Roger wrote:
> As you may have read, I now realize these mysterious
> "bubbles" are in undeveloped film and thus are not a
> product of developing quirks. I'm sorry for making
> such a misleading statement.
No need to apologise. I was expecting that they might have been bubbles
in the plastic of the film base itself, that's why I asked. It looks like
they're a side effect of putting the final coating on the emulsion.
> That doesn't make your unfortunate experience with
> 100VS any less annoying - it just probably doesn't
> apply in this case.
No, it does'nt - but I wanted to mention the heads up about the surface
tension anyway. :)
> I also got some strange colours from 100VS, plus I
> found it "grainy", and haven't used it since.
The lab raved about it as being better than Velvia so I thought I'd give
it a try. The only Kodak film I use regularly is T400CN.
> I do wonder if the relative freedom from "bubbles"
> shown by Provia 100F compared to other slide films
> I've looked at contributes to the smooth scans
> obtained from P 100F.
It may - but as you already established, the structure of the dye clouds
in 100F is amorphous and the Kodak films tend to have much more sharply
defined grain. What is interesting is that film scanners (certainly my
Nikon) probably only ever focus on the surface of the film - with narrow
depth of focus it's possible that the bubbles and dust end up more sharply
focussed than the image itself. The bubbles may contribute to "apparent
grain" by distorting the image. I guess I'm happy with the coincidence
that Fuji film seems to have less bubbles, anyway. :)
Rob
>At 10:53 AM +1000 9/23/01, Rob Geraghty wrote:
>>Roger, I gather the bubbles are on the emulsion side of the film, not
the
>>base side of the film?
>
> Yes, the bubbles are in the thin outside protective layer
>over the emulsion, not in the heavy base layer.
>
>Regards,
>Roger Smith
>
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
