File :-(, x, )
Film Scanning Anonymous
Hello /p/.
Just got my film scanner and was about to celebrate with a roll of film processed at a local cvs for $2(US).

First I was like: Fuck yeah CVS. Then I noticed that I had two very noticable lines across most of my roll. Thanks assholes.

I'm sure that their photo procedure is less than stellar, but I don't know what explains the secondary crease in the middle of the negative.

Pic. related. Scanned on EPSON 4490.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:04 06:38:10
>> Anonymous
You should murder them.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Here's another one.
I spared you guys having to look at the shitty colors.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:04 06:58:02
>> Anonymous
>>174632
And the nincompoop who processed this was a guy who had taken care of all my film stuff before I moved to digital. I'm sure penn camera does a much better job for $4(US).
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174633
My scanner auto-cropped between the two lines since the negative was already extremely underexposed.

This image also has the same crease defect but only on the bottom part of the frame.
Also, all these are lightly leveled, but no cleaning for posterity.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:04 07:04:19
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
ICE, use it.
>> Anonymous
>>174643
Doing it.
What exactly does ICE do?
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>174646
http://www.epson.co.nz/products/features/4490_ice_1042_perfection4490photo.html
much related to your scanner.
ICE is a godsend in the film scanning world. (but sadly doesn't work with B&W)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>174647
The ICE removed the rainbow crease effect but did nothing to correct the long scratch marks.
I guess you can't ask for miracles.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:04 07:29:17
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>174648
hmm, should of worked flawlessly. Seems to on my Nikon LS-5000
>> Anonymous
>>174652
And this is a budget flatbed film scanner with shitty software.
>> des
I'm sure there's no malice involved. It's par for the course when you're using a roller processor.
Even if they're crazy meticulous about cleaning, it can still happen. If you're paranoid, only use labs that have a dip and dunk.

Not to mention cameras scratch film, I have to get my N90ses douched more than any bodies I've had. nfc what it is about the transport that leiks dirt so much but whatever
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This one also received the same treatment as>>174648
But I don't understand why the scanner auto crops at the scratch marks. Also, I haven't found an option that just scans the whole negative, regardless of whether or not there is actually "usefull" data there.

>>174655
I think I'll spend the extra 2 dollars next time.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:05:04 07:59:08
>> Anonymous
Newton rings? Turn the film upside down in your scanner and try again if they disappear.

For scratches: there might be some dirt in the film cartridge (in the soft cushion perhaps), or your camera might have some dirt inside. Better check that too before blaming a lab.

Also, I've got some horrible colored scratches from one (rather expensive) one-hour-lab. Never went there again, thanks a lot..
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_rings
>> Anonymous
>>174837

What causes these?
>> Anonymous
>>175058
in a nutshell, reflections between a curve and a flat piece of refractive material (glass, plastic, etc) I think something similar occurs in CD's
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>174837
that tile is more than 33 years old!
>> Anonymous
Reminds me how much of a hassle film is. Also, let's refrain from a giant film/digital discussion again.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
film has more dynamic range than digital
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>175154
dynamic has more film than digital range
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>175156

digital has more film dynamic than range
>> Anonymous
>>175156
Range has more digital than dynamic film.
>> Anonymous
Free range film has more digital than dynamic beef.
>> Anonymous
you gaggle of fuck