on 6/29/02 10:51 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: >> the >> Callier effect is predicable, and in some cases useful, and can be >> compensated for as needed. > > What about the limited depth of focus, as well as scratches and dust? How > do you compensate for that?
Well for me, dust and scratches fall under the "ease of use" factor as opposed to quality of print. If they are a great bane of one's existence than they should see if a diffuse source makes a big difference for them. For me it didn't. They are compensated for by cleaning negs and spotting prints. Depth of focus is compensated for by your lens aperture, which as I already explained you have greater control over with a condenser enlarger, with it's ability to change bulb wattages, than a coldlight. >> Not sure if depth of focus is of any real relevance. > > Snark, snark...ask people who own Nikon scanners if depth of focus is an > issue or not ;-) I really don't see this a function of the Callier effect, though I'm more than open to being educated on that. As with most focus issues I see it as a function of the lens/aperture relative to the distance/curvature of the film and/or the distance/curvature of the enlarging paper. These relationships exist equally for both diffusion and collimated light sources. The focus issue with the Nikon scanners, as far as I can see, has nothing to do with the Callier effect, it's that the lens aperture is too wide. That is a function of the brightness of the light, not whether it is collimated or diffuse. But again, light intensity and lens aperture are imminently controllable with a condenser enlarger, not so with the Nikon, so it does not share that quality with the scanner. Todd ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body