"Derek Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could it be dust before the film was processed, leaving chemical spots on
> the film? Those would be just as transparent to IR as the real image...
That's the only thing I can imagine it could be. But it still baffles me
that the
IR scan is blank. Th
Could it be dust before the film was processed, leaving chemical spots on
the film?
Those would be just as transparent to IR as the real image...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Geraghty) wrote:
> "Jim Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It was probably still dust. A lack of cleanliness in a photola
"Jim Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was probably still dust. A lack of cleanliness in a photolab is
terminal
> for an image. Occassionally, you can resoak the negtive/slide in a
Photoflo
> type solution and gently remove debris, but at high risk.
I'll stick with spotting in PSP. :)
FWIW
on 7/12/01 10:48 PM, Gordon Tassi at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Rob: I once had a roll with about 3 frames that looked like they were full of
> flyspecks. I ran it through Vuescan to see if it would remove the "dust." I
> wasn't dust. It was in the emulsion, probably done in the devolempent
>
