. For example-turning on and preheating your oven via the internet.

When I used to shoot roll film and make contact sheets, it seriously only took a couple minutes and about 2-3 sheets of cheap 8x10 RC paper to get a physical print that I could have to store with the film, write notes or circle certain good pictures, ect. I would think having to sit down in front of the computer and scan it, then mess around with it in Photoshop for awhile, would be more time consuming. On top of that, if you want a decent print of that digital contact sheet, I would think it would have to be printed out on decent quality paper, good inks and a good printer, which would probably be more expensive than a few sheets of RC.

Shawn Dougherty · Jul 8, 2007

I have to agree with Ryan on this... I can't imagine contacting on RC takes any longer or is any more expensive than the scanning/ps processes and cost of paper and inks respectively(for BW).

I also thought one of the common threads here was that we all spent more than enough time in front of the computer already? I for one far prefer making and working with silver contact sheets to even more time spent in front of the computer. To each his own of course but I'll stick with silver. Shawn

Bob Carnie · Jul 8, 2007

Though both of you are indeed right, if you have a darkroom set up in your home and you are comfortable with making silver prints making rc contacts is a good route to go .
If you are not so inclined , scan inkjet is another very good way to solve the problem. I do not think the reasons for doing this is lack of commitment and time to work in a darkroom but that of convienience and practicality of ones workflow with large volumes of roll film.
I think part of the loss of contacting my company has seen is related to the $8.50 a sheet cost we charge for contacts. For a commercial job this is built into the photographers quote, but for personal work it can get pricey.
I too enjoy silver but choose methods of proofing my personal work based on the best method for my current workflow with a paticular project.

Shawn Dougherty said:
I have to agree with Ryan on this... I can't imagine contacting on RC takes any longer or is any more expensive than the scanning/ps processes and cost of paper and inks respectively(for BW).

I also thought one of the common threads here was that we all spent more than enough time in front of the computer already? I for one far prefer making and working with silver contact sheets to even more time spent in front of the computer. To each his own of course but I'll stick with silver. Shawn

Digital Contact Proof Sheets

sanking

Harrigan

Ole

Moderator

Bob Carnie

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

copake_ham

sanking

copake_ham

sanking

copake_ham

sanking

copake_ham

Harrigan

Bob Carnie

copake_ham

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

sanking

copake_ham

sanking

Michael W

sanking

Bob Carnie

User Removed

Shawn Dougherty

Bob Carnie

Digital Contact Proof Sheets

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency