alessandro serrao

<p>It seems that the lines have somewhat been reduced after I gently breathed and wiped with a Kodak lens paper onto the front element.<br>

Can be useful if I try to clean the lens with the Kodak solution?</p>

<p>The hairline scratches are much like the scratches that can be made on a clear plastic polycarbonate surface (like CDs or DVDs) if rubbed gently with a soft cloth.<br>

The logic says me that they aren't cleaning marks: it's nearly impossible to produce such straight lines just cleaning the lens. Two lines are even perfectly parallel to each other!<br>

Can't feel anything when I pass over them with my lens tissue (Kodak).<br>

Could it be some sort of defective anti reflection coating?</p>

<p>I've just bought a brand new Olympus vr-310. I've noticed what I think are some marks on the front element that could be scratches (?). They are extremely tiny, perfectly straight lines that are visible only with an incident type of incandescent light. They are difficult to spot: I've used my Nikkor 50mm upside down to clearly see them. They are 3 or 4 straight lines at angles between them, on the lower right side of the front lens element only.<br>

What could they are? </p>

<p>Unfortunately I cannot post any scan. But I've managed to eliminate all these spost by rubbing them first with q-tips with water, then applying some isopropyl alcohol to evaporate the water. Now the backing side is shining without spots but there are transport roller scratches and some swirls made by me.<br>

So, to sum up, wasn't it a problem with the lab? </p>

<p>Recently I've had a roll of Kodak Elitechrome 100 Extra Colour developed along with a roll of Fuji Sensia 100. The same lab developed them, one after the other sequentially.<br>

The Kodak came with marks on the shining side of the film, the spots that are difficult to eliminate at most. I've managed to alleviate the problem by halitating on them and rubbing gently with a soft microfiber cloth. However the spots never went away completely. One, in particular, left the film "etched" no matter what. Not all frames were affected. I ended up throwing in the recycle bin half of the shots.<br>

The Fuji Sensia came beautifully, perfect, without any sign of spots.<br>

Both films were kept deep freezed at -18°C and both were allowed to reach ambient temperature in their canisters and both films were best before 2006.<br>

What happened?</p>

 

<p>I've got the following emulsions:<br>

1) Agfa Apx100 (= Rollei Retro 100)<br>

2) Efke kb25<br>

3) Efke kb50<br>

4) Ilford Panf+<br>

What about the first developer time for these films in Agfa Scala chemicals?</p>

<p>@Robert Vonk: are you sure Foto Studio 13 GmbH will process Foma R100?</p>

<p>IlfordLab have reprinted all my negatives FOR FREE!<br>

They were aware of the problem (imputable to one of their printer) and thew acknowledged to send me a voucher of £10 for the inconvenience.<br>

WHAT A FABULOUS SERVICE!<br>

Now more than ever I'm commited to ILFORD!</p>

<p>Too a generic problem. You say the problem lies in only one frame but then you say that some frames has no silver at all.<br>

So it isn't only 1 frame, for what I've understood.<br>

However to be more precise, scans are paramount.<br>

Better yet a pic of the entire negative taken with a compact digital camera.</p>

 

<p>Too much a pH shift. From the D76 to undiluited stop bath at 25°C. That's the problem.</p>

<p>You should not use Kodak D94 with potassium permanganate based bleach, as per Kodak instruction.<br />You should use Kodak D95, which is the D94 with DTOD instead of thiocyanates as a silver halide solvent. However I've found that you can substitute it with hypo, varying the quantity and first developer time accordingly.<br>

Permanganates based bleach calls for metabisulphites as clearing agent.</p>

<p>Well, updates.<br>

Ilford Lab had my print reprinted for FREE plus they send me a 10£ voucher.<br>

Well, if it ain't a perfect service...<br>

Kudos to Ilford!!</p>

 

<p>I've been disappointed in the past.<br>

See here: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Xu2R</p>

<p>No one?</p>

<p>Last one</p>

<p> Another pic</p>

<p>Some time ago I've decided to try IlfordLab.com printing service.<br>

I've sent them an Ilford Fp4+ developed by myself in Xtol. All the prints have a strange banding on the left side of the pictures.<br>

Attached are the prints where the banding is more evident.<br>

What's the cause of it?</p>

<p>Emulsion problem. Imho the film was not properly and unevenly hardened at factory.<br>

Try with another roll from the same batch number...</p>

<p>potassium permanganate and sulfuric acid</p>

<p>@ Stuart: the comparison is a bit unfair since you used Rodinal as a developer and you haven't said how you post processed your image. For example, using neat image on the left (analog) crop would have resulted in a less noisy texture...<br>

Try to use x-tol and neat image and you'll get what you'll get from a digital P&S...</p>

<p>@ Dave: a flatbed with 5.4 MPixel and a P&S with 6MPixel is not that a great difference I feel.</p>

 

<p>--</p>

<p>Ok, let's say that my pic is b&w while the one taken with the Nikon it's in colour, but I feel the scans coming from flatbeds, if properly adjusted, are not inferior, if superior, to the pics taken with a digital P&S...</p>

<p>Then how do you explain the big difference in terms of overall image quality between a flatbed scanned 35mm frame (properly adjusted, auto toned, auto contrasted, sharpened and neat-imaged) and a common P&S digital camera?<br /> To my eyes the scanned image wins hands down. I've seen example like this that is horrendous!<br /> This is a pic taken with a Nikon L22, that is supposed to be a 12Mpixel camera...<br /> The P&S pic looks artificial, with tonal gradations that aren't smooth, with sharpness that isn't even, with barrell distorsion, coma, ecc...<br>

This is a pic scanned with my Epson 3490: http://www.flickr.com/photos/54029037@N05/5022838278/sizes/l/in/photostream/</p>

 

<p>I've searched photo.net for a similar question but to no avail.<br>

Basically what I'd like to know is: <em>in real world</em> how does a common flatbed scanner (such as an Epson 3490) used with 35mm relates with a generic compact digital camera (say 12Mpixel) in terms not only of resolution but also of noise?<br>

I've seen horrendous pictures out of almost any digital compact cameras (noise skyrocketed, poor resolution, ecc...) while with substantial post processing I've seen quite decent scan from my Epson 3490.</p>

 

<p>Michael, join the group. There are posted images of a reversed T-Max 100 so you can judge and make up your mind about reversal process.</p>