[filmscanners] RE: What's on the negative? (was colormatiching with Canon)

["Bernie Kubiak" <bkubiak@attbi.com>]

The hair (or whatever) isn't likely on the lens but inside the camera,
somewhere between the lens and the film.  Unless you're using a very
small f stop, a hair on the lens likely wouldn't show.  The other
prospect is sloppy processing.

When you're getting used to a camera, shoot slide film.  The slide is an
original image and you'll get a much better idea of what you're doing
rather than the photo processor's work or having to "interpret" a
negative.  When you do scan the slide, you have a sample you can match
to.  Once you get a good idea of what's going on you can go back to
using print film if you choose.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mark Otway
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 7:15 AM
To: bkubiak@attbi.com
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Colormatching with Canon S820/S900


>> 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
>> plane.

The film was just 35mm Fuji film (can't remember which exact type).

Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
title or body


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body