Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)

[Barbara & Martin Greene <martbarb@earthlink.net>]

Owen

I'm sure you're right about the fact that dust is everywhere and instantly
accumulates on any slide.  But I also agree with the view that a good deal
of the spots and crud are embedded in the emulsion, being either intrinsic
to the film or as a result of processing.  All these things together, of
course also including actual dust contribute to the problem.  So those of us
who don't want the spots will either have to go with ICE or spend a good
deal of time removing the spots.  At this point I can no longer say which
method is preferable.  If you have lots of free time, as I do, then it's
possible to work manually so long as you don't have lots of scans to work
on.  It seems to me that anyone who is doing quantity work would be foolish
not to go for ICE.

Martin
> From: "Owen P. Evans" <opevans@istar.ca>
> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:35:40 -0400
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Cc: <martbarb@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
> 
> Hi Martin,
> I can tell you that dust is everywhere! If you handle slides with cotton
> gloves, the slides become filthy. If you place the slide into the slide
> holder it will grab any dust that you let get on the holder while it sat on
> the table. The minute the motors start whirring in the scanner, the
> electrostatic charges pull dust in from all around the scanner. I scanned a
> slide which I made a year ago and compared it to the scan of it I made 10
> months ago. The slide sat in its Print File sleeve for 10 months. I cleaned
> the slide with a sable artists brush, then compressed air ( Dust Off ) and
> scanned it. The scan looked like I dumped an ashtray on the slide???
> Compared to the first scan I made, it was worse.
> My theory is that the slides themselves not only attract dust
> electrostatically, but degrade and crack over time. These micro-cracks
> aren't seen when we project the slides but under the microscopic scrutiny of
> the scanner, become larger than life. Once the cracks open to the
> atmosphere, all sorts of things can get into the emulsion layers of the
> slide. Art & Roger are taking the manufacturers to task in their theories;
> I'm just accepting the chemistry & physics.
> Again, when we blow these slides up in Photoshop, they are magnified beyond
> the 8 x 10" or 13 x 19" prints that we make so the spots become exaggerated
> on the screen not in the prints. I've printed a lot of scans from the
> SS-4000 to an Epson 2000P printer in the past 10 months and I don't see the
> crud in the print; only on the CRT of the computer.
> Just my two cents worth of opinion.
> Regards,
> Owen
> 
> Owen P. Evans
> Osgoode, Ontario. Canada
> (near our nation's capital; Ottawa)
> opevans@istar.ca
> J.33-3
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barbara & Martin Greene" <martbarb@earthlink.net>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Emulsion flaws (was dust in SS4000)
> 
> 
>> Art, Roger and others
>> 
>> What you have found offers a plausible explanation for the junk that has
>> been plaguing many of us although not seen or of concern to others.  I
> just
>> finished removing at least one thousand spots from a scan.  This was from
> a
>> pristine, perfect slide scanned on an SS 4000, blown up for a 13x19 print,
>> and rubber stamped in Photoshop.  Clearly, they were not the result of
> dust.
>> Nor was it from my brand new scanner.  The slide was processed by an
>> excellent lab.  The only explanation for this is that they are in the
>> emulsion.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
> 
>