Green patches on scans

[kristine_evans]

<p>I just got a roll of Kodak Tri-X developed and scanned at a lab, and some of the photos have come back with weird green patches on them. I've tried googling the problem and can't find anything. Is this a problem with the negatives or scans? Can it be fixed? I'll attach an example. Thanks!</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/134088313@N03/24519487161/in/dateposted-public/</p>

<img src="/bboard/88340035.jpg" alt="" />

[kristine_evans]

<p>Here's one I've edited to make it more obvious in case you're viewing from a smaller screen <br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/134088313@N03/24306994680/in/dateposted-public/</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>How are the negatives looking? I'd put it down to the scanning process, they don't seem to be competent, suitable for scanning black and white: why are the scans in color?</p>

<p>Perhaps pick up a scanner, do your own? Actually, if you want to take it further, home processing of a black and white film like Tri-X is one of the easiest.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>In all likelihood, the scanning is the culprit because there are many things that can go weird there if someone isn't paying much attention to how they're scanning something. Check the negatives with light behind them and magnification. If they're fine, then take them to a different lab (better one if you have one) and get a scan done. But overall, convert them to B&W and adjust the levels so you have detail in the black and white areas (presuming there's detail in the neg). No scan is perfect right from the scanner.</p>

[kristine_evans]

<p>Bethe, I edited the photos even more and noticed the patches looking distinctly pixelated, which makes me think it must be the scanning process. After doing this I also realised this is a problem on all of the images, not just some. I had them done at a pro lab, so I'm pretty disappointed about this. I'll have to try a different one next time. I'll see what I can do about editing them to fix the issue.<br>

Mendel, I have been seriously considering getting my own scanner, it's just hard to pick one and know how much money to invest when I am really very knew to scanning (I have previously processed and made darkroom prints). Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks so much for your help!</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I'm not sure what scanners are currently on the market, but I sense the home scanning "wave" has come and gone. There are some still, and many more available used.</p>

<p>I started with a Minolta Scan Dual II, which scanned at a modest 2820 dpi, and didn't have "ICE".</p>

<p>ICE is a hardware/software concept that uses infrared light to detect dust and scratches, and automate deletion from the scan. It's not usable with conventional b/w silver-based films like Tri-X, so not a factor with them. Apologies, but I can't recall what the acronym stands for.</p>

<p>I initially scanned my b/w collection with the Scan Dual II, and was quite happy with the results. While there are times when the scanner supplied software is very useful, with the b/w I opted to run the scanner with Vuescan Pro. It is well worth getting, and Pro is THE version to get.</p>

<p>I next got a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 (first version), which has ICE, scans at 5400 dpi. I used this scanner with my color slides, and in order to utilize ICE, used the scanner supplied software. This scanner is very high resolution, like it's predecessor, it has a relatively diffuse light source, which tends to be better able to discriminate between image and scratches/dust. To improve this factor further, the scanner has a mechanical paddle that can be swung into the light path with a frosted glass piece, to further diffuse the light source.</p>

<p>Next I picked up a Nikon V., which also has ICE, and scans at a very good 4000 dpi. This scanner is faster then the 5400, and was markedly better at achieving corner-to-corner focus. I used this scanner for scanning colour negatives, exclusively using Vuescan to drive it. Vuescan has an ICE alternative, but it is not very effective or seamless. Fortunately my color negatives were clean enough that it would do. The main downside with the V, it has a very directional light source, and will render every scratch and dust mote faithfully. Also, it is not very good for Kodachromes needing ICE treatment, creates strange artifacts at sharply contrasted edges.</p>

<p>Since the above I continue to shoot Tri-X, very sporadically. I home process it with Kodak HC110 dilution B. It is quite easy to do at home. You need a light-tight room with a sink, in my case a windowless powder room with a bit of sealing does the trick. You also need a canister and reel, developer, short stop (water with a bit of acetic acid) and fixer, which strips the undeveloped silver and film backing material.</p>

<p>I then scan the strips with my Scan Elite 5400 and Vuescan Pro. A few years back I got some rolls of Tri-X and chemicals from B&H. I believe it's all still available now, albeit you might need to make different choices for chemicals, not sure how viable Kodak is at present.</p>

<p>To be perfectly candid, my shooting/scanning is pretty much at a halt now, lol. I've got a 5DIII and a full kit of lens, and IT'S sitting idly for the most part as well. My wife has my previous 5D, with a 24-105, it's not getting much use either.</p>

<p>Nowadays I'm mainly just using my iPhone to snap scenes, but that's ok too. :)</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>If you're shooting mostly 35mm, a flat bed won't be your best option, but I do other formats and love my Epson 4870. As old as it is, it still works well. For ones you can get new, the Epson V700 and V800 have fairly good ratings (and would be what I replace mine with when it does die). Yes, pixel peepers probably have issues with them, but I've gotten up to 16" by 20" prints from neg scans and the prints look great. I don't do my own printing from computer files. I still use a darkroom and can scan my prints on the Epson, too. <br>

I develop my own B&W film and it's wicked easy (despite there being many opportunities to mess it up - it's not foolproof). <br>

Pro labs are likely better at the developing and don't care as much about the scanning.</p>