Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] RE: [film scanners] Re: Scanning old Lantern Slides
> I started the copying to film suggestion and didn't mention a type
>of film. It seemed to be just assumed somehow that it was color.
Sorry, my mistake. While you may not have mentioned color film, it seems to
have been taken that way by those involved in the discussion; and they just
ran with it. I based my statement on a characterization of the entire
explicit discussion as it evolved. Like you, the only color lantern slides
from the period in question that I actually have seen were few in number and
hand colored so I also did not think of color until some one proposed using
color film to do the copying. When the proposal was made I questioned it
given the assumption that the original slides were in black and white so
there would be no point in using color and the use of color would raise
archival questions to boot.
>I've noticed on this list that some have problems and some don't. Maybe
>it doesn't need to be silver based, just my first thought and for archival
>use I would have thought safer.
Like you, I have made the same noticings and come to some of the same
conclusions regarding archival safety, which is why I would shy away from
chromogenic B&W films even though they tend to scan batter and easier
without many of the problems encountered or said to be encountered by the
silver halide films. I was merely attempting to indicate that scanning
silver halide films may not be as simple as your post seemed to imply ( even
if that was not your actual intent or meaning).
>Maybe, but I would suspect a modern camera with exposure control
>should cope for much of this :-). Never used to have problems doing it
>this way in the past. Contrast, yes it can be a problem, but a low
>contrast film/developer as would normally be used for copying B&W
>slides I would think should do for lantern slides. Here I'll admit I don't
>know if these films are still available.
I evidently do not have the faith that you do in the modern camera's when it
comes to such things as exposure controls sans any testing by the user on
the subjects at hand; but in some cases one might need to use filtration to
get rid of things like stains on the slides or reflections off the slides
from stray light or refraction. Here again, sometimes one has problems like
this and sometimes one does not; but with the older lantern slides,
unexpected problems may very well arise which would not take place with
standard film based transparencies or negatives, which would only be known
via testing and whose solutions would only be worked out via testing. As
for your comments on contrast control, I agree; but the variety of films and
developers available and easily accessible in pre-packaged form are few in
number for starters; but also the current 35mm films on the market for
camera as opposed to lab use tend to be on the contrasty side to begin with
and often require some pre-flashing which in turn requires some testing.
>I thought this was for a charity with little money. My suggestion stemmed
>from talk of the need for specialist and expensive scanners, i.e. a
>reason to avoid large format.
I understand. I think that I was not so much suggesting the use of 4x5 Pro
Copy as pointing out that unlike it current camera films do not have the
same properties for controlling contrasts and the like as does Pro Copy
which is intended for that purpose and not from general photography in
normal contrasty environments.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Charles Stirling
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 6:44 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: [film scanners] Re: Scanning old Lantern
** Reply to note from email@example.com Thu, 7 Feb 2002
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or