greg_miller10

<p>If you just need a quick sloppy view of your pictures that is absolutely immediate, if you can get your hands on an older Sony video camera, many had a neg pos switch on them or in the menu. Simply point the camera at the negative against a diffused flat light source and you'll have immediate feedback.</p>

<p>Here's one that's buy it now for 34 dollars including shipping...'</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-CCD-TRV30-8mm-Handycam-Camcorder-Video-8-Camera-/170684921675?pt=Camcorders_Professional_Video_Cameras&hash=item27bd9d374b#ht_5800wt_1398</p>

<p>If interested, check with the seller if it has the neg pos feature and you then have a way to quickly view your negatives in positive. Don't expect a lovely picture but I think it would be at least as good as using a reflective scanner and a hell of a lot quicker.</p>

<p>I'm looking for a small photo or motion picture related service provider with great customer service and a passion for pictures or moving pictures. They don't need to offer any particular service but only to be good people who enjoy dealing with film. I've done various web searches but have come up with little beyond large photo finishers and motion picture production companies.</p>

<p>In an effort to expand into the EU market my business has an associate in Paris looking to help us partner with an already existing business. The logistics of setting up a new business in France is extremely daunting so a partnership arrangement might be the way to go.</p>

<p>A flatbed scanner that will do negatives has a light in the lid to shine light through the negative. This is because the negative is a transmissive piece of material and not reflective as a photo or document would be. You probably already know this but I'm unaware of any workaround that would give you any kind of decent scan with a reflective flatbed scanner. The best I think you'd be able to do is scan it as a reflective with the emulsion to the glass to avoid newton rings and then ably a strong curve to increase the contrast of what will undoubtedly be a low contrast scan. You will aslo need to do a horizontal flip to the negative because the image will be backwards because it has been scanned emulsion down. The color will be terrible if it is color film because to do a proper inversion from negative to positive involves a fairly complex algorithm which will be built into a scanners software but not into a simple inversion that would be done in an image editing program. Not to mention the color will not be transmitted properly doing a reflective scan of transmissive material. </p>

<p>Yup...it's sad...some gear does retain value to a degree but not gear for high volume output. I had an Eseco enlarger that had originally been purchased for 25 thousand dollars (I was second owner and got it for 5) that I ended up gaving away to an enthusiast. In the end I was happy to see someone take it that would make use of it and it didn't have to go to the dump where I also have a Colex 20 inch paper processor and a Fuji minilab. Hopefully archeologists might have fun with them in the future.</p>

<p>In my experience no...after advertising my fully functioning Kreonite 20 inch paper processor on e-bay countless times with a starting bid of a single dollar i didn't receive a single bid. It is now a resident of our local dump. Sad but true.</p>

<p>If the dust is in the identical place on all of the frames it is on the sensor in the scanner. Not likely though. I'd take it back to the lab and have them clean it up for you. It will call their attention to the problem and let them know it is not acceptable. There is a chance though that they have significantly upped the contrast of the pictures if your negative was underexposed which reveals a lot more dust. If this is the case they are doing some work above and beyond the call of duty and this amount of dust wouldn't be completely unusual on a freshly process negative. In my own lab where we develop only vintage film we are often dealing with very low contrast negatives that needs huge increases in contrast. Even though our lab has positive air pressure and all air into the lab is hepa filtered, we still get dust marks like this on freshly processed film.<br>

You can clean it yourself but you will need film cleaner or 99% alcohol from your drug store (don't use rubbing alcohol). If the dust is on the emulsion side of the film wiping it with a Kimwipe or the like and film cleaner or alcohol might not release the dirt and could possibly make the problem worse. If it is emulsion dust then a proper rewash would be best. You need distilled water, the appropriate final rinse and a clean place to hang it to dry. Not using distilled water will likely leave other problems unless you squeegee the film before drying. </p>

<p>Your film is dirty. It is possible that the film was underexposed and your lab is increasing contrast of the image they are presenting you which in turn also makes blemishes much more noticeable but more likely the environment just isn't clean at your lab. You should be able to clean or rewash your negative to get rid of this. </p>

<p>3M brand film (Scotch) was stood up surprisingly well undeveloped over time and will likely come out better than your Kodak brand film but even at that the Kodak brand film has stood up better then the likes of Fuji and Konica. I'd been inclined to add at least one stop of exposure but as one other poster suggested you will get more grain if you you shoot them to spec....either way you'll get grain though.</p>

<p>Have fun with it but don't shoot anything too important on them.</p>

<p>The only one I would have concerns with is the Fuji film. Not to say anything at all about the quality of new Fuji film, Fuji film does not stand as well as Kodak and Agfa film over time undeveloped.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In 1978 china bought the last bit of Technicolor dye transfer equipment from a Technicolor lab in England so that they would be less dependent on foreign color film stocks and ran with it until 1993. I don't know if that means there were no Chinese manufactures at all but there's a lot of technology in a piece of color film and technology wasn't really a big thing in china in the 1950s so I suspect not. My bet would be that they were using Orwo or Agfa/Ansco.<br>

To help you in your search that edge is called the "rebate".</p>

<p>Use distilled water to mix your stabilizer. You can then just hang it to dry without squeegeing or wiping...if you're still getting spots with properly mixed fresh stabilizer you have some kind of other problem. The stabilizer is your wetting agent...so that's why you aren't supposed to rinse it after.<br>

Is the Tetenal stabilizer a dry mix? I'd be a bit concerned about that getting mixed properly. Not sure...I've never used or heard of a dry chemical final rinse.</p>

<p>This is about the only film that has remained a mystery to us...largely because there is so little of it out there that we haven't made a serious effort at figuring it out. When we do get them in with the processing pack they normally do render a recognizable image. I can tell you that it will not develop into a B&W negative with B&W photo chemicals. It will be dead black. All I can think of is to find an unexposed film one e-bay that has the processing pack. Not too likely to find the pack on it's own.</p>

<p>If you want to be a guine pig, we do have an unstable process that we use for certain versions of Triple Print, GAF and other very difficult films. For those it can work wonders but I have my doubts with a Polachrome because it is such a different animal. For the opportunity I'd be willing to do it for free regardless of the results.</p>

<p>Contact me through my profile if you like.</p>

<p>One person suggested "scancafe" and they are a reputable company. I've seen their small format scans and they're fine other than they were balanced rather cold but I think that's because they aren't charging enough to get in to the individual channels and do a true and proper color balance. It is possible for you to do the final tweak yourself but it does take a certain amount of skill to know what needs adjustment and to do it well. My company offered oddball scans and we weren't happy doing it for less then 2.50 per scan...so if you're paying 50 cents per scan and getting ok quality you're doing well. You really do pay for what you get.</p>

<p>If you have the time by all means do it yourself. If you can afford an Epson v750 than it is a good scanner that will have a great resale value. It's also a lot faster than most scanners out there and that will become important if you have a lot of scans to do. One person mentioned that it will not do a good job with the 110. I can understand why someone would have had this experience but that's likely because they didn't have a proper carrier for 110 film. Dead critical with these scanners is the distance from the film to the glass of the scanner. We have a laser cut custom made 110 carrier which holds the film flat and at a precise distance from the glass. The scans are very good. As long as your film is not significantly cupping you should be able to put together your own temporary film carrier. You can experiment with shims to get your critical focus. One thing I will mention though is that on small format scans, leave the digital ice off. It creates artifacting where highlights meet shadows.</p>

<p>Ultimately though, if your time has value - that 50 cents per scan isn't bad at all.</p>

<p>Also check out </p>

<p>http://www.scandigital.com and use "filmrescue" in the coupon code area.<br>

or<br>

http://www.digmypics.com/<br>

Scan digital is in California and Digmypics in Arizona. As I understand it scans at "scancafe" were shipped overseas and that's likely why they are giving the 1000 dollar compensation if anything is lost because they'd received criticism about that. I have no idea if them being off shore is a real issue or not.</p>

<p>I think that there are good local labs but the advantage you have a Dwayne's is that you know they're good.</p>

<p>I've visited them on several occasions and I know there's real concern over proper maintenance of their processors and that they use proper procedures to keep their machines within control limits. They also seem to maintain staff over time. I meet the same people there that I did many years ago. Experience is a big plus when it comes to running your equipement properly. </p>

<p>Not that you should not use your local lab - I think you should if they're good because they need your support, but if you're in doubt about their consistency then you have a safe alternative in Dwayne's. </p>

<p>Greg Miller

<p>I suspect it is something on the scanner sensor and that they are using a high speed scanner that works more like a camera than a scanner. That's not to say it can't do a decent job. You need to check your negs just to be eliminate that it isn't something happening in the camera. It doesn't look like it but because it is in the same spot in every picture it could possibly be something on the rear element of your lens. Doubt it though...doesn't look right for that. It has nothing to do with the processing because it is frame specific and there is nothing in a film processor that would do that.</p>

<p>I'd take it back and show it too them. Stuff like this can happen even at the best of labs. If they brush you off then don't go back.</p>

<p>The noise you are seeing is because of your film being underexposed. This is normal with underexposed film.</p>

<p>My company specializes in processing out of date film and I'd like to share my experiences in this regard.</p>

<p>Slide film in general will not hold up as well as print film but your film is not all that much out of date. I would suspect with your film having been stored in the fridge that you will see almost no deterioration. What you will see going first is that you will see a d-max that is not as dense as with a new film before you will see any amount of significant color shift. The color shift will be most noticeable if there is any at all, in the shadows of the film which will likely shift towards blue.</p>

<p>As Luis suggest, it would be a good idea to try one, at least before shooting the rest. Should there be a significant deterioration, which I doubt, you might want to consider a cross process for the remainder of the film. A cross process will give you a punchier image but I suspect it would be too high contrast to make it a desirable option with refrigerated film such a short amount beyond its expiry date.</p>

<p>Color shifts can for the most part be easily fixed in scanning but there is will also be some small concern that the fading in the film will not be consistent across the frame.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that the film will probably be acceptable with normal processing but take the precaution as Luis suggest.</p>

 

<p>Oh...you can also try the frugal photographer.</p>

<p>http://www.frugalphotographer.com/</p>

<p>Central Camera in Chicago has it...or did a very short time ago...1 800 421 1899. You can also try Java Photo...<br /> http://www.javaphoto.com/</p>

<p>..but they might only be selling 620. The guy that spools it is called "film for classics" but I think it's generally a lot easier to get in touch with Central Camera</p>

<p>Kodak Supra was actually only manufactured from 2000-2002 so discontinuation in 2003 makes sense. It would be the end of what was manufactured in 2002 I suspect. Anyway...you can be sure your film is no older then 2000. It was the replacement for Ektapress PJ800.</p>

<p>There is still billions of feet of color film being manufactured each year but the vast majority of it is being produced for theatrical projection. It won't be too too long until most theaters have converted to digital projection. The projectors are dropping in price, a movie finished in 4K+ digital can be a wonderful looking thing (done right) and the industry wants it for ease of distribution.<br>

<br /> I don't know enough about the manufacturing of color film but I suspect it is a highly complex process in comparison to manufacturing a piece of B&W film. Is it easy enough to manufacture, that a company could do it producing a tiny fraction of the amount as is being produced today?<br>

<br /> Anyone out there know enough about manufacturing color film to say whether it is realistic to do on a small scale? I suspect yes but I also suspect a price more like 30 to 40 dollars per roll by the time you pay for film and processing.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Regardless..perhaps that is perfectly acceptable if it can still do a decent job. I'm sure it's no Flextite X5 but even the old Kodak 3570 that the HR500 replaced, did an ok job of it. As to where does one find a 500 roll per day volume...you're right...that's the real question.</p>

<p>Hello John. Kodacolor II finished in 1983. We're processing about 50 rolls of it a month. You surely must have an exceptional batch of this because it is exceedingly rare to get a decent roll of this film. We first do a bleach bypass process which gives us the most punchy negative possible in B&W. If the B&W image is very good then we do a color reprocess (wash, bleach, wash, re-exposure followed by high contrast AN-6 color neg process). It is very rare that it is worthwhile doing this to a Kodacolor II. Admittedly you may come up with some funky distressed color from a Kodacolor II processed now, but normally it's just exceedingly thin, with very little color fidelity left and color crossover to the point it'll be driving even the most skill Photoshop technician to be pulling their hair out to pull some kind of reasonable balance out of it. Truly...no disrespect for your observations but if you're Kodacolor II is coming out even OK in color you have a very exceptional batch of Kodacolor II film.</p>

<p>The Kodak HR500 will do 500 high resolution scans per hour (thus the name). That just gets you there with 24 exposure rolls but with 36 exposure rolls you'd need another 12 hours in your day. The scanner is discontinued but you see them on ebay from time to time. No Kodak support anymore but I would image there's someplace still with service for these. Here's a link...</p>

<p>http://www.moldaners.com/images/HR500ScannerSpecs.pdf</p>

<p>I don't specifically know this unit but if it's from B&W you can always return it if you want. It looks solid enough and the price is right. I have this unit...</p>

<p>http://www.lpack.de/dia/sites/eKompakt.html</p>

<p>the second one down. I never use it anymore and I think I could be persuaded to sell it for about the same price as the B&W one plus shipping along with about a thousand mounts or so. You can buy a professional one on ebay for between 1 hundred and 2 hundred dollars. There's a glut of them out there now.</p>

<p>Yeah...it's actually a good film for that. The Kodak brand films have stood up much better over time undeveloped then Konica and Fuji. Not to say anything bad about Konica and Fuji films that are shot before their process before dates...just that they didn't age well undeveloped. Have fun with it!</p>