> Most rolls I have gotten back from a variety of labs seem dust-free, but
the scanner still
> picks up a lot of tiny-to-small spots.
There are a number of possible causes for this. Some may be as Brad
suggests dirt/dust as well as water marks and contaminants embedded in the
emulsion during processing which are too small to be seen in small prints or
via the naked eye on the film. Some may be due to dirt and dust in the
scanner itself which due to air movement may fall in different places on
some film and not at all on other film during the scanning process; or it
may fall on the scanner's sensor during the scanning process.
>I don't know whether dICE would be faster or
> not, but I expect it would be a lot more fun.
I don't know what you mean by "fun;" but if you mean that it would not be as
tedious, I can accept that. I will not argue with you that manually fixing
scratches and dust marks is a tedious pain; but I will remind you that dICE
does not work well with b&W silver halide based films or with Kodachrome.
> It was so nice to be able to concentrate on color (and other image)
issues only, and not have to go through each
> scan fixing the spots.
I can't argue with that. :-)
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> "LAURIE SOLOMON" wrote: "Preston, I have to wonder if time were money
> if you would actually save a whole lot by using dICE since using it
> often slows down the scan speed a great deal. If one cleaned one's
> film
> and dust out of the scanner, would one have to spend more than a
> minimal
> amount of time touching up dust on the film scans without dICE as
> compared to the amount of time a dICE scan would take? It make
> (might)
> be a toss up."
> ---------------------
>
> I have my film processed at a one-hour lab, have prints made, and then
> scan the negatives. (I ask the lab not to cut the negatives and to be
> careful in handling them. The operators seem to be conscientious in
> trying to keep the negs clean and scratch-free.) I don't clean the
> negs
> beyond perhaps wiping them with a lint-free cloth, and I don't always
> do
> that. (It doesn't seem to make any difference.) Most rolls I have
> gotten
> back from a variety of labs seem dust-free, but the scanner still
> picks
> up a lot of tiny-to-small spots. The Polaroid D&SR filter takes care
> of
> the tiny ones, but it still takes a couple of minutes to clone or heal
> the larger ones. Plus, with the D&SR, I have to be conscious of
> artifacts created in the cleaning process, particularly in the
> specular highlights of the image. I don't know whether dICE would be
> faster or
> not, but I expect it would be a lot more fun.
>
> I did have one roll of old (circa. 2000) negatives I uncovered the
> other
> day, and when I scanned them, there were virtually no spots to be
> cleaned on any of the scans. It was so nice to be able to concentrate
> on
> color (and other image) issues only, and not have to go through each
> scan fixing the spots.
>
> Preston Earle
> PEarle@triad.rr.com
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.751 / Virus Database: 502 - Release Date: 9/2/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
