emulsion side down and histograms

In article .net,
wrote:

When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down? Is there a
rule for this? I thought it went down but my scans are mirrored and I
get different results when emulsion is up or down.

You don't explain what you find "different?" Which produces better results
for you? That is the best answer. If you want to know what Epson
recommends, look at the letter graphic/decal on the holder. That shows how
the lettering on your film should read when you look at the film after it is
placed in the holder.

Doug

I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
photos of his artwork.

"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
vibrant."

That said I went to the Epson manual (for what that's worth) and read
all your suggestions and decided emulsion side down.

I read all the posts from everyone numerous times because I'm very new
at this and there's so much to learn and I thank you all for all your
time and help.

I've also decided to scan "raw" and let my partner do the corrections
in photoshop. It's very difficult to correct (edit) someone else's
artwork, especially since we all see different. Not losing data is very
important for us. If this doesn't work, I still have a scanner and I
still have slides and I'll do it again.

I would like to do some scans adjusting the white point. I also see
mention of setting the exposure. I haven't figure out yet how to do
either. My scans seem to be coming out darker than the originals.
Suggestions welcome. I did download silverfast docs and will go through
those.

So once again,

Thank you all so much. Even though I know so little, I've learned alot
from you.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

In article , Linda
writes
In article .net,
wrote:

When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down?

I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
photos of his artwork.

"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
vibrant."

OK, now I am confused. ;-)

I thought you and/or your partner were scanning 35mm or 4x5 film, not
original artwork on sandpaper. I am not sure where the film or the
emulsion comes into the process here. Obviously, on the original
artwork you scan with the pigment, ink or whatever on the sensor side,
bu I am not sure if that is what you are meaning here.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Linda
writes
In article .net,
wrote:

When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down?

I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
photos of his artwork.

"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
vibrant."

OK, now I am confused. ;-)

I thought you and/or your partner were scanning 35mm or 4x5 film, not
original artwork on sandpaper. I am not sure where the film or the
emulsion comes into the process here. Obviously, on the original
artwork you scan with the pigment, ink or whatever on the sensor side,
bu I am not sure if that is what you are meaning here.

I'm so sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm scanning 35mm and 4x5
transparencies (ektachrome 64T) of the artwork.

linda

In article , Lenny
writes
In article , Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Linda
writes
In article .net,
wrote:

When scanning 35mm or 4x5s does the emulsion side go down?

I think it's best to quote what my partner wrote about the scans of
photos of his artwork.

"I'm scanning some pastels on sandpaper. They have no "underpainting."
The pastels are pure pigment applied to distinct areas. When scanned
with the emulsion side down, the areas are more consistent but less
vibrant."

OK, now I am confused. ;-)

I thought you and/or your partner were scanning 35mm or 4x5 film, not
original artwork on sandpaper. I am not sure where the film or the
emulsion comes into the process here. Obviously, on the original
artwork you scan with the pigment, ink or whatever on the sensor side,
bu I am not sure if that is what you are meaning here.

I'm so sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm scanning 35mm and 4x5
transparencies (ektachrome 64T) of the artwork.

OK, so it is a problem scanning film as we originally thought. It was
the reference to the artwork that confused me, but that is irrelevant to
the problem other than providing a reference against which the results
can be assessed.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Lenny
writes
In article , Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , Linda
writes
In article .net,
wrote:
I'm so sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm scanning 35mm and 4x5
transparencies (ektachrome 64T) of the artwork.

OK, so it is a problem scanning film as we originally thought. It was
the reference to the artwork that confused me, but that is irrelevant to
the problem other than providing a reference against which the results
can be assessed.

Correct. It is a problem scanning film.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

"Linda" wrote in message
. com...

Correct. It is a problem scanning film.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

However, if the pieces of "sandpaper artwork" are of the common size
(roughly "standard letter size"), it might be very interesting to scan them
directly.

In article Vtzwe.7344$dz6.4491@trnddc02, RSD99
wrote:

"Linda" wrote in message
. com...

Correct. It is a problem scanning film.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

However, if the pieces of "sandpaper artwork" are of the common size
(roughly "standard letter size"), it might be very interesting to scan them
directly.



Yes I just pulled out some b & w pen and ink drawings to scan. All my
scans are very dark. In the histogram everything is scrunched to the
far left 0-78. This particular slide is of a drawing on white paper
with black ink and color washes. I just looked at it again in the
projector and although the slide is old and not perfect it is not dark.
I also examined it with a loop. So I'm about to scan some originals
and we will see.

Thanks for the idea about the pastels. Most of them are framed and the
rest are still packed, since we've recently moved, but I think I can
dig them out and give that a try also.

Good suggestion and I'll try it.

linda

--
remove invalid to reply

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:36:49 -0400, linda
wrote:

In article Vtzwe.7344$dz6.4491@trnddc02, RSD99
wrote:

"Linda" wrote in message
. com...

Correct. It is a problem scanning film.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

However, if the pieces of "sandpaper artwork" are of the common size
(roughly "standard letter size"), it might be very interesting to scan them
directly.



Yes I just pulled out some b & w pen and ink drawings to scan. All my
scans are very dark. In the histogram everything is scrunched to the
far left 0-78. This particular slide is of a drawing on white paper
with black ink and color washes. I just looked at it again in the
projector and although the slide is old and not perfect it is not dark.
I also examined it with a loop. So I'm about to scan some originals
and we will see.

Thanks for the idea about the pastels. Most of them are framed and the
rest are still packed, since we've recently moved, but I think I can
dig them out and give that a try also.

Good suggestion and I'll try it.

linda

A couple of points that only apply to me. No recommendations for
others.

1. I've lot of old slides that were no doubt severely under exposed.
The details in the slides that evade my scanner even at the highest
resolution, only appear in a dark room with a powerful slide projector
lamp.

2. My best (and easiest) reproduction of album photos or photo
album pictures is done with my digital camera at its highest
resolution - avoiding the scanner altogether. Tripods and light
tents make it fast and foolproof.

As to the film base argument, I think the only sensible thing to do
is try it both ways and choose the method based on the result.
Neither argument favoring one or the other is persuasive.