Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,695   Posts: 1,549,066   Online: 1028
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,236
    A little off topic but this is another cool thing to do related to what Ian C wrote above.

    A lens can 'see through' any object placed right in front of it as long as the aperture is wider than the object. Put a pencil right in front of the lens. You can 'see through' the pencil until you stop down to the point that the physical aperture size equals the width of the pencil.


    With respect to the original post, I'm not sure I follow. Is the defect on the negative the size of a pin hole or smaller? Or does it look like a worm or a fiber?
    Last edited by ic-racer; 07-23-2010 at 12:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I thank you for the Cox suggestion. I looked over their price list. I gather, then, it would be $7.00 to develop a roll of 35mm film, and another $8.00 for a set of corresponding 4x6 RC prints (i.e. "develop and print")? I just want to make sure I am reading it correctly.

  3. #13
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,607
    Images
    122
    Even an air bubble in a lens element will not be visible on a negative or print. So the speck of dust theory is more of a myth.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  4. #14
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Okay all debating of lenses aside - what do the actual negatives look like under a loupe?
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I do not have a loupe. I will go take a look at the negs.

    I apologize for my misspelling of "speck" in previous posts.
    Last edited by FilmOnly; 07-23-2010 at 02:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #16
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,466
    Images
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    I do not have a loupe. I will go take a look at the negs.
    A 50mm lens for a 35mm SLR can make a useful loupe.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I checked the negs with the naked eye and in good natural lighting. Both specks are discernable. Each shows up as a white dot on the neg. One speck is quite easily noticed, and the other takes some more careful inspection, but it is there.

  8. #18
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,288
    Images
    148
    Sounds like they run a dirty process line.

    Whatever, they are clearly incompetent trying to blame it on a dirty lens.

    Ian

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I agree, Ian: the attempt to blame it on a dirty lens only shows their incompetence.

  10. #20
    fotch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE WI- USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,141
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmOnly View Post
    I thank you for the Cox suggestion. I looked over their price list. I gather, then, it would be $7.00 to develop a roll of 35mm film, and another $8.00 for a set of corresponding 4x6 RC prints (i.e. "develop and print")? I just want to make sure I am reading it correctly.

    I think its $8.00 per print. A contact sheet would be cheaper.
    Items for sale or trade at www.Camera35.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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