john_markanich

The spot looks like it matches the sensitivity area of a spot metering pattern (if your camera has one). Remove the lens and trip the shutter on Bulb while looking at the sensor at various angles in strong light. You may see a hint of the spot on the sensor itself.

 

In the good old days IR film (which had no anti-halation backing) would image whatever mechanical artifacts were on the presure plate (screw heads, rivet heads, textured patterns, etc.) since those areas of the film got a second exposure as the IR radiation reflected back through the film base.

Geoff, exposed but undeveloped film holds what is called "the latent image". Now, according to Webster, the word "latent" means "potential", which is further defined as "capable of becoming actual". Answer yourself the following question: Can something that doesn't actually exist be "scanned" which, according to Webster, means "to read so as to show"?

Over the years I have dutifully upgraded PhotoShop first from LE to

5.5 then to 7.0. Now that 7.0 is installed can I/should I uninstall

LE and 5.5? Will my plug-ins (like Vivid Details and Genuine

Fractals), which I have also been upgrading, remain intact in v7.0?

I'm having my hard drive reformated and XP-Pro installed in place of

Win98. Can I reinstall my legally purchased & registered PhotoShop7

directly from the disc or do I have to contact Adobe and ask for

permission?

I'm tempted to say that you should try to see the acutal output from each printer but the skill of the operator and/or the quality of the source of the image may sway you in the wrong direction (not that either printer is deficient; just different). The quality of either machine is so great (including that of the 2200, the R1800 and the new 2400) that things such as features, brand loyalty, pig/vs/dye, bundled software, quirks, etc., rather than image quality, should be your guide.

Being an Ilfochrome printer (formerly Cibachrome) of many years I can testify to the necessity of gettting a slide (or neg. in your case) absolutely clean. First of all, don't let them get dirty. That said proceed like a surgeon about to open up a beating heart. It helps greatly if the room you work in is high in humidity. This keeps the dust and the static attraction down. Next, cover your hair with a cap of some sort similar to a shower cap or surgical cap. Why? because you're going to be examining the neg. with a loupe pressed right up against your face. You would be amazed at the amount of dander that flies off you own head. The next steps will depend on how dirty the neg. is. Check the neg. first against a strong light with your cap and loupe. You may need very little cleaning. If dirt, grime and stains exist try to identify what it is that causing the problem. I use PEC and PEC pads for all non-water based marks, canned air for most dirt & hairs and one of those nuclear impregnated brushes to gently scrub anything more stubborn. I always finish off with more blasts of air and another recheck with the loupe. If it isn't clean I don't proceed with the print; I clean the slide again (in your case, the neg.) There is no magic bullet, if fact it's more like vodoo but the truth is if you can see it, the scanner sure as hell will.

This may not be in your workflow but why not burn the original JPEG to a CD or DVD before you even start working on it. Photoshop can't degrade an image by reading it from a CDROM drive or when it's sitting in a jewel case across the room.

Try Putting on a lens cap in a dark room, click the shutter, activate the multiple exposure lever and recock the shutter.