 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / November 2003Coolscan 8000ed (glass holder?)
How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? I use a glass holder for convention enlarging and find it important. But for the 8000ed? I'm teetering towards a purchase decision. Thank you in advance. >How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? >I use a glass holder for convention enlarging and find it important. >But for the 8000ed? > >I'm teetering towards a purchase decision. Guess it depends on who you talk to. Some folks worry about "critical focus" and measure focus units. Some folks have designed glass carriers for the 8000 that allow wet mounting. Me, I've had pretty good luck (IMO) with the supplied glassless carrier. It does take a bit of fussing to get some films to lie flat in the carrier, but it's not rocket science either. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >>How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? >>I use a glass holder for convention enlarging and find it important. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Guess it depends on who you talk to. Like people who have actually used both?  SignatureStacey I can't believe they ship this scanner without the glass carrier. The glassless carrier is a real pain to use - I can not think of a worse design. It works poorly if the film is flat and is useless if the film has any curl at all.I wish I bought the glass carrier with the 8000; it is excellent and I have had no problems since I purchased it. Yes - it is very overpriced but necessary IMHO Want to buy a spare glassless carrier?...... Mark >How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? >I use a glass holder for convention enlarging and find it important. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Thank you in advance. Does Digital ICE work with the glass carrier? > I can't believe they ship this scanner without the glass carrier. The > glassless carrier is a real pain to use - I can not think of a worse design. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > >Thank you in advance. > Does Digital ICE work with the glass carrier? Yes, and very well, too. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? It's easier to use than the included 120 film holder; that's its main advantage for me. Whether or not you need it depends on how flat your 120 films are. The glass holder keeps them completely flat, but sometimes there are problems with Newton rings, at least on slides (I think because both sides of many transparency films are extremely smooth, and the glass holder can only have anti-Newton glass on the side behind the film). > I'm teetering towards a purchase decision. I use the glass holder exclusively since I bought it. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. Thank you everyone. Glass carrier it is. > How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? > I use a glass holder for convention enlarging and find it important. > But for the 8000ed? > > I'm teetering towards a purchase decision. I find that I need it for film that has a warp to it. My 645 comes in strips of 3 frames, and every once in a while a strip of color slide film gets a mind of its own. It may be that my regular holder is defective, but I don't think so. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >From: "jjs" nospam@please.xxx >How important is the glass film holder for 120 film on the 8000ed? I think David Littleboy has posted several times that he feels it's a necessity. All the other guys I know who use the 8000 (me, Tom Seaskate, Dan Lindsay, Rafe, a couple others) feel we get good results without it. I've made prints up to 20x24" with scans from mine with no problems, though I did have a film recently with a lot of curve and had to flatten it overnight to get it to fit right. Try out the holder that comes with it (make sure you figure out how the little slider works) and see if it works for you. If not, you can always buy the glass carrier later. Bill > All the other guys I know who use the 8000 (me, Tom Seaskate, Dan Lindsay, > Rafe, a couple others) feel we get good results without it. I've made prints > up to 20x24" with scans from mine with no problems, though I did have a film > recently with a lot of curve and had to flatten it overnight to get it to fit > right. The glassless holder can produce good results, depending not only on the curl of the film (hopeless when scanning the image on the end of a strip that has a bit of curl), but also on how you insert and stretch the strip. It can take several tries to get a strip in right, i.e. taut, straight, and with rebate on either side after you have stretched the film. If not done properly, the resulting sharpness fall-off can be quite terrible. If done properly, using the glass holder instead will not produce better results. On the contrary. > The glassless holder can produce good results, depending not only on the > curl of the film (hopeless when scanning the image on the end of a strip > that has a bit of curl), but also on how you insert and stretch the strip. > It can take several tries to get a strip in right, i.e. taut, straight, and > with rebate on either side after you have stretched the film. Exactly. At which point, using the glass carrier would have been faster. > If not done properly, the resulting sharpness fall-off can be quite > terrible. If done properly, using the glass holder instead will not produce > better results. On the contrary. The glass carrier can result in Newton's rings from the lower (non-anti-Newton) glass. It comes with masks that hold the film off the glass, but they only work for one frame at a time. I've cut my own mask that has enough extra width that I can get three 645 frames in at the same time for the various frame spacings on the various camera/120/220 combinations I use. Lining up the film is a bit fiddly, but once it's in, I've got three sharp scans. IMHO, you don't really need the glass in the glass carrier at all. What you really want is something that supports the frame at all four sides and also provides the stretch function of the standard carrier. (In the one test I did of 35mm, the 35mm holds the film plenty flat, and all it does is clamp the film at 4 sides. 120 is harder, but it shouldn't be as much of a pain as it is. Sigh.) But that would require adjustable supports (or multiple holders for each format), since frame spacing varies, even on the same roll in the same camera. At which point, the only time you'd need the glass is for crumpled or crinkled frames. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan SNIP > The glass carrier can result in Newton's rings from the lower > (non-anti-Newton) glass. It comes with masks that hold the film off the > glass, but they only work for one frame at a time. I've cut my own mask that > has enough extra width that I can get three 645 frames in at the same time > for the various frame spacings on the various camera/120/220 combinations I > use. Just wondering, has anyone ever tried to quantify the loss of contrast due to the addition of 4 (uncoated) air/glass surfaces? Each transition will lose some 4-5% of the incident light, which has to go somewhere. The contrast will be impacted most at the high film densities, they probably have a higher RGB value than without glass, compared to low density film areas. Bart > Just wondering, has anyone ever tried to quantify the loss of contrast due > to the addition of 4 (uncoated) air/glass surfaces? There are only two surfaces. The other two are behind the film. I haven't noticed any difference. > Each transition will lose some 4-5% of the incident light ... That depends on the angle of incidence. If the angle of incidence is 90 degrees, the loss is very small, and the angle approaches this in the case of a scanner. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> All the other guys I know who use the 8000 (me, Tom Seaskate, Dan Lindsay, >> Rafe, a couple others) feel we get good results without it. I've made [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >terrible. If done properly, using the glass holder instead will not produce >better results. On the contrary. Pretty much my experience as well. IMO, the glassless carrier is pretty well designed; the only thing that might improve it is a more forceful, positive grip on the two edges of the film -- though I don't really see any way of accomplishing that easily. Given that 120/220 film has been around for a while, and has been pushed through countless optical enlargers, you'd think there'd be a better solution by now -- other than a sandwich of glass and film. (Or glass and film and Kami oil.) rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com As Bill mentioned earlier, I have had really good luck without the glass holder. The standard one works fairly well. If I have a really tough transparency I then consider mounting it with slide mounts (either glass-less or with Newton-ring resistent glassmounts) and go with that route. (I purchased the mounted slide holder with the 8000ED). Dan Lindsay Santa Barbara |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.