How to scan large negative with any scanner

[toniox]

Hello, I share my method on how to scan 4x5, 8x10 or 20x25cm negatives on any scanner model, even the cheapest one at 20$...
The deal is to have light box, I know that many f295 photographers own a dusty one in their darkroom ☺
I know that you scan the negative in two pieces and then stitch them with software, but here, no stitching ☺
Find a piece of glass to flatten the negative in the scanner window.
To scan, just put the light box on on the scanner and use your favourite scanner software in flatbed mode and then invert in your favourite editing software.
That’s all !
Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/lightbox_3670.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/lightbox_3670.jpg)

[JoeVanCleave]

I've tried this on my Epson flatbed a few years ago, but ended up with weird interference lines horizontally across the image, as if the fluorescent light from the light box was somehow not in sync with the scanner. Must be something with my scanner, since you've made the method work fine. I'll have to revisit this again.

~Joe

[toniox]

I've tried this on my Epson flatbed a few years ago, but ended up with weird interference lines horizontally across the image, as if the fluorescent light from the light box was somehow not in sync with the scanner. Must be something with my scanner, since you've made the method work fine. I'll have to revisit this again.

~Joe

Joe, I had this weird lines too, but only in the preview window. When it finish scanning, the strange lines disappear :)

[bradjudy]

Pressing a negative directly to the glass might result in Newton rings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_rings) which is one reason negative holders keep the film just above the surface of the glass.

[Jim Jones]

I tried this several years ago with 4x5 film on a cheap Mustek scanner. The light source was a very bright incandescent lamp above opal glass. That eliminated problems due to the uncontinuous light output of flourescent lamps. Unless the edges of the film were carefully masked, the results were awful. At best they weren't very good. In contrast, an Epson Perfection 2450 Photo model gives quite satisfactory results without the many problems in trying to use the Mustek.

Most film scanned image side down won't show Newton's rings. That image can be flipped for correct viewing.

[antbiker]

Most film scanned image side down won't show Newton's rings. That image can be flipped for correct viewing.

To clarify, I guess you mean emulsion side down?
I've scanned negatives before & got those horrid Newton Rings, there is nothing you can do but start again.

[toniox]

I have made a custom film holder with cardboard, but the edge of the picture was a kind of blurry... Any ideas why ?

Attached files http://f295.f295.org/uploads/slideneg_5097.jpg (http://f295.f295.org/uploads/slideneg_5097.jpg)

[Jim Jones]

To clarify, I guess you mean emulsion side down?
I've scanned negatives before & got those horrid Newton Rings, there is nothing you can do but start again.

Yes, emulsion side down. Many films have a somewhat textured emulsion side, which should reduce Newton's rings. Some films, like T-Max 100, have a glossy emulsion side which might be susceptible to Newton's rings. Depending on humidity, the center of film may tend to curve away from the emulsion side. This also can help reduce Newton's rings.

Some scanners, like my ancient Epson 2450, have the equivalent of much depth of field. The Epson transparancy holder spaces the edge of the film at least 1mm above the scanner glass. The holder for mounted transparancys holds the slide mount a little over 1mm above the glass, and the thickness of a cardboard mount increases the distance to the emulsion to about 1.5mm. Even a greater spacing doesn't seem to seriously degrade sharpness.