formal
***
I did a small amount of film photography years ago, but got back into to photography due to digital cameras. I have only recently started to shoot film again so that I can use a rangefinder for street/candid photography.
I'm shooting black & white, and I have the films developed by a local camera shop. I then scan them and print digitally - I know this will probably be viewed as heresy, but I really don't want to study chemistry!
The negatives appear to be fine in terms of density, but when I scan them there are small white marks that appear to be caused by bits of missing emulsion. Would this be viewed as normal?
I have attached a 100% crop scanned at 5400 dpi of the type of mark that I mean.
Regards,
David
I'm shooting black & white, and I have the films developed by a local camera shop. I then scan them and print digitally - I know this will probably be viewed as heresy, but I really don't want to study chemistry!
The negatives appear to be fine in terms of density, but when I scan them there are small white marks that appear to be caused by bits of missing emulsion. Would this be viewed as normal?
I have attached a 100% crop scanned at 5400 dpi of the type of mark that I mean.
Regards,
David
R
Roman
Guest
Nope, definitely not normal...
What film do you use? What chemistry does the lab use? Usual causes for this problem are badly dissolved powder chemistry, or impure water that has particles (sand, rust from pipes, etc.) in it.
I assume that this is thenegative that you are showing in your scan? If it was the positive, a white spot would mean a dark spot on the neg., which would have other causes.
Roman
What film do you use? What chemistry does the lab use? Usual causes for this problem are badly dissolved powder chemistry, or impure water that has particles (sand, rust from pipes, etc.) in it.
I assume that this is thenegative that you are showing in your scan? If it was the positive, a white spot would mean a dark spot on the neg., which would have other causes.
Roman
formal
***
Ah ...
Ah ...
Good point Roman - shooting digital has warped my view of the world :bang: .
This is the positive - its actually some hair on a young ladies head. So clearly I have a dark spot of the negative. So what could cause that?
I'm shooting Ilford Delta 100 & 400. I have no idea what chemistry they are using
, but they do have a good reputation.
David
Ah ...
Good point Roman - shooting digital has warped my view of the world :bang: .
This is the positive - its actually some hair on a young ladies head. So clearly I have a dark spot of the negative. So what could cause that?
I'm shooting Ilford Delta 100 & 400. I have no idea what chemistry they are using
, but they do have a good reputation.David
phototone
Well-known
You are seeing dust and debris that have dried on the film. When processing film, the final rinse should be a wetting agent solution (such as Kodak Photo-Flo mixed with distilled water to the proper dilution) The film is soaked in this for 1 minute, then hung up in a totally dust free atmosphere (well...as dust free as possible). Some people, myself included, soak a couple of sponges in the same wetting agent solution, wring them out and then squeegee the film down, once it is hung up, before putting the bottom weighted film clip on it. Still I too get some dust specks, but the clone stamp tool, and the healing brush clears them right up in Photoshop.
formal
***
I have been able to remove dust using a blower before scanning but these appear to be more firmly attached to the emulsion. I had thought they were pieces of missing emulsion, but clearly they must be dust and dirt.
I can use Photoshop to clone these, but even with dust on my sensor, I did not have so much work to do with digital images.
What level of dust & dirt would be normal?
David
I can use Photoshop to clone these, but even with dust on my sensor, I did not have so much work to do with digital images.
What level of dust & dirt would be normal?
David
phototone
Well-known
It is quite normal to get a bit of dried-on dust on b/w negatives. Particularly if you have the film processed out at a commercial lab. There is no such thing as a "perfect" negative. The larger the negative, the more minimal the dust visibility will be. 35mm is a minature format, to make a big print (a big scan), whatever dust is there is quite magnified.
The visibility of the dust depends on the scene, and I have found that in scanning, a thin negative tends to show up more dust than a full density negative. You will always have more Photoshop work to do to a b/w negative, than to a digital file shot with a digital camera, yet the rewards are great for good looking b/w images from film.
I spend hours retouching, dodging and burning, and dust spotting in Photoshop all my b/w images. I did the same things when I made darkroom prints, and with darkroom prints it took much longer.
The visibility of the dust depends on the scene, and I have found that in scanning, a thin negative tends to show up more dust than a full density negative. You will always have more Photoshop work to do to a b/w negative, than to a digital file shot with a digital camera, yet the rewards are great for good looking b/w images from film.
I spend hours retouching, dodging and burning, and dust spotting in Photoshop all my b/w images. I did the same things when I made darkroom prints, and with darkroom prints it took much longer.
phototone
Well-known
Another thing to be aware of. The point source type of lighting (hard) that most film scanners use tends to exaggerate dust, when compared to a diffusion (soft) light source like most quality photo enlargers have. Negatives that print just fine without noticable dust on a diffusion enlarger will often show dust when scanned.
RObert Budding
D'oh!
It's really pretty easy to develop your own film. You shpuld give it a go! Granted, my udergraduate degree was Chemistry, and I worked for two years on a vitamin synthesis for a major pharma company, and I spent a few years in a PhD program in physical chemistry before heading off to business school . . .
But it really is fun! And I don't even think about the reactions. I'm focused on my negatives.
Robert
But it really is fun! And I don't even think about the reactions. I'm focused on my negatives.
Robert
formal
***
Thanks for the all the advice. I'm reassured that I don't have a specific problem.
I have developed a few B&W roles in the past and when I get some more time I'll try again.
Regards,
david
I have developed a few B&W roles in the past and when I get some more time I'll try again.
Regards,
david
formal
***
I have just scanned some negatives from a film I developed yesterday. Much worse than the results from the lab I'll try again and see if I can do better.
David
I'll try again and see if I can do better.David
canonetc
canonetc
Someone here at RFF made a good suggestion on another thread to lessen dirt/crap in negs: turn on the shower in your bathroom hot for about five minutes, then after using Photo-Flo, hang the negs in the b-room to dry. P-Flo works great by the way; I do NOT recommend using fingers, sponges or a squeegee. Let the negs drip dry. The Photo-Flo pushes all the water off, and I rarely if ever get crud in the negs. Good luck.
chris
canonetc
chris
canonetc
T_om
Well-known
Uh, oh. I'm in trouble then. I've been using my fingers for 45 years.
Tom
canonetc
canonetc
T_om said:Uh, oh. I'm in trouble then. I've been using my fingers for 45 years.
Tom
Words of experience from the wise!
I just didn't like the results; too many spots. But hey Tom, maybe your fingers are cleaner! cheers,
C.
Hmmm, Chris, I've been using squeegees since about 1965 resulting in clean unscratched negs that dry quickly... I figure the longer they stay damp and tacky the more chance dust, lint, or cat hair has to float by and get attached. It seems my fingers are too knobby or something, and leave wet streaks. T_om, do you have fat fingers?
(After giving the film a short soak in the Photo-Flo bath, I take the film off the reel, hang it up, rinse the squeegee in the Photo-Flo bath, pour the Photo-Flo bath over the film, and squeegee the wet film from top to bottom in one long stroke. I then rinse & dry the sqeeggee, and put it back in the Tupperware container where I also keep the film clips. )
It seems my fingers are too knobby or something, and leave wet streaks. T_om, do you have fat fingers? (After giving the film a short soak in the Photo-Flo bath, I take the film off the reel, hang it up, rinse the squeegee in the Photo-Flo bath, pour the Photo-Flo bath over the film, and squeegee the wet film from top to bottom in one long stroke. I then rinse & dry the sqeeggee, and put it back in the Tupperware container where I also keep the film clips. )
fishric
Established
I threw away my squegee after scratching a strip of negatives, and I no longer use film clips.
After a short dip in wetting agent (two drops of washing up liquid in about four pints of water) I give the spirals a couple of sharp raps on the draining board and hang the films horizontaly on a clothes horse (drying frame) with clothes pegs. This might be a little awkward if your best shot is on frame 37, but it gives any remaining water only a short distance to run off, so less drying marks. A few flicks with your finger nail on the edge of the strip can also help.
If, like me, you live in a hard water area (chalk) , the final rinse could be done in filtered water,but I manage quite well without.
Hope this helps,
Regards, Richard.
After a short dip in wetting agent (two drops of washing up liquid in about four pints of water) I give the spirals a couple of sharp raps on the draining board and hang the films horizontaly on a clothes horse (drying frame) with clothes pegs. This might be a little awkward if your best shot is on frame 37, but it gives any remaining water only a short distance to run off, so less drying marks. A few flicks with your finger nail on the edge of the strip can also help.
If, like me, you live in a hard water area (chalk) , the final rinse could be done in filtered water,but I manage quite well without.
Hope this helps,
Regards, Richard.
formal
***
Another film ...
Another film ...
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.
I processed another film and the results are much better. I processed it as before, but I hung it in a different (less dusty) shower after running the hot water for a few minutes. I also closed the door and window to ensure that no dust was being circulated, and I resisted the temptation to look until the film was dry.
I have borrowed the tank etc. from a friend, but if I can repeat these results a few times I will invest in my own.
David
Another film ...
Thanks for all the help and suggestions.
I processed another film and the results are much better. I processed it as before, but I hung it in a different (less dusty) shower after running the hot water for a few minutes. I also closed the door and window to ensure that no dust was being circulated, and I resisted the temptation to look until the film was dry.
I have borrowed the tank etc. from a friend, but if I can repeat these results a few times I will invest in my own.
David
R
Rodinal Addict
Guest
My photo teacher had a Technical term for anything stuck to a negative, She called it "Derbis". ( not debris ). I couldn't stop laughing.
Robin
Robin