[NSFW] late 80s hair doo!

Gary Bagshawe

Gary Bagshawe

Messages
1,038
Edit My Images
No
Hiya all, I have at last got round to starting to scan some of my negs to archive them, I have an epson perfection 2400 scanner but am having a few probs with scanning b+w negs, any tips would be appreciated.
Photo of cheryl with a very late 80s look.

mod1.jpg
 
I can't put my finger on why I like this one, but I do :D
 
Hi mate I've edited the thread title to put the Not Safe For Work tag in, just incase. :)
 
Marcel said:
Hi mate I've edited the thread title to put the Not Safe For Work tag in, just incase. :)
Click to expand...

Or young children ?!? :innocent:

Nice for a scanned photo if you are having problems ? Cannot see so much wrong with it !
 
I found that using any noise reduction software with scanners - flatbed or 'proper' neg scanners - i.e. ICE or similar does very strange things when scanning B&W. Turn it all off and reconcile yourself to hours of 'spotting'.
 
Marcel said:
Hi mate I've edited the thread title to put the Not Safe For Work tag in, just incase. :)
Click to expand...

Are you insuating people are skiving from their work ;) No wonder this country is in the state it is :p :whistle2:
 
DJW said:
Are you insuating people are skiving from their work ;) No wonder this country is in the state it is :p :whistle2:
Click to expand...


Not at all....I can't anyway while I'm sat at home with my feet up, box of Milk Tray, watching Trisha :D
 
OK I'll admit, I don't watch Trisha since she went to Channel 5.
Jeremy Kyle is the new flavour of the morn :D
 
Welcome, matey.

More pix of her please at your earliest convenience...:eek1:
 
Arkady said:
I found that using any noise reduction software with scanners - flatbed or 'proper' neg scanners - i.e. ICE or similar does very strange things when scanning B&W. Turn it all off and reconcile yourself to hours of 'spotting'.
Click to expand...

I seem to recollect that ICE just doesn't like anything with silver in it. Scanners will handle C41 processed stuff (Ilford XPx, Kodak? [is it that long ago I can't remember?], which is purely dye based, no trouble at all. Get a film anywhere near silver halides and scanning things go to pot.

Kodachrome Trannies are exactly the same......
 
Affirmative - I began using XP-2 for this very reason - I think it's the 'randomness' of the silver halides that confuses it. The 'black' silver that makes up the image seems to spook the software, whereas the dyes that replace the silver in C-41 stock seem to work OK.
The tri-layers of Kodachrome were bound to fail - hold a tranny up to the light and you can see the relief of the layers, like a topographical 3-D map...
 
I apologise as Im only displaying my extreme lack of understanding of this topic, but did I just hear Arkady say

Arkady said:
hold a tranny up to the light and you can see the relief of the layers, like a topographical 3-D map...
Click to expand...

:shock:
 
Stone-age technology was K-Chrome. The first successful 'real-life' colour that could be mass-produced and standardised (i.e. each roll of film would yield the same results - earlier processes were very hit or miss). An additive process invented by two musicians in Rochester NY, dyes were added to each layer in seperate processing steps, whereas the E-6 process (pioneered by Agfa in the 1930's and stolen by Kodak techies at the end of WW2!) used a subtractive process that left dye layers as the silver was washed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top