Art wrote:
>Every lab operates slightly differently in terms of how much film they
>require to do their process
Personally I don't think there's any good excuse for fingerprints on the
emulsion, but I'm forgiving in this instance because the Sea & Sea was trying
to take photos on every millimetre of the film. One of the first "frames"
was cut in half by exposure to light during loading; the camera didn't wind
on to frame 1. The camera also took the last "frame" (the one with the
fingerprint) off the end of frame 24 but *overlapped* on the previous frame.
It shouldn't have reset the shutter to allow the last image. I'm not
particularly
impressed by the Sea & Sea in this respect considering a cheap point and
shoot can do this, and the Sea & Sea costs over US$350 for the body.
> Regarding finger prints that are on the emulsion side. Remove the film
> from the slide holder if its a slide, and the soak the film in warm
> water with a drop or two of photoflo or equivalent, for up to half an
> hour. The photoflo not only prevents spotting, but being a detergent,
> also breaks down some of the grease in the fingerprint.
I'll have to give this a try. The last partial image actually has a whole
bunch of fish on it. I should have bought a roll of 36! I used negs since
the exposures underwater were likely to be extremely variable. I'm having
problems with reds in the images; I suspect Fuji Superia 400 tends to
oversaturate
reds when used with a flash. I rescanned one frame using Vuescan 6.02 and
the reds are definitely more saturated with the current version of 7.x.
I've also learned that "autolevels" can do some really awful things including
highlighting grain if the colour balance in the image isn't "normal" daylight.
I think this is one film I'll have to make raw scans from so I can experiment
later with the best method of cropping. Otherwise I'm going to spend forever
rescanning it!
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
