Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing
- To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
- Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scratched Negs & Home C-41 processing
- From: Roman Kielich® <panromek@bigpond.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:13:30 +1100
- In-reply-to: <NBBBKPAGMKMAMBDNLDGOMEOLFEAA.michael@shaffer.net>
- List-help: <mailto:majordomo@lists.cix.co.uk> 'help' as msg. text
- Mailing-list: filmscanners; contact: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
- References: <20010123080849.2982.cpmta@c008.sfo.cp.net>
At 07:18 23/01/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> In one case, I picked up some negatives which demonstrated a very
>long scratch across several frames which didn't show up in the prints
>(which I use as pseudo-proofs). The significance of the scratch was
>it should have showed in the prints, and my conclusion was the scratch
>occurred during the printing process. One method of avoiding this is
>to use a service which puts the sticky laminate on the film after
>processing, but before printing. However, the laminate has it own
>downside ... primarily being a hassle to remove before scanning.
>
>shAf :o)
if they accepted your argument, they deserve to be punished. Most printers
use diffused light which "masks" fine scratches. The same neg printed with
a point light source would look terrible. Saying that, I'd rather look for
scratches which are not parallel to the edge. It is definite sign of a film
abuse.
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow
in Australia".
|
