Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I found 5 old slides of my dad’s work from the 70s or maybe early 80s. The first scanned surprisingly well for a dusty bent up slide that had been left lying around in the attic for 40 years. edit: My dad says 1969.
  2. I tried the PS3 version recently (Doom Complete I think) and to me it felt more laggy than the Switch version. It might be the controller or telly I suppose as I was playing the switch version in handheld.
  3. I thought I was doing alright until I got to .
  4. I saw this a few weeks ago and can’t remember much about it now. It’s sort of merged in my head with Arrival and that awful Cloverfield spaceship film. It must have been reasonable though because I managed to watch every episode.
  5. I’ve borrowed a development tank so I can process b/w film myself. This will be the first time in more than 20 years I’ve done this. Does anyone have any advice, or an idiots guide? I don’t even know what chemicals I need.
  6. Thanks. I’ll join and post the picture in a bit. I suspect it’s stuff getting stuck to the emulsion while it was wet (or before that inside the camera) then came off, peeling off the emulsion, if that makes sense.
  7. No. It’s not in the camera. It’s different each time and only occasionally there. Most photos are fine. It always looks like dust or hair but is actually “a scratch” in that the emulsion is removed or white. I’m not too bothered about that particular photo as it’s easy to fix and a pretty dull photo anyway.
  8. I've been scanning negatives (on a cheap flatbed) and occasionally I've noticed this: It's not a hair or dust - as that should be showing as white. I suspect it's on the negative itself, like a hair-shaped scratch (it is definitely on b/w negs I've checked but on colour it's hard to see). Any idea what would be causing it?
  9. I couldn’t hear any difference in the music. If it is slower, isn’t that just a side effect of the original being 35fps?
  10. Thanks. It’s actually really dark in there but looks quite bright in the photo.
  11. We went to Iceland a few years ago. Not on a photo trip though - just for a few days’ holiday as my wife and her friends wanted to see the northern lights. Really stunning landscapes.
  12. A few more from the Rolleiflex. Portra 160: (St Vitus Cathedral interior) Handheld at something ridiculous like half a second so I'm surprised it's not more blurry. The Either Ilford Delta 100 or FP4 ( Can't remember or able to see any difference): Edit: first one’s FP4 the other two are Delta. I think I actually prefer FP4.
  13. I suspected that was the case. 10000x10000 pixel images just take up too much space. I've been letting the scanner software auto adjust then tweaking it in photoshop until they look ok. I'm sure the colours are not the same as they would be if properly scanned though. Strong reds have been coming out as oversaturated and too magenta. Slides I find a lot harder. As often not they will scan really blurry and I can see dark details in the slide that the scanner can't pick up. Black and white are easy and come out really well.
  14. Late reply, but I’ve been scanning film at 4800dpi then sharpening and reducing the image size in PS (hoping to avoid too much scanner noise). Is this a complete waste of time and memory? For negs I’m now using the auto adjust settings (colour restoration I think it’s called) which seems to do the trick for the most part.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.