[filmscanners] Re: What's on the negative? (was colormatichingwith Canon)

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Bernie Kubiak wrote:

> 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.


As much as some labs are deserving of having a finger pointed to them
for defects, this hair situation cannot be a lab defect, since it is on
the neg itself.  Short of a hair really sticking to the film throughout
the development process and then falling off afterward, (which is nearly
impossible) I can't think of how this could happen during development.
Also, hairs being cylindrical, their actual surface contact area is
extremely minimal and most photo chemistry would get around it.  So I
agree with your first suspicion.

>
> 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.
>

This is particularly a good recommendation with a brand new camera.
Since neg films are very forgiving of exposure errors, and further since
the print is a secondary interpretation of the neg allowing for even
further adjustment, I always recommend people shoot a roll of slides to
test the exposure meter, apertures, shutter speeds, etc.  Slight errors
are more obvious on slide film, and as stated above, it is the original,
but also final image.

Art

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