- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,225
- Format
- 4x5 Format
THANK YOU!.... I mean... I'm not against the idea of holding a brush and it sure sounds a lot more appealing than hunching over a computer screen to look at pixels. But it doesn't strike me as something I'd want to do often. I guess time will tell.
It’s not “much” work. You look at the results from a distance. Where you see white spots that disrupt sky or background, you touch a few dappled points of gray dye and make the spot disappear.
If your negative is mostly clean, there would be just a few spot that you need to touch.
When you put it that way it doesn't sound so bad.
No it doesn't sound so bad and but then again nor does laying bricks to build a house or ,say, something simpler like a wall. You get some bricks and mix cement and sand with water then put it between the layers of bricks
What takes the time is in both cases is being able to do it properly. Compared to preventative cleaning and in the last resort re-printing, cleaning is genuinely an easy skill to master and in the case of re-printing is simply repeating what by definition you have already done to your satisfaction before
On the other hand, on a wet Sunday afternoon spotting might be something to occupy your time and given a few wet Sunday afternoons depending on your aptitude you may be able to spot invisibly to the same level as you can re-print
The choice is yours of course
pentaxuser
Often spotting is done to mask imperfections in the negative, rather than simply dust on the negative or in the enlarger. & like any other part of the photographic process, the quality of the results improve with practice & skill.
Ha ha. Now that you guys trained me to think about these things, I've just noticed dust spots in one of the prints I posted at the start of this thread.
View attachment 401612
D, the crescent shaped irregularity would not be dust, but likely damage on the negative.
Can it be lint or hair?
It's too small for a kinking crescent; those are bigger and tend to fade & fan out on both ends. This looks like a short hair; maybe part of an eyelash, bit of beard etc.D, the crescent shaped irregularity would not be dust, but likely damage on the negative.
It's too small for a kinking crescent; those are bigger and tend to fade & fan out on both ends. This looks like a short hair; maybe part of an eyelash, bit of beard etc.
With my 7x loupe I cannot get close enough to the negative to see either the dust speck or the crescent. I need to get a stronger loupe.
K, are you profiling because dcy's image of him w a beard?
I contend that a hair from his avatar made it onto a negative - definitely!
You should be able to make an 8x10 from a half-frame negative, if the shot is in focus and the camera was held steady and you don't mind whatever impact the grain has. You might be more pleased with a 5x7.
Normal prints from 110, 40 years ago, were 3.5 x 5. (110 is close to half frame size.)
| Format | Baseline | Stretch Goal |
| 110 | 3.5 x 5 | 5 x 7 |
| Half-Frame | 5 x 7 | 8 x 10 |
| Full Frame | 8 x 10 | ... |
Let's see... the 110 format is 13x17 mm which is 1 mm larger than half-of-half-frame. In turn, 8x10 is 1" wider than two 5x7's. Therefore...
Format Baseline Stretch Goal 110 3.5 x 5 5 x 7 Half-Frame 5 x 7 8 x 10 Full Frame 8 x 10 ...
It’s not “much” work. You look at the results from a distance. Where you see white spots that disrupt sky or background, you touch a few dappled points of gray dye and make the spot disappear.
If your negative is mostly clean, there would be just a few spot that you need to touch.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?