Is this acceptable for the gallery

[jmailand]

I just processed some c41 images taken with my Horizont panorama camera. I not set up in my darkroom to make color prints so I have to scan If I want to put any of them in the gallery. I have 2 ways to scan them, with my Canon flatbed scanner with is not very good with making sharp scans of small negatives, or using my dedicated Minolta film scanner which make much better 35mm scans, but will only let me scan "one" fame at a time. With the Minolta scanner I scan both halves of the "same" negative a reassemble them with a simple stitch program. I was wondering if this digital reassembly of a "one frame, one shot" negative would be considered acceptable for posting in gallery. If use the Canon scanner I have to "unsharp mask" the hell out of the them just to make the look like the true sharpness in the negative. With the Minolta film scanner I don't have to do any sharpening, which seems to me less of a digital manipulation than using a simple stitch program to get to 2 halves of one negative back together.

Anyway I was looking for opinions on how people feel about this.

Thanks James.

 

[jmailand]

revision to first post.

I should ad that by saying "one frame" at a time for the Minolta scanner , I mean it will only scan at the 24 by 35mm "regular" frame/negative size. The Horizont takes a 24 x 65mm frame/negative picture, with a one scanning/sweeping motion of the lens onto the film, thus it is a true panorama camera.

James,

 

[Mick Fagan]

James, I have a Horizon camera, I make a small print and scan that.

Basically, if you are fiddling to get a true representation of your negative/print, it shouldn't matter.

My take on it is:- one does have to do some fiddling, to get the electronic version looking remotely like the analogue original.

Mick.

 

[roteague]

Negative/transparency scans are generally allowed in the gallery. I wouldn't have a problem with what you are asking, but others may not feel the same way, so let's give them a chance to respond. I'm glad you asked.

 

[Sean]

My take on it is:- one does have to do some fiddling, to get the electronic version looking remotely like the analogue original.

Exactly.

 

[Andy K]

Hi James.

If you plan on making a lot of panoramic photographs you might consider getting hold of one of the Epson Perfection series of flatbed scanners. They also scan negs . The interesting part is you can also get them to scan the whole strip as well as individual frames. This came in very handy when I was making double exposures and wanted to see where to crop the frame.

Here is a scan I made just now using my Epson Perfection 2480 Photo. As you can see it covers almost four frames, which should be plenty for scanning Horizon frames.

 

[ricksplace]

IMHO, we have to digitize any image to post here. Scan 'em, stitch 'em, and post 'em, and we can all have a look.

Rick.

 

[DBP]

Hi James.

If you plan on making a lot of panoramic photographs you might consider getting hold of one of the Epson Perfection series of flatbed scanners. They also scan negs . The interesting part is you can also get them to scan the whole strip as well as individual frames. This came in very handy when I was making double exposures and wanted to see where to crop the frame.

Here is a scan I made just now using my Epson Perfection 2480 Photo. As you can see it covers almost four frames, which should be plenty for scanning Horizon frames.

That's why I bought mine. It does a decent job, too, as evidenced by my latest photo posted.

 

[pentaxuser]

What we seem to be faced with is either a poor scan or a much better scan to look at, enjoy, critique etc. The only difference being that the better scan has to be stitched.

As the whole gallery can only exist by scanning anyway i.e. involves a digital process then surely it's a no brainer to allow the stitching scanner. All it does is to give us a better representation of what is on the neg. Even were we to insist on it being a print scan, I'd still want the best i.e. most authentic, representation of waht's on the print by whichever scanner achieved this.

pentaxuser

 

[jmailand]

I just uploaded to my gallery a example of what I thought was the best from the first roll I developed. (called Still Lake)

I should add to my original post that my Canon flatbed is their top of the line 9950f with FARE their version of Digital ICE. While my Minolta is the Dual Scan IV.I also have a Epson 1650 Perfection flatbed. I just think having true lens optics with focusing like the Minolta is just better than any flatbed scanner. Too bad Canon and Minolta both stopped making dedicated film scanners.

James,