[Jorgario]

Some of my recent pictures with Pentax S2 and Helios 44-2 (58/2) on Ilford Delta 100, and scanned on Epson V600. These were developed at near by local old photography studio (very cheap price: around 3,5 US$) ...

[/URL]

[/URL]

[/URL]

[/URL]

Can someone please give me an idea of the reason of these white dots and hairs appearing in my pictures ?

[stevebrot]

Thanks. That is the Evergreen Cemetery in Everett.

I have several relatives (grandparents, uncles, aunts and a few cousins) buried there. Small world, eh?


Steve

[stevebrot]

A few with my Pentax 67 and Acros this Fall--these are kind of budget flatbed scans, but I'm excited about the detail tucked away in those big negatives:

It really is quite amazing the depth of capture. Good work!


Steve

[Vendee]

Some of my recent pictures with Pentax S2 and Helios 44-2 (58/2) on Ilford Delta 100, and scanned on Epson V600. These were developed at near by local old photography studio (very cheap price: around 3,5 US$) ...


Can someone please give me an idea of the reason of these white dots and hairs appearing in my pictures ?

I'm afraid that's down to your cheap lab. Your shots are nice but the lab has let you down. The negatives have to be dried in a totally dust free environment. I suspect the lab does not get enough film processing work to justify keeping its equipment clean and serviced correctly.

I develop my own b&w film but a few years ago I let my local photo shop develop some C41 film. They don't do much film work and my negatives came back looking much like yours do.

You might be able to recover things a bit by soaking your negatives in demineralised water for an hour or so then ever so gently wipe the emulsion side of the film with your fingers before drying them in a steamy bathroom.

It might be worth showing the scans to your lab so they can see how bad it is.

[dsmithhfx]

Some of my recent pictures with Pentax S2 and Helios 44-2 (58/2) on Ilford Delta 100, and scanned on Epson V600. These were developed at near by local old photography studio (very cheap price: around 3,5 US$) ...

[/URL]

[/URL]

[/URL]

[/URL]

Can someone please give me an idea of the reason of these white dots and hairs appearing in my pictures ?

"I'm afraid that's down to your cheap lab."

It's also possible dust is present on the scanner bed and opening and closing the lid makes it settle onto the negatives.

[Xmas]

"I'm afraid that's down to your cheap lab."

It's also possible dust is present on the scanner bed and opening and closing the lid makes it settle onto the negatives.

The thing you did back before digital was look at negatives both sides and image with jewellers loupe!

[dsmithhfx]

The thing you did back before digital was look at negatives both sides and image with jewellers loupe!

Or just shoot it with a can of compressed air and pray (my method).

(I sometimes have to do rather a lot of spotting in PP)

[goatsNdonkey]

Can someone please give me an idea of the reason of these white dots and hairs appearing in my pictures ?

TO CLARIFY --

The dots, lines, lint or hair marks can come from three different sources, two of which you have control over, one of which the lab mainly has control over:

1) Your scanner could have dust in it or on surfaces that make spots on the scans. Remedy: make sure the scanner is clean before scanning.

2) The negatives could have gotten dust and lint on them between the time the lab dried them and when you scanned them (could be their fault and your fault). Remedy, carefully clean any loose dust or lint from each negative before scanning, using a air puffer (like you'd used to clean dust off of a lens) and/or a very soft, clean brush.

NOTE: It would be a good idea to check and possibly clean the scanner and dust the negatives and do a rescan, in order to see if your scans still have marks on them, before considering the next issue.

3) The negatives were not washed sufficiently by the lab and dried with chemical residue on them and/or they were dried where dust could get on them while they were still wet, meaning it is stuck onto the negatives. Remedy: First, show the lab how dirty the negs they gave you are, and ask if they can do better next time. They might offer to rewash these negs and keep them clean. If you aren't satisfied with their answer, you can wash and dry the negs yourself in order to get any chemical residue and stuck on dirt off of them and trying to keep them as dust free as possible before scanning.


ALSO --

1) I really like the portrait. Nice job!

2) I expect negatives to get dust and lint on them even when handled with care. Looking carefully at them just before scanning or inserting them into an enlarger, and usually having to blow off some additional dust at the last minute is normal and to be expected.

3) Years ago, I remember having to ALWAYS remind the clerk at the photo store where I got film developed, to mark "clean neg" or "clean slide" on my order if I was ordering a reprint or an enlargement. If I didn't have them do that, half of the time the print would have a dust or lint mark on it, and they would have to redo the job for me.



.

[tuco]

I have several relatives (grandparents, uncles, aunts and a few cousins) buried there. Small world, eh?
Steve

The old section of the cemetery seems like they placed graves at random wasting a lot of space.

[goatsNdonkey]

The old section of the cemetery seems like they placed graves at random wasting a lot of space.

Often, old parts of cemeteries have a lot of missing markers -- graves that had temporary markers that weren't replaced by more permanent ones, small markers that have sunken into the ground, markers that have been damaged or stolen and didn't get replaced....things like that...not to mention that people may have purchased plots for family members who later moved away or died elsewhere and were never buried there. If the record of burials and their locations has been preserved, you might find that some of those open-looking spaces are actually occupied, while others are not but belong to the family of nearby marked graves.

[CreationBear]

amazing the depth of capture

Thanks! As a total film newbie, what really was surprising to me was how the shot of the river sustained details in the highlights...that would be a five shot bracket and a lot of work in post with my K-5. At any rate, I'll be happy to lug the big beast for as long as my knees hold out.

[tuco]

Thanks! As a total film newbie, what really was surprising to me was how the shot of the river sustained details in the highlights...

Look at a film's characteristic curve produced by the manufacture. Learn how to read it but more importantly learn about a film's "toe" and "shoulder" ( references to the shape and location on the curve). You will see that as the light/exposure increases there is less tonal change on a rounded shoulder film thereby not overexposing your highlights as easily like the more linear response of a digital sensor. And you can see which films will produce better separation in low values or deeper, more compressed blacks from the shape of the toe, for example.

Also, you can even get more dynamic range out of your BW film if you develop it yourself. It is a technique called highlight compression and Ansel Adams tells you all about it in his book, The Negative, as well as other sources. But welcome to MF BW photography. You may find the biggest difference is getting deep DOF in some shots because of the longer equivalent focal lengths needed.

[CreationBear]

And you can see which films will produce better separation in low values or deeper, more compressed blacks from the shape of the toe, for example.

Thanks for the insights! I can certainly see how taking control of the entire workflow--from development through scanning--would be optimal. Like a lot of people, my first and last darkroom experience was when I was an undergrad, but there is a local developing "club" here in K'ville that might help keep the overhead low until I got set up at home.


At any rate, I am intrigued by the differences between Acros and the one roll of Delta 100 I tried--definitely like the blacks of the latter, but its reciprocity failure issues might make it a no-go when shooting stopped down in the low-light conditions I encounter here in the mountains.

[Xmas]

Thanks for the insights! I can certainly see how taking control of the entire workflow--from development through scanning--would be optimal. Like a lot of people, my first and last darkroom experience was when I was an undergrad, but there is a local developing "club" here in K'ville that might help keep the overhead low until I got set up at home.


At any rate, I am intrigued by the differences between Acros and the one roll of Delta 100 I tried--definitely like the blacks of the latter, but its reciprocity failure issues might make it a no-go when shooting stopped down in the low-light conditions I encounter here in the mountains.

Sadly Acros kaput!

[tuco]

... but its reciprocity failure issues might make it a no-go when shooting stopped down in the low-light conditions I encounter here in the mountains.

You can correct for reciprocity failure. And it is a double-edge sword. If you want a long exposure, reciprocity failure can be your friend especially when a 9 or 10 stop ND filter is not enough. I've shot a lot of Acros in the past. It's a good general purpose film and notorious for developing well in about any developer.