Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: Colormatching with Canon S820/S900
If it is a normal lens I can almost absolutely state it was not on the
lens. There is no way a "normal" (45-55mm) lens can focus at the lens
surface. I assume this Canon 300 is an SLR with exchangeable lenses,
Your explanation pretty much clinches it. It was a hair stuck between
the film and the focal plane shutter, very near the film surface. I had
this happen once myself. It usually gets stuck in the baffling or the
flocked light damping material, or sometimes in the shutter mechanism
itself. It can fall out of that area, just from the camera being bumped
or finally just from the film going by or it gets caught on a film
socket and gets dragged out as the film goes by. It is not the fault of
the processing, you indeed made a "contact neg" of the hair.
Even at maximum depth of field (like F/16 or f/22 or whatever you lens
stops down to) I would be surprised in a normal lens (45-55mm) could
focus more than to about 6-9 inches from the front lens surface. Try it
with a string, or you finger. This hair is in pretty sharp focus for
most of its length. Otherwise you have a spectacular macro lens ;-)
Anyway, I sent you a private email to explain how to use the cloning
tool in Photoshop, and also a corrected version of the image. I hope
that is helpful.
Mark Otway wrote:
>>>I doubt that's a hair on or near the lens. Although you
>>>used a wide angle lens, I'd be very surprised it could focus
>>>that close to the lens or even a filter ring.
> I just used a normal lens (the one that came as standard on the Canon).
> I don't have any extra lenses yet, although I want to get a telephoto
> for wildlife photography at some point. I also don't have any filter
> rings (and wouldn't have the faintest idea what filters I should even
> consider buying/using!).
> I'm fairly certain it was a hair on the lens, as 8 other pictures taken
> from the same day have the hair in precisely the same place, and the
> same line marks the prints that I got when the negatives were developed,
> before I'd even scanned them. It's unlikely to be a hair that got caught
> up in the development process, as the only pictures on that film with
> the hair in them were those taken on the same day that the picture I
> posted was taken.
>>>If it isn't a real hair stuck in the slide mount or on the
>>>negs (I'm not sure what type of film was used), or it could
>>>have been a hair actually in the camera at or near the film
> The film was just 35mm Fuji film (can't remember which exact type).
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or