Scannable B&W films

Ted wrote:
 > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 06:12:14 -0800, The Wogster wrote:
 >
  >>Ted wrote:
  >>
   >>>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 18:20:33 -0800, The Wogster wrote:
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>>My one camera body was declared DOA by the repair shop this
   >>>>morning, so I need to replace is as I am down to one, and it
   >>>>needs work too. I'll need to stick to colour for a while, at
   >>>>least until I can get my cameras all working again.....
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>Replace it with a digital camera and you'll have no problem at
   >>>all!
   >>>
  >>
  >>The current budget is under $200, find me a nice new digital SLR
  >>for under $200 with at least a 6MP sensor, and I'm game....
 >
 >
 > I know. The high cost of replicating the capabilities I currently get
 > with a film SLR (including wide-angle lenses) keeps me in front of my
 > monitor cleaning up those little specks on my film scans.
 >

I usually start with one of those lens blower brushes, and blow off
anything I can from both sides, that reduces the number of specks quite
a bit......

W<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scannable B&amp;W films 

Ted wrote:
 > On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:44:05 -0800, The Wogster wrote:
 >
 >
   >>>I know. The high cost of replicating the capabilities I currently
   >>>get with a film SLR (including wide-angle lenses) keeps me in
   >>>front of my monitor cleaning up those little specks on my film
   >>>scans.
   >>>
   >>>
  >>
  >>I usually start with one of those lens blower brushes, and blow off
  >>anything I can from both sides, that reduces the number of specks
  >>quite a bit......
 >
 >
 > I use photo-grade "canned air" (actually a chlorofluorocarbon) and my
 > scanner's infrared cleaning. Both help a lot, but they're not
 > completely perfect. With a digital camera you don't have to worry about
 > that... but you do have to worry about dust getting on the sensor. You
 > can't win, I'm afraid.
 >

NEVER EVER EVER use canned air around negatives or lenses, there is
always the possibility that the can will release some of the propelent,
and that stuff makes krazy glue look like the stuff on the back of a
post-it note. The air in a blower brush is much safer, as the
propellent is muscle power.

W<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scannable B&amp;W films 

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:38:09 -0800, The Wogster wrote:

  >> I use photo-grade "canned air" (actually a chlorofluorocarbon)
  >> and my scanner's infrared cleaning. Both help a lot, but they're
  >> not completely perfect. With a digital camera you don't have to
  >> worry about that... but you do have to worry about dust getting
  >> on the sensor. You can't win, I'm afraid.
  >>
  >>
 > NEVER EVER EVER use canned air around negatives or lenses, there is
 > always the possibility that the can will release some of the
 > propelent, and that stuff makes krazy glue look like the stuff on
 > the back of a post-it note. The air in a blower brush is much
 > safer, as the propellent is muscle power.

That's often true of the "canned air" products intended for blowing dust
out of computers. But the photo grade kind is "safe for delicate
instruments, negatives, slides, cameras, lenses...." because the
propellant is the "air." You just have to make sure it's the more
expensive photo grade. I also have a blower brush, but the canned air
delivers more pressure to dislodge particles muscle power can't.


---
Non-spam e-mail: usenet{AT}tedsimages{dot}com
Visit my Virtual Light Table: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.tedsimages.com" target="_blank">http://www.tedsimages.com</a>
Travel, scenic, and fine art photography<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Scannable B&amp;W films