Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,542   Posts: 1,572,816   Online: 990
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,063
    The advantage of the crocein scarlet over an opaque dye is that the crocein is transparent so you can match the density of the negative around the pin hole. The idea is to use a dilute solution and slowly build up density until the spot matches the surrounding area. If you use too much the dye can be removed using a dilute ammonia solution. You can get 1 gram (a lifetime supply) for $18 from http://www.scbt.com/datasheet-214776...carlet-7b.html

    You will also need a #000000 or #00000 round red sable brush. I would suggest practicing on a scrap negative. Remember that the red dye produces an actinic density that is different from the visual density. So make a few test prints until you get the hang of the techmnique.

    See "Lootens on Photographic Printing and Enlarging" for how to mix up the dye solution.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 12-06-2012 at 01:58 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  2. #12
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,532
    Images
    46
    The Kodak Opaque (black) is what I use. Red would work as well. It's a creamy paste consistency, easily cleaned - if you over-do it you just wash it off with water. I use a fine brush, many recommend toothpick. A pin also works. I have daydreamed of using a hypodermic needle for the purpose but have no idea of the sanity of that idea.

  3. #13
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,120
    Images
    6
    I remember years ago, Light Impressions sold a fine point red pen for writing on BW negs. That could work. You can opaque on the base side.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  4. #14
    nsurit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Texas Hill Country
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,316
    Images
    18
    Wonder if screen filler would work for screen printing.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,029
    If the size is only 0,5mm on a 16x20" print I'd suggest knifing the print. Anything you do on the neg will end up a lot bigger on the print than a knifed speck.

  6. #16
    Rafal Lukawiecki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Co. Wicklow, Ireland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    737
    A few times I had to do this, I used a non-permanent red sharpie, with which I gently dabbed the non-emulsion side of the negative. It prints as a softer, fuzzier white hole, and so it is then relatively easy to spot on the print. Naturally, this is easiest with LF negatives, but I have done it on 6x6. Some negs have a better non-emulsion surface texture for this than others. In my experience, HP5+ and Tri-X are easier, TMax a little harder, for me. After printing, the red is easy to wipe off. Please let me know if you think that I am doing something bad to my negs this way. You can always sandwich another, blank negative on top of yours and place the spot on it, effectively creating a very simple negative mask, just watch out for newton rings with some films, like TMax.

    You can also remove the spots using a very sharp surgical blade, by very gently dabbing the surface, not scratching, but it leaves a mark that is visible, on glossy paper, when you look at the print at an angle.

    As for why you got it in the first place, the most likely reason is dust or sand on the film during exposure, but sediment in your processing chemistry can cause those too. Some people blame film defects, but I have never felt that was the reason in my case.

    Anyway, get used to dealing with this issue, as it will keep happening—especially in the smooth tone areas like sky, as it is most visible there.
    Rafal Lukawiecki
    See rafal.net | Read rafal.net/articles

  7. #17
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    I've used sharpies on LF film for this reason. A super super fine marker and a steady hand might work for 6x8cm film.

    I take great care to prevent dust and have only had the problem on cheap film.

  8. #18
    Toffle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Point Pelee, ON, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,803
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinP View Post
    If the size is only 0,5mm on a 16x20" print I'd suggest knifing the print. Anything you do on the neg will end up a lot bigger on the print than a knifed speck.
    I have not done this, but I have heard that a pin or knife-point prick on the film will optically diffract light around that area, leaving a white spot on your print for retouching. I have used a fine point red marker for LF film with some success. As someone mentioned, doing this on smaller formats means bigger areas to retouch when enlarged.
    Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

    Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...

    http://tom-overton-images.weebly.com


  9. #19
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,532
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Toffle View Post
    I have not done this, but I have heard that a pin or knife-point prick on the film will optically diffract light around that area, leaving a white spot on your print for retouching. I have used a fine point red marker for LF film with some success. As someone mentioned, doing this on smaller formats means bigger areas to retouch when enlarged.
    This may work for enlargers with Condensers. But Diffusion enlargers, popular for their ability to make dust disappear, also make this roughed up base disappear.

    I have used a pin to rough up the base of my 4x5 negatives so it vanishes under the microscope. The result I get is a halo on the print. From a distance, the spot is gone. But on closer inspection it is easily apparent.

    When I spot out with opaque, the printed result is very white and MUST be spotted. However the resulting spotting job is very successful.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,905
    If its that small I would knife the print.... much easier ( and less obvious ) on FB than RC, when I was doing this for real, if it was a big issue ( a mural print for instance ) we would opaque the neg ( Red Opaque ) then retouch the print. WE ALWAYS USED BRUSHES, one guy I used to work with was a dab hand at retouching ( 120 ) negs using a soft pencil, especially on portraits, marks, zits and crow's feet, took him about 30 seconds per neg, he was amazing, then you just had a little spotting on the finished portrait print. Now there is something for you all to try now the nights are drawing in ! I suggest a portarait negative that you have spare!

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin