louis m

<p>Chris,<br>

If you are planning to go downtown to visit Wall Street, the Battery or the World Trade Center memorial, consider taking a ride on the Staten Island Ferry. It's free, you can get to Staten Island and back to Manhattan in about an hour and you'll get some great views of both the Manhattan Skyline and the Statue of Liberty, as well as the harbor in general.<br>

<br />Enjoy your visit,<br>

Louis</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3966899"></a>Ofer,<br>

I have been working on and off on a similar project for the last 4-5 years. I started by using a light box and the macro setting on my Nikon CoolPix 880 to digitize hundreds of 35mm family slides. Later I bought an Epson v700, and with its flatbed was able to scan lots of older, odd sized negatives. As I accumulate more pictures, I post them online and also burn them to disks to distribute to the family. The scan quality of the 35mm negs and slides is not what you'd get from a dedicated film scanner, but these were family snaps to begin with ,so what I get to see on my monitor or TV is still far better than any print versions of the pictures.<br>

Good luck with your project. I'm still having a great time with mine.<br>

Louis</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. I was pretty sure I didn't have malware because only PN pages were being affected. It turns out that specificclick was being blocked by an entry in my hosts file so I deleted the entry and my PN experience is back to normal. I am using the hosts file from mvps.org, and they apparently lumped specificclick in with ad servers and spyware servers.</p>

<p>For the past few weeks I've noticed that every time I click a link, photo etc. - anything that opens a new page on this site, there is a pop-up windows login box titled "Connect to bp.specificclick.net" asking for a user name and password.<br>

I can cancel or close the box and the page I clicked to looks normal, but if I click a new link or view a new picture etc. the pop-up returns.<br>

It does not happen when I click on the home page, either on the first visit or from within the site, but it happens every other time I go to a link on the site.<br>

I'm using IE6 on windows xp pro.<br>

Any one else seeing this pop-up?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Louis</p>

It's been over a month and I finally got back into the darkroom. I developed and scanned 4 rolls of TRI-X over the last

two days - not a dot to be seen. This is good news. One of the reasons it took me so long to get started again was

the fear that I'd ruin another roll of film.

The original mystery of the dots is still unsolved, but at least I know that if I pay attention and work carefully I can

avoid them, what ever the cause.

Here's what I did this time:

Fresh D76, mixed at a sufficiently high temperature, cooled down overnight.

Made sure that my tank and reels were absolutely clean and dry.

Made sure that tank slam and agitation was consistent, especially for the stop bath (bubbles and poor agitation in

the stop are my best guess still as the cause of the dots).

I am now confident in my film processing abilities again. My picture taking abilities are not affected <g>

Thanks to everyone for the input and help.

You might try the Staten Island ferry. It's right at Battery Park, it's free and passes very close to the Statue. Also

on the Staten Island side of the harbor, you might be able to get a shot of the Statue with lower Mahattan behind her,

although since she faces Brooklyn, you'll be catching her from the right side rather than head on.

You'll also see some great views of the harbor in general, the Verrazano narrows and bridge, Brooklyn and New

Jersey.

Figure about an hour for the whole trip, if you get right back on the next boat leaving Staten Island as soon as you

get off that one the got you there.

Louis

Lex: I've been thinking about your suggestion that there might have been some splash from the lid. While I'm sure

the reels were dry - they'd be darned difficult to load if they weren't - I'm not so sure about the lid. The problem is,

the only liquid that could have been in there is water, or at most photo-flo solution - could photo-flo do that to

undeveloped film.

Another thing to consider: I don't have a dedicated darkroom, so I leave the tank, reels etc. to dry in the laundry

room on the dryer. Could a laundry chemical, soap bleach etc. in the lid have done this?

Thomas: They feel like they are part of the photo. They don't seem to look or feel any different than other exposed

and developed areas of the film. They are the same color as the normal, exposed parts of the emulsion. The image

above is a color digital photo taken with the negative pressed (mostly) against a white piece of paper in direct

sunlight.

I used white vinegar for stop bath, diluted 1:1 or so. At least that's what I thought I was using <g>.

Louis

Still no answers, I haven't had a chance to do any test processing, but I managed to take a photo of one of the offending negatives. It's front lit, held flat on white paper. You can clearly see the spots on the film both inside and outside of the exposure area.

Louis<div></div>

Craig Supplee: I dry my film by hanging it with film clips in the shower stall in my bathroom - it's tiled top to bottom

so very low dust. I usually do a final rinse with a photo-flo solution just before hanging. I use the same method I

always do and this is the first time I've seen these spots. The really look like someone touched the negative with the

tip of a black magic marker. I'm trying to figure a way to take a picture of the negative to give a better illustration.

Update: I poured out the developer into a clear plastic container and I do not see any trace of crystals. Ditto for the

fixer.

I checked the camera - it does not have a curtain shutter and the lens shutter looks perfectly solid.

I am going to shoot a test roll and process it carefully using all the usual cautions to see if I still get the problem, or

maybe I skipped a step before and just don't remember. If I skipped the Tank Slam with the stop bath and there

were bubbles on the film, that might explain it.

Louis

Thanks to all for the replies.

Chris Waller: Both rolls were developed at the same time, same tank; The rings around the dots, where they appear

are black as well.

Dave DeJoode, Thomas Rivinius: I'm pretty sure the film, reel, tank were perfectly dry when the film was loaded. I

load in a completely different room from where I develop. I then presoak for a few minutes with water before I put the

developer in the tank. I use a plastic (Paterson) tank and reels, and any water drops, or even moisture on the film or

reels would make them very difficult to load. I’m sure they were dry.

Henry Posner: I am familiar with the Tank Slam and employ it. Also I think air bubbles would leave undeveloped

spots (clear after fixing). I also do a decent amount of agitation during development - inversion + rotation about once

every minute.

Michael Axel: Yes this was a rangefinder (Canonet QL 17) I'll check the shutter, but I have color photos,

commercially developed, from the same day, same camera without the problem.

After following the discussion, I think my next step (after inspecting the shutter) will be to start with completely new

chemicals and run a test roll before a process any valuable photos. I'll also my check the current batch of developer

for crystals before I dump it. I seem to remember barely being able to get my running hot water up to 120 degrees

when I mixed this last batch. Maybe it was almost hot enough at the tap, but not quite hot enough during the mixing.

I'll report back.

The last 2 rolls of film I've developed have randomly placed black dots on some of the images. The dots are very

prevalent on the early frames of the roll and are nearly absent in the later frames. On the negative, they look like

someone took a super fine-point Sharpie marker and randomly touched the film. Solid black dots. Under

magnification some of them appear to have a hair thin concentric ring around them. On the print/scan,

they appear as almost perfectly round white polka dots (see image).

I've ruled out a light leak because the dots don't always show up in the same place, they're not on the later frames of

the rolls and I've got commercially developed color rolls taken the same day, same camera as the B&W rolls with no

spots at all. Also, some of the spots appear off frame, near the sprocket holes, an unlikely area to be affected by a

leak.

I've also ruled out dust and water spots. I've certainly seen THOSE before and know what they look like <g>

I've developed these rolls using the same method, chemicals and equipment that I've used on dozens of rolls this

year, but this is the first I've seen anything like this.

Film: Tri-X

Dev: D76 1:1 (9min 45 sec)

Fix: Kodak Fixer

Has anyone seen anything like this before?

I have several more rolls that I'm waiting to process, but I'm reluctant to until I figure this out.

Any help is appreciated,

Thanks,

Louis<div></div>

I decided to get the Sunpak, which I ordered last night. It was a close call between the two, but since I already have

a Vivitar, I want to try something different. Although a different and prehaps better line of reasoning would be that a

functioning, 35 year old, piece of equipment speaks well enough of the brand that I should have stuck with it.<g>

Thanks again for the help.

Louis

Lex, Brooks

Thank you for your replies. I've looked at both the Vivitar 285 and the Sunpak 383 online and either of them will do nicely for my purpose. It will probably be quite a while before I spring for a DSLR, and I'm not quite ready to commit to a brand. But when I finally do it, I'll have 2 backup/slave flashes in my kit.

Thanks again for the help.

Louis

I am interested in buying a new flash for my old Argus STL1000 35mm SLR. The flash I currently have is a Vivitar

201 - about 35 years old. The nearest I can figure the guide number is 55-60. (15 ft. at f4 - 5 ft. at f11)

I don't know if it is no longer powerful enough or if it ever was, but it doesn't give me enough light when used as a

bounce light with a low speed film.

I'm looking for a new flash that is:

- more powerful (What guide number do I need for bounce off a normal ceiling (8 ft.) to be effictive with a low speed

(ISO 50) film?)

- can be used with an older SLR

- will be usable with a digital SLR when I finally break down and buy one.

Also:

- Do I ditch the old flash - is it usable as a slave?

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks,

Louis

I used this method to digitize about a thousand family slides with an old elarger stand, an old contact printing light box and my CoolPix880. The results were decent but not nearly as good as a real scanner. My goal was to share the slides with my family so the quality was not a critical issue.

With a better camera and a better light source this method has possibities. And, like you said, it is about 900% faster than a scanner. As for dust, I went through about six cans of air during the process.

Louis