formal
***
I have improved my developing techniques thanks to some advice from RFF members (see here).
However, when I scan my negatives I still have (in my opinion) too many marks :bang: that need to be removed in Photoshop. I'm fairly sure that many of these are due to dust etc. on the surface of the film.
What techniques do people use to clean negatives prior to scanning?
Are camel hair brushes and anti-static brushes any use?
Regards,
David
However, when I scan my negatives I still have (in my opinion) too many marks :bang: that need to be removed in Photoshop. I'm fairly sure that many of these are due to dust etc. on the surface of the film.
What techniques do people use to clean negatives prior to scanning?
Are camel hair brushes and anti-static brushes any use?
Regards,
David
hth
Well-known
I use a Kinetronics anti-static brush (which I recently got), then compressed air (I have a compressor under the table). I believe the compressed air is the best thing, but it is also a good idea to get the static electricity off the film as you will attract less dust while you move the negative to the holder.
Actually, I have not verified how good the anti-static brush really is, but I thought it could not hurt and I have seen dust been sucked onto the film in the darkroom while moving the negative up to the holder...
/Håkan
Actually, I have not verified how good the anti-static brush really is, but I thought it could not hurt and I have seen dust been sucked onto the film in the darkroom while moving the negative up to the holder...
/Håkan
Justin Low
J for Justin
I use a Kinetronics film cleaner to good effect, but if you're looking for a quick and cheap solution, a quality paint brush works well. I think a synthetic haired brush for watercolor should work just fine.
I wouldn't go for 'camel hair' brushes as they are usually rather rough. Whatever you do, a quick blast of air from a blower bulb or a can should remove most of the dust. A brush is just for the stubborn bits.
I wouldn't go for 'camel hair' brushes as they are usually rather rough. Whatever you do, a quick blast of air from a blower bulb or a can should remove most of the dust. A brush is just for the stubborn bits.
berci
Photographer Level: ****
Another easy way is to buy an army surplus jet engine which can be an excellent dust blower with some minor modifications. 
Do not try this at home. #:-]
Do not try this at home. #:-]
sleepyhead
Well-known
Ditto everything said above. Try to store your negatives well.
YEAH, spotting dust in photoshop CAN be mind-numbingly tedious. I have two ways to make it more tolerable: (1) get into "the right frame of mind" and put some good tunes on the stereo, and (2) get a graphic pad (such as a Wacom pad) that allows you to just touch the dust spot with the pen using the healing tool - a lot faster and easier than using a mouse. For best quality I work at 200% zoom and use the smallest managable brush size.
'Hope this helps, sleepyhead
YEAH, spotting dust in photoshop CAN be mind-numbingly tedious. I have two ways to make it more tolerable: (1) get into "the right frame of mind" and put some good tunes on the stereo, and (2) get a graphic pad (such as a Wacom pad) that allows you to just touch the dust spot with the pen using the healing tool - a lot faster and easier than using a mouse. For best quality I work at 200% zoom and use the smallest managable brush size.
'Hope this helps, sleepyhead
dmr
Registered Abuser
formal said:
Now that I have a scanner that can resolve film grain, as well as dust, scratches, and imperfections <semi grin> I'm finding that dust and such on the negatives is far more significant than I ever thought.
For the negatives that were done at a local independent lab, I'm finding that all they really need is a blow-off with canned air and some quick Photoshop spotting.
For those developed at Walgreens and such, I'm finding occasional crud on the non-emulsion side that seems to come off fine with filtered H2O and a Q-tip, followed by a good blow-off with the air can.
For the older ones, however, I'm finding that dust and gunk seems to be more permanent and a quick blow-off and swab of the non-emulsion side is not enough.
I admit I'm chicken to try any serious cleaning on the emulsion side for fear of damaging images. I would rather spot with Photoshop (the band-aid tool does work quite well in most cases) than to risk losing an image.
Some of the people here have recommended film cleaner, and I'll probably try that on a negative that I'm not too fond of before I try on anything I really want to keep.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
sleepyhead said:
IMO, it's no where near as mind-numbingly tedious as spotting a print.
I scan primarily b&w only, and I don't worry a whole lot about dust specks (because PS spotting is sooo easy). I use (are you ready for this) a Swiffer (that home dusting product that comes with a plastic handle and a disposable dust pad). I give everything around the scanner, including the negative carrier with negatives in place, a quick wipe. I rarely rescan for dust. For me, canned air is a nightmare. It's ok in a semi-controlled environment, but on my desk, in my office, with fax machines, monitors, carpet, pets, kids, etc., spraying canned air around just seems to kick up more stuff. I have noticed that dust is less of an issue with completely, totally, absolutely dry negatives (like ones that have been in the drying cabinet for a few days).
Last edited:
phototone
Well-known
I use compressed air on both sides of negative jusst before slipping it in the scanner (after I have put it into scanner neg holder). You are still going to get more visible defects and dust than you will get if you print in the darkroom on a cold light or color diffusion enlarger, as the light source for the scanner is far more collomated, (this means the light is much more of a point source "hard" light), and will show up more defects in the negative.
While "spotting" with the clone tool and healing brush in photoshop can be a long and drawn out experience, after a while you can get quite fast at it. The good thing is that you only have to retouch that negative scan ONCE and forever it is DONE. Unlike with prints, where you have to retouch each and every print from a given negative., Once digitally retouched, each and every print you decide to make will be as perfect as the first one was. Horaay.
With that "retouch once and its done" philosophy in mind, you should always scan at the highest resolution and bit depth your scanner is capable of, usually 4000dpi at 16bit. Then do your adjusting, dodging, burning, spotting until you get the image just the way you like it, then down-convert it to an 8 bit TIFF. You should try at all costs to avoid saving your archival scans as jpegs. Tisk, Tisk, surely you don't do that? I don't want to hear about how much space Tiff's take up. Don't want to hear it. If the image is good enough to scan, then it is good enough to save as a Tiff.
You can get quite a few Tiff's on a blank DVD you know.
While "spotting" with the clone tool and healing brush in photoshop can be a long and drawn out experience, after a while you can get quite fast at it. The good thing is that you only have to retouch that negative scan ONCE and forever it is DONE. Unlike with prints, where you have to retouch each and every print from a given negative., Once digitally retouched, each and every print you decide to make will be as perfect as the first one was. Horaay.
With that "retouch once and its done" philosophy in mind, you should always scan at the highest resolution and bit depth your scanner is capable of, usually 4000dpi at 16bit. Then do your adjusting, dodging, burning, spotting until you get the image just the way you like it, then down-convert it to an 8 bit TIFF. You should try at all costs to avoid saving your archival scans as jpegs. Tisk, Tisk, surely you don't do that? I don't want to hear about how much space Tiff's take up. Don't want to hear it. If the image is good enough to scan, then it is good enough to save as a Tiff.
You can get quite a few Tiff's on a blank DVD you know.
photodog
Well-known
I recommend that you use an Ilford anti-static cloth. It gets oily fingerprints off too. I also use canned air as needed.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Here's an example of one of my dirtier ones, although this is a slide and not a print. This one is over 30 years old, Ektachrome, and I'm going thru several of these and getting good scans.
The one on the left is the original scan, AFTER cleaning the non-emulsion side carefully with a Q-tip (cotton, not poly) and H2O and a good dose of canned air on both sides. The one on the right is the cropped version after about 1/2 hour off and on in Photoshop.
This one was far more dusty than the one of the bridge I posted a few days ago. This one was at the Pulaski parade in 1972, making it almost as old as the other one. For an Ektachrome, I would say it held up rather well.
The one on the left is the original scan, AFTER cleaning the non-emulsion side carefully with a Q-tip (cotton, not poly) and H2O and a good dose of canned air on both sides. The one on the right is the cropped version after about 1/2 hour off and on in Photoshop.
This one was far more dusty than the one of the bridge I posted a few days ago. This one was at the Pulaski parade in 1972, making it almost as old as the other one. For an Ektachrome, I would say it held up rather well.
formal
***
Thanks for all the tips.
I obtained an artist's brush and the good news is that I was able to (re)move many of the dust particles, so they must be on the surface. The bad news is that it was very difficult to get them all off the negative and I got some new ones
However, I have ordered a (Jessops) anti-staic cloth and I'm hoping that this will allow me to avoid attracting new dust.
I did a course a few weeks ago and spent a lot of time in the darkroom, and I have to agree that cleaning an image up once in Photshop is a much appealing than spotting prints.
David
I obtained an artist's brush and the good news is that I was able to (re)move many of the dust particles, so they must be on the surface. The bad news is that it was very difficult to get them all off the negative and I got some new ones
However, I have ordered a (Jessops) anti-staic cloth and I'm hoping that this will allow me to avoid attracting new dust.
I did a course a few weeks ago and spent a lot of time in the darkroom, and I have to agree that cleaning an image up once in Photshop is a much appealing than spotting prints.
David
djon
Well-known
1) Store your negs in very good sleeves, not in the junque minilabs provide and not in polyethylene sleeves. I like polyester sleeves from Lightimpressions.com. I cut in lengths of 4 35mm frames and keep each roll in its own archival cardboard folder from Light Impressions...and I keep all the folders in archival boxes from Light Impressions. Kinda boring, I don't get paid for this. The reason I like this system is that it causes me to do a good job of filing cleanly as soon as I have the negs, and polyester sleeves are top-loaders, much easier and less likely to scratch than struggling with soft polyethylene sleeves from negafile etc.
2) I use another Light Impressions tool: an antistatic cloth.
3) Canned air (or just blow).
I'm amazed at how clean my OLD negs are, coming out of this new filing system and handled in this way. Nikon V scanner requires minimal film handling, Vs Minolta junque.
2) I use another Light Impressions tool: an antistatic cloth.
3) Canned air (or just blow).
I'm amazed at how clean my OLD negs are, coming out of this new filing system and handled in this way. Nikon V scanner requires minimal film handling, Vs Minolta junque.