Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,745   Posts: 1,515,649   Online: 770
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80
    no ICE :-( I have a primefilm 3600u which is the worst scanner ever in terms of speed and default color settings... but it had the highest res. for my price range. I'm sure ICE would make a difference... I didn't realize it was absolutely necessary when I was scanner shopping, just thought it was some fancy extra... LFMF

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by tkamiya View Post
    How's this? Some quick work on my darkroom grain manipulator enlarger reel developer fixer easel tool....
    Wow... the what tool? Sounds like an actual darkroom lol. Wish I had a color one right about now...

    It looks good scratch wise but damn it, its just not the same...i want the smooth creamy silken texture the original film had...

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by jordanstarr View Post
    I'm going to play devil's advocate and ask, have you considered that it might be your fault? The dust on the neg is obviously a scanning issue. But Africa is less-than-ideal for keeping dust and sand out of your camera and I could easily see some getting inside and on your pressure plate, which would explain the straight scratches (of course the colour labs machine could do the same, but they might just tell you it's your fault anyway -I know people who have worked in colour labs before and have had a "list of excuses" for why the negs were messed up to cover their ass). If you have negs before and after the trip that are perfect, then obviously it's not your fault, but if you had a roll since at a different lab that comes out like this, you might want to consider cleaning out your camera. It's just a thought, I'm not pointing fingers here. Just something else to think about and consider.
    nope... its just maybe like 5 rolls out of the 37, all with the same horizontal scratch pattern. The rolls are from different places, some from before Namibia. But yes the sand was brutal lol.The horizontal stripes are obviously from a machine, they are uniform throughout the whole roll.

    But It's only this single roll that really has noticeable squiggle scratches on top of it. I did wonder if maybe I did the squiggles by mistake, but I pretty much took it straight from the lab and into the scanner... I don't recall mishandling the film... It's almost like they DID something with this particular roll before giving it to me. They were commenting on how great the shots were... and all I ordered were negs and index prints... maybe they were further inspecting it and dropped it on the floor or something?

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by anikin View Post
    I'm sorry to hear about that. This can be the most infuriating experience. I have a few negatives like that, but in my case, I was processing them and can only blame myself. One thing I noticed is that scanning such negatives
    often highlights even the tiniest scratches, but if you optically print it on a diffusion enlarger, most such scratches
    will not show up on the print, and whatever is still there can be corrected by a dab of nose grease. If you insist on scanning, wet mounting can also help tremendously.

    P.S. Beautiful photo! I hope you can recover it and the rest of the negatives.
    Thanx!

    My scanner is pretty bottom of the line, and as you said it does highlight scratches excessively. Some of my b&w negs looked fine printed under an enlarger but when scanned with this thing they showed every detail of damage. Also the higher the res, the worse it looks.

    Of course, they were never THIS bad... I'm thinking of attempting my own wet mount scans then editing for the web and then taking them to another lab to see how an 8x10 diffusion printed shot would come out... if I can find one that is...

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    First off, it depends on whether they are scratched on the emulsion side or the base side.
    If it's on the base, you might recover by putting some fluid on the film. If it's on the emulsion, you're probably screwed.

    If you have Photoshop it will be possible to digitally repair the images. As said, the scanner can automatically remove a lot of the damage if you have one with the infrared cleaning option. (AKA: "F.A.R.E." or "I.C.E.") What's left, you can do by hand. It shouldn't take you more than 15 to 30 minutes to do the job if you have a good workflow.

    Crop/Resize the image to the desired dimensions then apply the "Noise > Dust & Scratches" filter to the WHOLE IMAGE.
    Set the parameters for the filter until you JUST make all the damage fade. Ignore the fact that the rest of the image gets blurry. (We'll fix that later.)
    In your "Window > History" panel, click the paintbrush symbol in the left column next to the line for "Dust & Scratches."
    Click "Undo" or go back one step in your history via the History panel.
    Go activate the HISTORY BRUSH from your tool palate and set it's blending mode to "Darken" and opacity to 100%.
    Set a small brush size, as small as you can yet still be workable. (5 to 10 pixels)
    Zoom in to 200% of 300% original size and paint out the scratches.
    If you have scratches that are DARKER than the surrounding picture set the blending mode to "Lighten" and repeat.
    Touch up your work with the "Healing Brush" when you're through so as to blend the pixels together.

    With practice, you should be able to touch up a whole image in 10 to 15 minutes. I have repaired damaged Polaroids using this trick and you might never know there ever was a problem if you didn't look REALLY closely.
    wow, thanks! I'ma try a wet mount scan and try all that...

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    80

    ok so bout this whole wet mount thing

    What is this nose oil you guys keep talking about... I googled it and ummmm... really?!

    I would like to attempt the whole wet film thing on this cheap little scanner of mine and see if that helps... but I have no idea how to do a wet mounted scan, or a nose oil scan, lol. If not I can always send them out.

    Doesn't a wet mount require glass? I'm not sure if it's possible on this scanner. you just slide the film across a little light square, snap down a plastic frame and scan each shot one at a time. There's no glass or tray, its just film straight over an empty hole with light behind it, and a little light thingy comes out and scans over the top.

    Can I just wet my negs with something (and if so with what?) and then scan them?
    Last edited by angrykitty; 06-24-2011 at 03:57 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    BTW: This History Brush trick isn't mine. I learned it from reading "Photoshop for Photographers" by Martin Evening.

    You can see a description of the History Brush tool on-line: http://www.adobepress.com/articles/article.asp?p=685045

    The trick is to use the "blending mode."
    If the blending mode is set to "Normal," the history brush paints from the buffered state of the image into the current state on a pixel-for-pixel basis. Whatever was in memory goes into your picture. However, changing to "Darken" or "Lighten" tells the computer to determine which pixels in the buffered state are darker or lighter than the existing pixels and paint ONLY those pixels.

    If you set the blending mode to "Darken," the computer figures out which pixels in your picture are lighter than the remembered state and only paints pixels that will darken the current image. Thus, you can cover the white marks and ONLY the white marks with the history brush set to "Darken." Of course, you can switch to "Lighten" mode and this will allow you to cover up black spots.

    When you do this trick, some of the "disturbed" pixels might be visible after you paint out out the marks. Use the "Healing Brush" tool to blend the pattern back into the image. Just work carefully and you can probably do a good enough job that nobody will be able to tell unless they squint. Work really carefully and maybe blow the image up to 500% or more and you might be able to make a truly invisible repair job.

    If a dumbass like me can do it, anybody can!
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,907
    Quote Originally Posted by angrykitty View Post
    Wow... the what tool? Sounds like an actual darkroom lol. Wish I had a color one right about now...

    It looks good scratch wise but damn it, its just not the same...i want the smooth creamy silken texture the original film had...

    Well.... most places no longer print with all optical method these days anyway. I noticed the posted image was maybe scanned by a consumer flatbed scanner. Starting with better scan, you still may be able to do quite good.

    I wish you luck.
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Central Florida, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,907
    ... and I really meant "darkroom grain visualization and recording tool, easel, Dektol, Xtol...."
    Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Capital of Oregon Territory
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by angrykitty View Post
    no ICE :-( I have a primefilm 3600u
    This is actually good news. It probably means that most of the scratches are just fine surface ones and will likely disappear when using ICE, wet mounting or printing under enlarger. It sounds like a good reason for you to try RA-4 printing .

    One thing: please don't try wet mounting with your scanner if it was not designed for it. You may damage it. The best way is to take it to a lab that knows how to do it and has the right equipment. It will not be cheap, but well worth it for the very best shots. And looking at your example, you have a few of those.

    Yes, nose grease is exactly what you found on google It's an old printer's trick. It works really well under enlarger. However, when I tried it with a scanner, I was disappointed - scanner picks up the smudge and photo actually looks worse. IMO, not worth the trouble.

Page 3 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