Try dusting a slide with a Swiffer duster or even a pair of them. Use
one (changed frequently) to pick up the majority of the dust and the
second to do a final sweep for the fine stuff. Even with ICE or FARE it
pays to get the film clean. They both work like the PS patch tool which
has to "invent" image data to fill in the spot where the dust and other
defects were. Image quality will suffer if the patching has to fill big
holes or lots and lots of small ones.
Chuck Norcutt
On 12/2/2010 12:11 PM, jjohnso4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Moose, thanks for the detailed reply - you've given me several
> things to think about.
>
> As to the costs - I've got what I need, except for the slide copier,
> if I use a 1.8/50 lens. I can pick up the copier for around $25 but
> the 4/80 lens is considerably more than what I want to invest. I
> used the 50mm with the OM bellows about 35 years ago for some casual
> macro work and thought the results were acceptable. But, that wasn't
> flat copy work so photographing slides could well be a different
> matter.
>
> Dust is a concern. My slide film was processed by a Pro lab and the
> slides were delivered almost dust free. They remained that way up
> until six years ago when we were moving to a new house. Mitchelle
> and I were carrying the slide cabinet through the utility room when
> our grip slipped, the cabinet tilted, the drawers slid open and we
> dumped the slides out into the floor where a chest type freezer had
> been sitting for the last 25 years. I said "had been sitting"
> because the movers had just removed the freezer and we hadn't cleaned
> up the floor at that point so there were quite a few dust bunnies (to
> say the least) where the slides landed. Anyway, the slides are far
> from dust free at this point. Based on my experience with product
> photography I would expect that dust would be even more of a problem
> with the slide copier than it is with my SS4000. I also have an
> Epson 2450 scanner that will handle slides and transparencies but it,
> like the SS4000, doesn't have the IR chann el. If I was going to
> shoot a lot more film I'd probably purchase one of the Nikon 9000
> scanners but right now that doesn't look to be a good investment.
>
> So, thanks again for your input. I'm now leaning toward continuing
> with the SS4000. I can just do a minimal amount of cleaning before
> the proof scan and later do a more thorough job on the ones where I
> decide to make a full res scan.
>
> Cya, Johnny ------------------ Johnny Johnson Cleveland, GA
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|