wblynch

<p>Sorry I don't know more. Except I do know they are expensive little beasts. Best luck.</p>

I believe the Kodak HR-500 can do that.

<p>Here is my experience that works well for me.<br> (I will say I never use Pec-12 anymore. It swells the emulsion and introduces streaks that have never come out. I threw that stuff away).</p> <ul> <li>First I dust off/blow off/brush off the film. 50% of the time that does the trick.</li> <li>Next I will rewash the negatives as if I had just developed them. I use either Photo-flow for black and white, or stabilizer for color a an after-treatment and then hang them to dry. This works for another 10%</li> <li>Third, for those really dirty, smudgy ones with stains, fingerprints or old jelly sandwich droppings, I will clean them with Ronsinol (lighter fluid) and a q-tip or soft wipe. This gets all but the final very few.</li> <li>For those last ones, I softly wash them under flowing water with soft hand soap and my fingers. I have done hundreds like this and can do it carefully without scratching or damaging the emulsion. </li> </ul> <p>If all these steps don't get them clean I doubt anything will. I scan them and clean up in software.<br> My Best Regards to All</p>

<p>If one requires maximum resolution from a film negative it would be best to print it with an optical enlarger onto sensitized paper.</p> <p>The state of the art in scanner technology is frozen in 2003. If a modern film scanner were to be produced with today's technology it would surely measure in the 10,000 pixels per inch range. A 35mm negative would produce a 150 megapixel artifact.</p> <p>The beauty and enjoyment of film photography continues despite electronics. Resolution is not everything.</p>

<p>Gorgeous photo Ron. The 3570 really did produce beautiful output. It suffered from limited resolution and lack of dust/ICE processing. Also negative handling was painful. I scratched several negatives with those holder masks.</p>

<p>Okay think about the scanner. It has a sensor of a certain size, say one inch. And say there are 3200 points on the sensor. So that's 3200 points per inch. </p> <p>Now a 35mm film negative is about one inch across (24mm, not quite an inch...) so that scanner can scan 35mm at 3200 ppi.</p> <p>And to scan a 2 1/4" 120 film negative the lens has to zoom out to fit 2 1/4 inches on a one inch sensor. So that means it scans 120 film at about 1400 points per inch. (2.25/3200).</p> <p>This is why it scans medium format at a lower "PPI" than 35mm.</p>

<p>Most scanners have to 'zoom out' to get the MF film into the frame, thus the limited MP sizes. Plus, 10 or 20 years ago computer storage was tiny and you certainly couldn't manage scan files that were multi-gigabytes in size.</p> <p>And the real problem at that time was getting digital photo files to the printer as most were still optical. Later it all reversed when digital printers took over.</p> <p>Scanners were invented to digitize film for transportation, library storage, editing and printing. They weren't invented for pixel peeping.</p> <p>It's great fun to zoom in and in and in on a scan to look for tiny microscopic features or to see what detail there is hiding in there. But think about typical print size and you realize you don't need such huge scans. </p> <p>Scanning technology pretty much halted in 2003. We are frozen in time.</p>

OM-1 uses a battery that was outlawed a long time ago. If you use a modern alkaline battery your meter will be off and you will underexpose your shots. You can use a 675 hearing aid battery and get the right voltage but they don't last long after being activated. You can also get a voltage reducing adapter for about $30 that lets you use an alkaline or, better yet, a silver-oxide battery. Also, make sure you set the ASA dial to the correct film speed.

<p>I would start with a resolution closer to optical, say 1800 or 2000. Scanning at too high a resolution doesn't mean it will be clearer, only that the software will up-rez it using algorithms that could force the results to look blurry.</p>

Someone has to do it. My brother restores antique motorcycles. Anything from 1900-1939. He specializes in Indians and Hendersons but also Thor, Excelsior, Ace, and more. So the thing is one would call that a "diminishing market". But there is a market. There are people with thriving businesses making parts and equipment for these machines. And I am not talking about generic, functional replacement parts. These are highly detailed pieces that are often indistinguishable from the originals. A diminishing market but a market. We need these services and supplies. It might not be "easy money" like the old days when any goofbal with no interest, care or knowledge of photography could order up a mini lab and watch the dough roll in. As soon as the market diminished they ran off, closed the doors and reopened as a smoke and vape shop. Or whatever is the easy money trend of the day. There is a market and people can decide how much business they need to make it run. One person might say it's not worth bothering for less that $20,000 a month. Another might be happy to make $1,000 a month of extra walking around money running a couple hundred rolls in a month. Why not give it a try?

<p>Then maybe the lab tried to process it in E-6 chems that had died out?</p>

<p>Even in C-41, Extachrome (E-6) should produce negatives. The colors will be off but you would get photos.</p> <p>Now if it was old E-4 or E-2 Ektachrome then C-41 processing temperatures would melt the emulsion right off the base and leave you with nothing but clear film.<br /> ----<br /> Being 34 years old it could have been E-4. Check the box to make sure.</p> <p>You can process E-4 in Cold C-41 (65*F for 25-30 minutes) and get something that could be interpreted as pictures.</p> <p>Look at the Flickr Group, "Fossilized Film".</p>

<p>The V-30 should process 135, 240 (APS) and 120 film. Possibly also 126 and 110 instamatic film and even 127.</p> <p>I believe it requires a 240v source but I don't know if that would be single-phase or 3-phase.</p> <p>I've been wanting to get on but don't have the space right now.</p> <p>A V-15 is smaller, processes only 135/240 and I believe takes a 120v source.</p>

<p>I wouldn't have thrown out the Blix. I would have tried it. Personally I don't think stabilizer in the Blix would have affected it at all.</p>

Dissatisfied with the results I get from my Epson 4490, I now use it only for non-35mm films. 110, 126, 127 and 120 films won't fit through my Pakon and I scan mounted slides on an ancient Canon FSLIC-2710 which is fa fabulous scanner but without digital ICE. I should get a V-700 for the medium format and soon, 4x5 negatives.