To deal with the film curl I think I would try storing it in a reverse
curl position for some time. Try wrapping the film longitudinally
around a cylinder, cover with a piece of thin cardboard for protection
and then fasten in place with rubber bands and let it sit for a day or
two or three.
As to dealing with multitudes of scratches I would suggest reading Ctein
in his "Digital Restoration From Start to Finish". Chapter 8 of the
book has almost 25 pages of detailed methods of efficiently dealing with
scratches. I haven't had any real need for the techniques there since I
bought the book but I wish I'd had it for the last serious piece of
restoration work I did. It was an 8x10 glossy photo from the late 40's
or early 50's which had been rolled into a tight curl. That introduced
what I think must have been thousands of tiny cracks in the emulsion...
plus some not so tiny ones where chunks of the emulsion were falling
off. I finally finished the work to my own satisfaction but it took me
about three months of off and on again part time work using the clone
tool... the only method I knew at the time. Using Ctein's methods I'm
sure I could have dramatically reduced the effort.
<http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Restoration-Start-Finish-photographs/dp/0240808142/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215999722&sr=1-1>
Chuck Norcutt
Fernando Gonzalez Gentile wrote:
> Good afternoon people,
>
> Agree with most of you, and will follow Chuck's challenging work.
>
> Main problem with #1 is that the chrome is badly scratched. Something
> happened with my usually careful archiving of slides, perhaps due to the
> fact that I had (for reasons I somehow seem to have forgotten) to unload
> and reload that only E100SW roll I shot in my life. Half of it remained
> unexposed, and didn't frame the slides, putting the entire roll in its
> own plastic can - why did such a thing happen, I don't remember. Also,
> cannot realize how did the first exposure in the roll (#1 pine tree)
> suffered so much, but loading and unloading has its consequences.
> I had obviously planned this shot, then forgot I had indeed done it, and
> a semiconscious idea to make such a shot persisted. I pursued it without
> luck since that tree and the neighboring ones were removed to broaden
> route 10, the one I cross to go to the beach since I was a child. A poor
> version was done when had the Stylus 720SW, uploaded to Picassa and
> posted the link to it some two years ago. Same place, perhaps six years
> later.
>
> I am waiting for the chromes to get flat too. The roll is firmly curved;
> already cut the exposed frames in stripes of four but they are very
> stubborn and keep wanting to curl. This makes very difficult to put them
> into the film adapter of the 4000ED. Finally managed to do it but it
> remains difficult for the scanner to keep the same figure of focus
> every time I ask Nikon Scan 4.0.2 to perform autofocus. It is not that
> bad, as it finally remains in the same figure.
> Worse is that scratches and small cracks don't disappear with ICE on
> 'normal', smaller ones do with ICE on 'fine' but contrast decreases a
> little. Restoration using the healing brush promises to be long work,
> and #2 pine tree is much less damaged: ICE on 'normal' is enough.
>
> Agree on that the sun looks more interesting in #1, and the contrast and
> detail on the water surface shows up more distinct due to the higher
> position of the sun, making a stronger reflection. Agree with Michael
> Collins, in part, that the tree is "cleaner" in #1, and the mat of
> needles at the top of #2 could be distracting. This is a question which
> I'm not always certain about, to the point that not long ago uploaded an
> uncropped frame of a hummingbird silhouette searching for opinions about
> distracting elements in a composition. I always stress composition when
> shooting, I do take my time and think and doubt quickly, and try not to
> spare too much film [ I became more generous on film spending after
> joining this list :) - and Provia became more accessible, but forget
> about finding anything else on reversal film, aside of Sensia ].
> In the case of these photographs on the disappeared pine trees, I
> obviously doubted about how much tree top to include, and had not only
> little time but also a narrow angle to frame it. Always prefer to crop
> before pressing the shutter, *if possible*.
>
> Do these chromes have any chance to become flat ? - how could I
> accelerate the process ?.
>
> Sorry for the long post, and thanks for looking.
>
> Fernando.
>
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I have what I think is a better solution... combine them with pano
>> software to make a larger image. Here's one done with PTGui
>> <http://www.chucknorcutt.com/temp/Fernando/fernando_pano32&33.jpg>
>> But you will have to either crop out or fill the box at lower left where
>> there is no image data.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.10/1549 - Release Date: 7/12/2008
> 4:31 PM
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
