From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Scanning negatives
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Scanning negatives
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 15:39:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <010320181539122972%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <p76pgt$4fp$> <> <p79nld$31d$>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="5331113d00e1fa1c8adf52346a24646c";
logging-data="13915"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19tI3by2PNo1eZ1lTfPMkET"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:aJtgtu1w/7I3nQinyrGnFTLYzMs=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article <p79nld$31d$>, Ken Hart<> wrote:

> I've "scanned" old B&W old size negs by putting them on a lightbox and 
> photographing them with a close-up lens. The results were satisfactory.

if it was done properly, it would have been more than satisfactory. 

> If you were to sandwich the negs between two pieces of glass, put a 
> large white paper a couple feet away and light the paper, it might work. 
> Certainly cheap enough to give it a try.

except for the reflections off the glass.

> Doing that with color negs would be trickier, as you would have to get 
> rid of the orange mask along with doing the reversal.

computers can do that without any effort at all.