I think you get thick (not thin) emulsion when overexposed, with negative
the thicker the emulsion the more serious fading they have, especially the
brightly illuminated things like water wave. Blue (after scanned) is the
most affected channel for negative so all old scans look yellowish.
There are a few scenarios for the fading problem, one is the negative is
already damaged by the film processing, I have a few rolls that was damaged
by the same lab the time they were processed. The second one is the film was
not well washed (neutralized), fading happen very fast (3-10 years) after
processing. The third one is natural fading, it depends on the film type,
all films fade with time but the better processed one like my Beijing
negatives they were processed in 1984 and still not difficult to restore. I
had some bad ones with serious fading in less than ten years and they are
unable to restore unless you paint them.
Prints will be faded too, on the second shot, the blue sky near the horizon
and orange sea make me wonder if the color really close to real, of course I
could be wrong and I have never seen a rainbow from the seaside.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fernando Gonzalez Gentile"
> Yes, very serious fading - that's the reason for my intent to rescue them.
> OTOH, there shouldn't be too much a difference between both shots, as
> I very carefully followed the same workflow - and a very simple one.
> Differences were, obviously, more on the side of the 'healing brush'
> tool - the second one needed lots, because of large areas of sky, the
> one with the buildings remained thicker, and any intent to use the
> brush worsened the pattern, therefore you can still see a vertical
> scratch down the _red_ zone of the rainbow (not the blue-green as said
> before).
> Finally, I got too tired to continue trying.
>
> Then, I must say that when comparing the monitor view to the smallish
> print I still have, colors are not too much off.
> The sky was overexposed, therefore the thin emulsion. I was using a
> linear pol. on the 21. Finally, the light does have a yellow hue (in
> the print, in my memories ... ).
>
> Thanks for looking and commenting, C.H.
>
> :-)
>
> Fernando.
>
> 2009/12/24 C.H.Ling <ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Besides scratches I think the negatives are suffering from serious
>> fading,
>> the color doesn't seem right to me especially the 2nd one:
>>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|