| Author |
Message |
|
|
#1469 2007-12-29 09:38 GMT |
I've recently begun developing my own black and white film and I use a film scanner to digitize the results. However I am having a lot of trouble with dust, what is the best way to clean the film/scanning surface to ensure a dust free scan?
|
|
|
|
#1471 2007-12-29 15:31 GMT |
You will have great difficulty in getting a totally dust free scan but you can minimize it by blowing the dust off using a can of compressed air.You will have to deal with what remains by using either the clone stamp tool or the spot healing brush in photoshop.If you do not have photoshop then almost any image editing software will have some sort of clone tool.
|
|
|
|
#1481 2007-12-29 23:46 GMT |
In the time of a darkroom - I placed my pictures between 2 glasse - it is the best way how protect them. Try to develop the picture in a dust free room (bathroom is OK, air purifier (like ionic breeth(I heard ) is of some help, but most of protection is mechanic. As soon as it is dry - pack it in plastick and in the box. The film as a wacuumcleaner - collects all the dust around, I think it is because of some electrostatic. I did try static guard on the non emulsia side - For me it was good, but my friends were laughing. Up to you. The last thing - scanner is a very dusty place, I can suggest to clean it before scanning, and scan in the plactic box. I am so glad with digital, that I do not have this nuisance... Good luck.
|
|
|
|
#1486 2007-12-31 20:01 GMT |
don't forget that the lens on your scanner also has dust. If the neg looks clean but the scan is still dusty it's possible you have dust accumulation on the scanning lens some other surface. usually a good blast of air through the opening a few times will clear out the dust from the scanner itself. Since rubbing the negs with anything will build up a charge when the negs go into the scanner you get dust glomming to the neg from the inside scanner environment.
Also, use non static cloth and a little bit of neg cleaner if you have a big dust issue. Careful with the wet negs too. I generally use my fingers to remove excess water since the rubber squeegee designed for the task often has dust particles which do a great job at sanding your vulnerable wet negs.
Hang your negs somewhere relatively dust free to dry. The bathtub is good. Most dust in the air is removed by repeated steaming (showers). In fact, before you process run the shower for a few minutes, just like rain it helps remove extra dust from the air. Also, once hung slowly and carefully exit and close the door. It's best to do this when you know there will be no required access to the bathroom. Opening the door will stir up huge amounts of dust and wet negs are like dust magnets. OR... you could build yourself a filtered drying cabinet.
In a pinch you can use a macro lens and a good light pad to photograph negatives. Black and white work quite well with this technique (no colorbalance issues). If you have something like a new Rebel and a decent macro you will see results as good or better then a $500 scanner, PLUS the results are INSTANT and frequently much more dust free then a film scanner.
MOST of my black and white film has been processed in this manner. I have THOUSANDS of neg strips and if I were to use my scanner it would take me 20 years. With a digital camera (my pentax *ist and 50mm Macro f2. I can get excellent results even for print. example: VIEW
I just got a Canon G9 with decent macro, I'll be trying some more negs with it... 12mp is about what my scanner can produce. We shall see the quality. :P
good luck.
"help, help, I got ions all over me!"
IONclad |
|
|
|
#1501 2008-01-03 23:17 GMT |
Thanks Guys I'll try out some of those things next time I process a film/go to scan some negatives.
IONclad, unfortunately I don't possess a macro lens for my alpha, but I wonder would extension tubes/close up filters be adequate?
|
|
|
|
#1502 2008-01-05 02:23 GMT |
well, that would allow you to get closer but would strip a few stops from the lens you do use.
I have found (from shooting experiments) that a really good macro lens provides better sharpness, buttery smooth DOF blur, faster (f1.8 or f2..
You can use minolta lenses? why not keep your eye open for a good 80mm macro or a 100mm. I have a 50mm macro which is ok, but I've lost a lot of shots from getting too close. When I shot with the 100mm canon macro I really noticed how much easier it was to shoot anything capable of running away. Though, as with a telephoto lens the lower the viewing angle the more sensitive to being hand held. The 50mm macro does allow hand held outdoor shots.
I highly recommend having a good macro lens... once you do it's almost unimaginable to not have one.
"help, help, I got ions all over me!"
IONclad |
|
|
|
#1503 2008-01-05 03:36 GMT |
Have you thought of using a designed for digital slide/negative copier?this would be a decent alternative to what has already been suggested and you would avoid some of the issues that would arise from using a macro lens or similar. I am of course referring to mis-alignment,mis-focusing and camera shake etc.IMHO if you want critically sharp top notch results it would always be a better option to select your best negs only and scan them using a high end film scanner such as one of the Nikon Coolscan series which come with dust and scratch removal software.If you are only seeking to archive for posterity then some of the other methods suggested could yield acceptable results. Even if you manage to eliminate every speck of dust you could still end up with scratches which, if severe are virtually impossible to remove without degrading your images in other ways.Am I glad I gave up on film and got a digital slr, only sensor dust to deal with now (sigh).
|
|
|
|
#1504 2008-01-06 18:37 GMT |
IONClad, yes I can use minolta lenses so I'll have a look in some of the shops in the city, there is at least one that has a collection of secondhand lenses.
Davles, I like film mostly for black and white work as true black and white film walks all over the black and white mode of my camera, and generally film is nicer for long exposures. Digital is a bit ordinary for anything over a couple of minutes not to mention the A100 takes forever to process them.
I think I might try and find an enlarger for a reasonable price and take over the garage for a darkroom :P
|
|
|
|
#1505 2008-01-07 01:27 GMT |
Hi Dewibus,I agree black and white is one area in which digital is having a tough time competing with film. However do not give up on digital for black and white as you can obtain results that are extremely close to that produced by film.Instead of using the black and white mode on your camera shoot in color and and convert to black and white using photoshop.Keep the file as RGB, and experiment with the channel mixer instead of simply converting to greyscale.Once you are satisfied with the result and are ready to print, set your inkjet to print using the black ink only and print at 1440 dpi on a premium quality matt paper.Give it a go you've got nothing to lose except some ink and paper.Incidentally for long exposures try using RAW, good luck.
Regards,Les.
|
|
|
|
#1506 2008-01-08 09:13 GMT |
Thanks I'll give that a go when I get my printer shipped over. Do you have any particular recommendations for the paper, I haven't had much chance to look around as the choices in Launceston were limited to say the least.
I made the jump to using raw some time ago and have had some good results for exposures in the 10-30 second range, however after a point both noise and waiting for my camera to finish processing becomes a bit of a pain.
|
|
|
|
#1507 2008-01-08 10:04 GMT |
Difficult to recommend a paper without knowing what brand of printer your going to use. If you are using an Epson then I would recommend using Epson matt heavyweight paper.
You could also try paper from the Permajet range if it is available in Australia. Another paper that comes to mind is Olmec matt heavyweight made by ici imagedata which again may not be available down under.
|
|
|
|
#1518 2008-01-12 18:35 GMT |
I'm a huge fan of film, having started using it in the early 80s. However, even though I have hundreds of feet of the stuff, I find myself using my Canon G9 set to 800 ISO to snap shots which become black and white. I can easily match the quality and range of film for standard exposure to the satisfaction of 95% of viewers. That's pretty hefty statistics to make me want to stand in the dark and shake a can for 30 minutes for 36-some-odd images. ISO800 allows me to shoot in very low light, where color noise from a digital sensor would make the image horrid to look at, black and white removes that drawback. Granted, I have to mess with the noise a bit to simulate film noise, but the results are SOOOO close to the real thing I have decided it's just not worth all the bother film brings.
I shoot in RAW and offset the R,G,B channels in channel mixer to 'massage' the image the way I like.
I have to say, I'm not sure all the new chemistry will ever get used.
"help, help, I got ions all over me!"
IONclad |
|
|
|
#1519 2008-01-12 20:57 GMT |
Well it might be time to experiment a little more with making black and white images with my digital and do some comparisons with the film.
|
|
|
|
#1535 2008-01-29 02:50 GMT |
It seems such a long time ago now - the wet darkroom thing....sigh! However, an old time trick to remove dust from a slide or negative prior to placing it into either a glass slide holder or an enlarger negative carrier was to to use the edge of a large intact bird/duck feather - a long tail or wing feather! Sounds silly I know but consider that a feather has a natural oil coating which holds the dust as you sweep the feather across the negative and, it doesn't come off on the media either! Blowing the dust merely displaces it: to land where ever which is usually back onto your transparency or negative. Give "the feather" a try - this tip is guaranteed to work for you as well as it does, rather, did for the bird the feather came from.... Cheers
|
|
|
|
#1536 2008-01-29 03:51 GMT |
Oh! Another thought... the problem may not be dust on your negs - but dust IN them! I'm still a colour slide photographer and discovered that the rubbish I had to deal with after scanning a slide was actually caused by the poor quality local water supply! I questioned my processing lab - asked if they were filtering the water, they were not! This even though it was a well publicised fact that the town water is dirty! I was told that was the way it is... Well, tough luck Mr. Business Owner! He should have had the professional interest to make sure my original art - grin, some call it that these days, was processed to the highest standards... His answer was for me to go away and fix them using my photo editor of choice! Now, to remove dust via the scanner or computer software results in a degraded image - not a good option. So I applaud your effort to get it right - right from the start!
|
|
|
|
#1537 2008-01-29 19:30 GMT |
Thank you, I have learned through many things that the final result is greatly influenced by what you start with.
"garbage in, garbage out" as I've seen written by many experts in various technical areas.
Though one can still produce good work even from a starting image that has problems I feel that getting it right from the beginning may mean the difference between goodness and excellence.
|
|
