oh yeah for a dirt cheap one that produces decent results, a v500 is pretty good
― 乒乓, Wednesday, 21 November 2012 23:11 (eleven years ago) link
i'm gonna be scanning like ... all the time, i think. i've been developing a lot over the last while & just checked my bank balance, & ... :/i found one for a price i'm okay with, anyhow, so will probably go for it. i just want like ... pretty okay scans, for the most part. colour is the thing i'm fussy about, grain or detail barely really registering. ty for the guidance.
am belatedly looking forward to learning this stuff. it feels like a tangent from the whole consideration of what photos even are, what they look like, trying to work out what you're striving for with a digital image.
― absurdly pro-D (schlump), Wednesday, 21 November 2012 23:18 (eleven years ago) link
I have a V500 and it does the job just fine, usually less saturated than the basic lab scans but also less murky and with more detail. One or two shots in particular where I'd totally passed over the lab scan, but the V500 actually brought out an image. On the flip side, there's maybe a handful (at most) of images where I've not been able to recreate the colours of the lab scan.
I rarely use 120 film so I'm tempted to move on to a dedicated 35mm scanner, but it's probably unnecessary for now.
― michaellambert, Thursday, 22 November 2012 23:58 (eleven years ago) link
curled negatives
oh god
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Thursday, 13 December 2012 02:40 (eleven years ago) link
lol how long have they been curled for
― 乒乓, Thursday, 13 December 2012 02:41 (eleven years ago) link
I do the reverse curl and keep em in a canister for a day or two
i got a few sets of prints & a few sets of negatives back from the lab today, & they all came in the same envelope; those that were on the outside are curled, my god it is terrible; i've been trying to scan them by slamming the scanner lid down like a malcontent pianist. i'm trying to just get some reference scans so i can pick a few things to get printed, so i'm not even starting to worry about colours (bluish) or tones on the b/w stuff (blown out). this is basically my terrifying entrance to the world of negative scanning, the idea i am now the guy responsible for all of this process-ing is p harrowing.
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Thursday, 13 December 2012 02:45 (eleven years ago) link
reverse curl tip much appreciated btw
the more gentle way is to sleeve them and put them in between two giant pieces of lead granite
― 乒乓, Thursday, 13 December 2012 02:47 (eleven years ago) link
yeah. they're sleeved (the complicated folding of which feels like part of the cause/effect thing) & i'll find something to put them in between (currently, for the transport home: in the new & conveniently scaled charles burns book). it really feels like a whole other thing to be dealing with the delicacy of negatives, anyway. like i want to buy gloves; i feel so klutzy when i have the instinct to paw away dust. are you guys all like antiquers, with glasses perched on the edge of your nose & airbrushes within reach on your solid pine desks & mickey mouse gloves worn as soon as one enters the controlled environs in which photo handling takes place?
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Thursday, 13 December 2012 02:50 (eleven years ago) link
I don't wear gloves I handle them by the sprocket holes
― 乒乓, Thursday, 13 December 2012 02:53 (eleven years ago) link
You also have to be sure your monitor is adjusted properly. The differences you state, sound like light-temperature variances from location to location.
Once you learn the temperature of natural light (or even flash pics which most flashes correct for temperature variances), then it'll be easier for you to correct them.
If you have no idea what I mean by "temperature of light", then I can't help you any further.
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Thursday, 13 December 2012 08:34 (eleven years ago) link
cool new photo rabbit-holes to go down
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Thursday, 13 December 2012 08:37 (eleven years ago) link
looking at filmstrips is really awesome btw
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-vTpsx3Bpv8k/UMmT5pY0pOI/AAAAAAAAAMc/fBRfklMt8gk/s912/2.jpg
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Thursday, 13 December 2012 08:38 (eleven years ago) link
Sandy destroyed my favorite photo developer (at least I doubt he'll be coming back) so I tried a new $3/roll place and they just *wrecked* my negatives. they came back unsleeved in a cardboard box and the chemicals must have been waaay off because the negs are super faint.good thing I'm on a scanning hiatus atm
also reverse curl is all you need. the day I get negatives back they can be hard to scan, but within a couple days they generally lie pretty flat.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Thursday, 13 December 2012 14:04 (eleven years ago) link
it sucks trying to find a quality developer in my ridiculous price range!
there's a place near me in Chinatown off of Bowery that does develop only for 3.75, haven't tried them yet tho
― 乒乓, Thursday, 13 December 2012 14:31 (eleven years ago) link
http://www.yelp.com/biz/yardley-photo-studio-new-york#query:photo
this is the place? what's kinda funny is that when I was going through my parents negs from the 80s I'm pretty sure they got some of them developed at the exact same place
they also do 120 and 220 for relatively cheap too
nb: don't know how the quality is
― 乒乓, Thursday, 13 December 2012 14:44 (eleven years ago) link
hmm, might have to give it a shot. I saw a place on Mulberry, next to Columbus park that I might have to try also.it's tough though, you really have no idea how well a place will do until you get the results back.my disappointing rolls came from the place at Lafayette and Walker fyi
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Thursday, 13 December 2012 15:29 (eleven years ago) link
i totally have enough ~concerns~ & #feelings about negative scanning to start a Help Schlump Scan thread, but i just wanted to ask a really general question to help me figure out the initial fumbling i'm doing. i've been scanning a little with my v500, am working through a couple of rolls of superia, & it's really interesting, just seeing how ""naturally"" dark & light some images are, & how malleable they & their colours are from the point they're on screen. something i think i only just realised is that part of what's significant about colours in a photograph isn't necessarily just tones, but the relationship of tones - & so adjusting all of them at the same time can preserve some of the relationships & i guess moods of the palette, or i guess isolating or adjusting one band of colour could change the dynamic.
anyway: to anyone who scans, what do you do wrt the 'passes' function, or the option to multiply expose? it seemed so smart to me, the idea that repeat scans & a combined image would limit the effect of deficiencies of the scan, but in reality i've kinda just ended up with some blurry or grainy images. it's weird. scanning is going okay but i'm still wrestling with it, & trying out different settings to limit weirdly upfront grain:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-4wylsfa_wFs/UN1TqsjN2EI/AAAAAAAAAbs/69jdrlij3xA/s700/1538.jpg
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Sunday, 30 December 2012 23:58 (eleven years ago) link
I don't bother with multiple passes, because it adds soooo much time, and provides only a marginal improvement when I can even notice one.
― lou reed scott walker monks niagra (chinavision!), Monday, 31 December 2012 00:24 (eleven years ago) link
ha, thank you. i had got into a rhhythm of starting scanning & then going to do the washing up or something, now scanning quickly is winning out. i'm trying the multiple exposure thing at the moment (it's one ... bright scan & one dim scan, or something), it's going okay. the noise is eventually soothing.
― kristof-profiting-from-a-childs-illiteracy.html (schlump), Monday, 31 December 2012 00:55 (eleven years ago) link
advice on scanning polaroids? they look deep and interestingly colored to my eyes but the scans look washed out and boring unless saturation is cranked up and then they look okay but not as appealing as the original.
looking forward to your replies,dylan
― dylannn, Wednesday, 5 August 2015 20:55 (eight years ago) link
dylannn - forgive me if this seems obvious but it sounds like the issue might be flatness more than desaturation? maybe bump contrast just a bit and/or futz with darkening the darks and lightening the lights specifically? i've been shifting to using lightroom for futzing with scanned prints (family photos) as much as for working with RAW files and the same toolkit translates very well ime. little s-curve, little vibrance, gets closer maybe. but i honestly haven't fucked with polaroid much at all and am eager to rescan the very few i do have on flickr that were done terribly ten years ago.
― never ending bath infusion (Doctor Casino), Tuesday, 19 April 2016 02:20 (seven years ago) link