Integral Instant Film - Scan or Photograph?

[Pete Askew]

As you will know, I usually photograph any images taken with integral films such as those made by Impossible. In part, this is because I try to capture the sense of object that they have. It is often quicker and scanning can often lead to artefacts. I recently scanned some shots taken with Impossible B&W film as a group with success (http://www.realphotographersforum.com/forum/threads/impossible-still-life-i.19550/). However, when I did the same with some on the colour version I ran into problems with Newton's rings forming between the image and the glass of the scanner. I therefore reverted to photographing these.

Although I often photograph such pictures against a background, using natural (or at least available) light and a Sony RX100, in this case I did it properly using a copy stand and vacuum easel (to hold the slightly curved print flat). As one would expect, this worked well and the setup is shown below.

Scanned Image

Photographed Image

Setup

De Vere 504 C/F copy stand fitted with tungsten filament lamps (angled at about 45º to the surface of the easel) plus multi-format vacuum easel (pump at rear to the right - mechanically decoupled from the copy stand). Image captured using Hasselblad 503CW plus 12o mm Makro Planar and a 56mm extension tube onto a PhaseOne P20 back. ISO 50, 1/15s at f1:11. Raw file processed in CaptureOne Pro 7. White balance corrected in PP using the white border of the print.

 

[Brian Moore]

That set up is a wee bit more elaborate than mine, Pete.

Nicely done, laddie.

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Brian. You could always sneak one in and say it was a reading lamp!

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Interesting, Pete, and I can see the difference. Well done.

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Rob.

 

[Paul Lange]

A fair bit of difference. I guess with the copy stand you have more control over the lighting. With the scanner you are stuck with one setting - Bright!

 

[Pete Askew]

True and I think the scanner sets up some internal reflections. The main problem was the Newton's rings though, caused by the contact between the shiny print and the glass of the scanner. My friend in Stockholm has the same problem with scanning 10x8 film. Tri-X had a retouching surface that din't cause the problem but other Kodak material and Ilford sheets do.

 

[Paul Lange]

You can by sheets of matt transparency from art shops and places like Paper Chase. It looks translucent until it contacts something then it becomes transparent. This might help?

 

[Pete Askew]

I have some in the UK but have never tried it as an interlayer on a scanner. I'll give it a go. Thanks.

 

[Paul Lange]

I don't think all types works so a bit of trial and error may be required.

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

Seems to be a lot more dynamic range within the Photographed image which is quite understandable considering alone the differences in sensor size and capture abilities. I've often thought this to be a good way ahead .

 

[Martin Pancisin]

@Pete Askew did you post-process the photo in any way? Whats really interesting to me is that are quite many artefacts on the scanned picture which have nothing to do with newton rings.

 

[Pete Askew]

Both images have had the black intensified and their contrasts adjusted etc. Some of the specks you can see on the scanned one are from dust on the scanner glass and others are on the print. I spent more time on the photographed version and removed the latter. Also the fine scratches show up much more on the scanner than when lit on the stand.

 

[Martin Pancisin]

I see, I was wondering about those horizontal lines and their origin, they seem to be more frequent in the areas where the newton rings are. Looks to me like some kind of residue from previous scans? Does it get better if the scanner glas is cleaned?

 

[Pete Askew]

No, they are on the outer face of the film capsule. They often end up with slight scuffs on them as they eject from the camera. Mostly you don't see them under normal illumination. I'll try to remember to put an original in my bag when I come to Vienna so you can see what I mean.

 

[Martin Pancisin]

I see, thanks for the information. The final product looks very good.

 

[Pete Askew]

Thanks Martin.