I have a crazy idea.

[Chan Tran]

I have this idea similar to the of the analyzer pro but taking a step further. I would call it the "NO FUN Analyzer" as it would take all the fun out of enlarging. Well it's basically a flat bed scanner without the light source or the top lid. You would put it where the easel is and project the image on the flat bed. The scanner would then scan the image and with a time value enter by you to the computer it would display on the screen an image that looks like your final print. Adjustment then can be made to get the image you want. Once you get the image you like on the monitor and then use the same setting for your print. Of course, it would have to be calibrated for the type of paper you use.

 

[argus]

A scanner would take approximately 10000x the time needed by a regular analyser.

G

 

[reellis67]

Wouldn't it be easier to just make a test strip?

- Randy

 

[haris]

...Well it's basically a flat bed scanner without the light source or the top lid. You would put it where the easel is and project the image on the flat bed. The scanner would then scan the image and with a time value enter by you to the computer it would display on the screen an image that looks like your final print. Adjustment then can be made to get the image you want. Once you get the image you like on the monitor and then use the same setting for your print...

Well, so much about ANALOGUE print making

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Haris,

Well, it is sort of analogous to print making...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Paul Sorensen]

Kind of like a Fuji Frontier machine made by MacGyver.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macgyver for those fortunate enough never to have seen the show.

 

[Dave Parker]

Sounds like the 11x14 legal scanner that some guy taped to the back of his LF camera and carried around in the back of his truck with the camera, generator and such, not a new idea..

R.

 

[Donald Miller]

I have this idea similar to the of the analyzer pro but taking a step further. I would call it the "NO FUN Analyzer" as it would take all the fun out of enlarging. Well it's basically a flat bed scanner without the light source or the top lid. You would put it where the easel is and project the image on the flat bed. The scanner would then scan the image and with a time value enter by you to the computer it would display on the screen an image that looks like your final print. Adjustment then can be made to get the image you want. Once you get the image you like on the monitor and then use the same setting for your print. Of course, it would have to be calibrated for the type of paper you use.

Regardless of what others might think and speaking from about thirty years of print making, I think that you have the basis for something that is not presently produced.

I think that rather then wasting skads of paper, it makes sense to have a program utilizing a scanner and the ability to determine the exposure scale of the negative...futhermore to have the ability to utilize a PS type of program to do burns, dodges, and masks on the computer for viewing before doing the final print on silver paper or other process.

It seems to me that this is a logical means of combining two technical disciplines to the betterment of silver printing.

I encourage anyone who has the foresight to find new ways...

 

[FrankB]

Hmmm...

Well, seeing as I print for 'fun'...! :rolleyes:

 

[Kino]

Sure sounds like the flying spot scanners we use on a daily basis in motion picture timing/grading; A plus is that they are analog!

 

[haris]

And to make robot which will, after computer determine correct exposure and contrast, make filter adjustment on colour or VC enlarger head (simillar like Heiland's Splitgrade enlarger head module), and beside that will place appropriate masks for dodging and burning. That means only what one will have to do is to place negative and paper on its place, everything else would computer/robot do...

 

[Timothy]

This sounds like a system that already exists. Dead Link Removed is the link to the description. I realize your idea was to project a conventional image onto a scanner and then manipulate the computer file to get a "printing recipe". The 504DS uses a computer file to project onto conventional printing paper. In practice, I do not see a lot of difference.

Tim R

 

[Chan Tran]

To answer Harris, yes I want the thing to do everything for you EXCEPT how the print looks like. You make all the adjustments until the image on the screen looks the way you like it and then it will make the print, THE OLD FASHION WAY, projecting the image using the enlarger on the piece of photographic paper. That is the objective.

To answer Timothy, NO I do not wish to expose the paper with a digitized computer file. I don't want in any way digital to get into the actual making of the print. The scanner, computer, software etc.. is only to determine paper grade, exposure time and aperture etc... And no my idea is not to manipulate the digital file, but rather manipulate the setting on the enlarger, VC filter, aperture, time etc.. so that the scanner while simulating a piece of paper showing you what you want in the final print.

 

[haris]

Chan, I understand, I was joking...

That would be something like combination of already already existing Jobo, Rh designs, Heiland... products, but on steroides.

Joking again, cant resist...

 

[Andy K]

Wouldn't a negative scanner do this?

 

[Chan Tran]

Wouldn't a negative scanner do this?

Yes and no. I have successfully using a film scanner as an analyzer for my color negative printing. There are a few problems with this approach, any adjustments on the enlarger (filtration, brightness, aperture etc..) must be measured separately and very accurately and input into the scan. This can be very difficult on most enlarger as when you stop the lens down a stop is it really a stop or 1.1 or 0.9 stop? When I dial in an extra 20cc of magenta is it really 20cc or 30 or 15?
Using a scanner illuminated by the image projected directly by the enlarger would solve these problems.

 

[srs5694]

I heard of a project once where somebody took a scanner, removed the light source, and put it in the back of a large-format camera. The result was, essentially, a large-format digital camera. Unfortunately, I didn't save the URL, but a Google search turned up this page, which very briefly describes a similar (perhaps the same) project.

I mention this because it's a similar application of scanner technology, in the sense that you'd need to disable the scanner's light source in both cases. One big problem with your proposal is that flatbed scanners don't capture an entire two-dimensional image at once; they've got a scan head that moves along the document to be scanned. This means that if you were to adapt an existing scanner to this task, it wouldn't be very useful for previewing dodging and burning effects, just the main exposure. Also, I'm not at all sure that a typical enlarger would put out enough light to register -- compare the brightness of an enlarger's image to the amount of light that a scanner generates.

Assuming these technical limitations aren't an issue, I think the tricky part of your proposal would be writing the software to respond to the scanned image in roughly the way that photographic paper would, enabling you to see the effects of your contrast manipulations.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have this idea similar to the of the analyzer pro but taking a step further. I would call it the "NO FUN Analyzer" as it would take all the fun out of enlarging. Well it's basically a flat bed scanner without the light source or the top lid. You would put it where the easel is and project the image on the flat bed. The scanner would then scan the image and with a time value enter by you to the computer it would display on the screen an image that looks like your final print. Adjustment then can be made to get the image you want. Once you get the image you like on the monitor and then use the same setting for your print. Of course, it would have to be calibrated for the type of paper you use.

Chan Tran
This is basically how we print fibre base prints from digital files, except there is no need for the scanner and laser *red, green and blue* light provides the illumination to expose the paper.
you can adjust density, contrast, overall and locally on the computer and then that information is translated to the output of the light from the lasers and applied to the paper.

I think that your idea is good, but where I think it falls short is. yes you can read the light from the enlarger and basically see it on screen , but how are you going to make all your local adjustments and apply them to the paper???
What device is going to send the light to the paper with all the changes and dodges and burns that your require.??

I would be interested in hearing how you continue with this idea of yours.

 

[Chan Tran]

thanks Bob, But no my idea is not to expose the paper any different than one would normally do in the darkroom. The idea is to provide what I shall call "paper simulator" which will display on screen what your print would look like with a certain settings on your enlarger without actually having to make the print. Well I may call it "
digital test strip". But the actual process of exposing the paper is done in the normal way.

 

[srs5694]

thanks Bob, But no my idea is not to expose the paper any different than one would normally do in the darkroom. The idea is to provide what I shall call "paper simulator" which will display on screen what your print would look like with a certain settings on your enlarger without actually having to make the print. Well I may call it "
digital test strip". But the actual process of exposing the paper is done in the normal way.

Actually, I'd call it a "super-enhanced darkroom light meter," because its goal is basically the same as that of a light meter: to tell you the correct exposure and paper contrast to use to get an optimum print. It'd just be much more flexible in the information it would produce -- an image on the computer screen that attempts to simulate what you'll get from a print, vs. a few numbers out of a conventional darkroom light meter.

 

[Markok765]

its not crazy! it would save paper

 

[cesarb]

Well, I've tried using a cheap scanner behind a 5x7 camera and I can assure you're gonna have a lot of fun. After many tests and hardware surgery, it produced some of the most awful images I've ever done. The hole process of making light converge to RGB sensors, using mirrors or who-knows-what-else, will actually deliver a raw image full of stripes, unevenness and all sort of bugs you can imagine. Of course, there's a lot software processing so the scanner can fulfill it's basic task of scanning flat work and it should be done again on every image you make.
Maybe under a enlarger things could work out better using some kind of ground glass so the image could be projected on the right plane and the scanner could act on its usual way. But just don't forget scanners need calibration,which is usually done automatically by its own light source hitting targets inside the machine.
Anyway... good luck!