Dust, Speckles, Fibres and crap on your film negs

MindofMel

MindofMel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,586
Name
Mel
Edit My Images
Yes
Maybe its because I'm a noob and everything about developing my film right now is the best thing since sliced bread, but I LOVE the dust, scratches here and there, fibres etc that are appearing when I scan in my negs thus far even though I'm technically getting them because I'm not being clean/careful enough!:cuckoo:
 
Hahaha, have to admit, I love the dust & hair marks that transfer from dirty negatives. I keep them remarkably clean when storing them in the sleeves as I don't want permanent damage to be done to them but when printing & scanning I don't bother to remove the dust beforehand. It gives it a much more raw feeling! ~ I've even added 'darkroom textures' during post processing in my digital work before, like this.
 
Last edited:
YES. Dust is brilliant! It's a big F*** you to this clean & perfect digital world.
A good picture is a good picture regardless of dust & sharpness! :)
 
Hahaha, yeah ~ dust & fibre marks ♥
 
MindofMel said:
haha evidently not just me then!

dust and fibres FTW
Click to expand...

Definetly not just you.!....If it had to be that I had to keep dust and crap out of my scans then I may as well give up now! lol

Quite ironic isn't it cos if I get marks on a bright blue sky on a landscape shot taken on digital then it really p*** me off and like most people i find myself removing them in pp yet dust etc on film doesn't bother me ...Go figure!!!! lol
 
Joenail said:
YES. Dust is brilliant! It's a big F*** you to this clean & perfect digital world.
A good picture is a good picture regardless of dust & sharpness! :)
Click to expand...

That's one cool attitude to get out there, do the shot you want and enjoy the whole process regardless of wether it comes out "perfect" (whatever that is supposed to be in photography i really don't know!)
In addition it means that my first 3 of my 52 will pass as they are all soft and full of crap! lol
 
Dust, fibres.. I'm overscanning the negatives just to get the frame fringing.. . :D

I recently scanned some fuji instants shot over the summer, great patina and surface marks from where they've been handled.
 
Dust and scratches adds authenticity and character. Something that digital lacks for me!

I love seeing a nice dusty photo
 
erictearle said:
Dust and scratches adds authenticity and character. Something that digital lacks for me!

I love seeing a nice dusty photo
Click to expand...

Just scrape a brillo pad across your sensor and empty the hoover bag into the camera body every so often- that will give you the required effect! ;)

I don't mind a bit here and there but too much does knacker the image somewhat!
 
@mustanir
Scratches certainly can, thats a destroyed negative but I do love it when a photograph I've printed myself looks raw & dirty. For college I always used to make sure every print was immaculate, clean & 'perfect' but for my own work I know I like my black & white work 'marked'.
 
35mm I don't mind cos it's sht quality anyway :p ;)
:exit:
6x7, I like to keep blemish-free though :)
 
menthel said:
Just scrape a brillo pad across your sensor and empty the hoover bag into the camera body every so often- that will give you the required effect! ;)

I don't mind a bit here and there but too much does knacker the image somewhat!
Click to expand...



hahaha. I'll rephrase. I like seeing it sometimes not the all the time!

But in many ways I agree, sometimes it is also better or nice to have a dust free photot
 
I have to say that inconsistencies and damage to negs can be interesting and fun, but dust just looks like you cant be bothered to clean them.
Mart
 
erm I spent all my life trying to avoided scratches and dust on prints etc and now y'all saying it's great :)
 
excalibur2 said:
erm I spent all my life trying to avoided scratches and dust on prints etc and now y'all saying it's great :)
Click to expand...



On my own photos I hate it being the perfectionist I am. But when I see it on others it does make me think about it. I always say "these scratches and dust marks really add character"
 
erictearle said:
On my own photos I hate it being the perfectionist I am. But when I see it on others it does make me think about it. I always say "these scratches and dust marks really add character"
Click to expand...

Well IMO F&C become a source of amusement for the digital guys who pop over to see the shots all covered in scratches and spots :)
 
Then we should laugh back and their photo-shopped, photo manipulations :lol:
 
excalibur2 said:
erm I spent all my life trying to avoided scratches and dust on prints etc and now y'all saying it's great :)
Click to expand...

It's not often I agree 100% with you, as we all know Brian, but I'm with you on this one... :thinking: Can't honestly way I've EVER had a client say to me "That Landscape you shot for me looks fantastic, but could you just rub it around on the warehouse floor for a few minutes" or "That Product shot will look great on page 17 of our catalogue... but can you do us a version with the corner torn off and a fold in the 10x8" transparency so it won't drum scan properly"

erictearle said:
Then we should laugh back and their photo-shopped, photo manipulations :lol:
Click to expand...

Since I don't have a wet darkroom printing facility anymore, I think that pretty much every single film shot I've taken has been scanned, digitised and run at the bare minimum through Lightroom, and unless I've posted it on here for specific comments on the untouched file, has probably been through the mill in CS5 as well - so I guess my shots (when I actually produce any) are heading to be a subject of mirth as well...:shrug:

Edit: Not that digital and photoshop have made all that much difference, when I was printing in B&W, I'd often use a couple of boxes of paper and a week or two worth of nights after work before I'd get the one print that I was happy enough to put into the photo-club's competitions. Dodging, Burning, spotting in, even "printing in" a different sky where needed - yep - I did it, and was happy to do so, but I'm at least as happy these days to do it in front of my computer, without filling 2 bin bags of scrap for a single 20x16" print. And don't get me started on the clients that asked for a single print, and then when they saw it said "oooh - that's great - can we have another 16 just like it" when "it" was a one-off hand printed, dodged, burned and faffed with image that took a fortnight to get right! At least with digital, if they want 16 more, I can just get the file out and zap it away to my local pro-lab, and they'll be waiting for me, when I drive over to collect.
 
erictearle said:
Then we should laugh back and their photo-shopped, photo manipulations :lol:
Click to expand...

Photos have been manipulated since the dawn of photography. There is nothing wrong with it, be it digital or in the dark room. Bit of a strange comment really! ;)
 
erictearle said:
Then we should laugh back and their photo-shopped, photo manipulations :lol:
Click to expand...

Like this one..



Oh b****r! That's a manipulated pre-film shot, not a photoshop manipulation :D

Nothing new under this sun.. :clap:
 
excalibur2 said:
erm I spent all my life trying to avoided scratches and dust on prints etc and now y'all saying it's great :)
Click to expand...

I'm struggling with that one as well.
Suppose it's to do the the world we live in and the race to the bottom. Quality should still count for something.
I'm waiting for everyone in 20 years to look at their images of family etc and wish they hadn't done it Lomo/Instagram style.

Regards
Ed, who has just spent the last 45mins retouching dust spots on a FB print
 
Hey maybe I can make some money by advertising "Portraiture the traditional film way, cheap rates"..... here are some from my portfolio:-

img260.jpg


img135.jpg
 
Last edited:
This is another of those many areas of photgraphy which is simply down to individual taste.
Like many ( possibly most) people, I spent many years searching for "perfection" in my photos ( and indeed most things in my life) to the point that I would dismiss many shots and put in the bin. How I wish I hadn't!
It was not until recent years when personal circumstances made me realise that this "chase for perfection" was futile....primarily because I came to realise that most of the time i was trying to achieve it, not for myself but for the acceptance from others!
Naturally I try for a "quality" shot but a "quality" that is acceptable to me....If others like it then that's cool, if not then fair enough, I don't need the ridicule or critiscism because they believe they can do better ....so long as I am happy with the final result.
The portrait of the youngster that Brian has posted is a lovely shot....If I was still searching for perfection then it would go straight in the bin and what a shame that would be simply due to a few scratches!
 
Asha said:
This is another of those many areas of photgraphy which is simply down to individual taste.
Like many ( possibly most) people, I spent many years searching for "perfection" in my photos ( and indeed most things in my life) to the point that I would dismiss many shots and put in the bin. How I wish I hadn't!
It was not until recent years when personal circumstances made me realise that this "chase for perfection" was futile....primarily because I came to realise that most of the time i was trying to achieve it, not for myself but for the acceptance from others!
Naturally I try for a "quality" shot but a "quality" that is acceptable to me....If others like it then that's cool, if not then fair enough, I don't need the ridicule or critiscism because they believe they can do better ....so long as I am happy with the final result.
The portrait of the youngster that Brian has posted is a lovely shot....If I was still searching for perfection then it would go straight in the bin and what a shame that would be simply due to a few scratches!
Click to expand...

Interesting view, but newbies can get some VG shots using a digital camera so why would they want to use film if all they see are shots full of scratches and spots. I would think it's in the interest of film users to show the best in film to try and win digital people over, to keep the film industry going........but I suppose if millions like the idea of "lomo" then film will have a future and I can benefit this way.
 
It is discussions like this which is why film users aren't taken seriously enough by digital-only photographers. Similar to the arguments against fans of vinyl music ("But I like those clicks and pops") and "rustic" food ("But the chunks of sand add texture").

Maybe I am just plain old old fashioned and struggling with this hip, modern take on film photography which is almost a parody of how people think photos used to be.
 
I'm not sure it's so much the quality of the image that would win people over from digital to film as to how quick they can have a result. I have been asked many times why i bother taking so much time over getting a LF shot when I could easily shoot it with a dslr or compact and have an instant result....When I show and explain the old process of viewing a ground glass, and having to use a plate holder etc etc and then having to develop, many of them are quite fascinated but nonetheless usually state that they "don't have the time to mess around like that"!
Is that not modern life all over?? ...faster faster and faster!!! therefore even using a 35mm dslr wouldn't be fast enough for these people as the the results are not available to view instantly....I don't think the possibility of a better quality image with film would persuade them to go at a slower pace TBH.
I find it quite sad really as by living life at such a rapid pace, they miss so much, having said that it is uplifting when one sees some younger geberations still interested in film.
As for Lomo, I suspect some of my film shots would come under that heading even though I don't purposely shoot lomo shots. As said i shoot what i want, how I want, usually with a view to obtaining a quality shot purely for my own satisfaction.
 
menthel said:
Photos have been manipulated since the dawn of photography. There is nothing wrong with it, be it digital or in the dark room. Bit of a strange comment really! ;)
Click to expand...

It was pure sarcasm :) I'm fully aware of darkroom manipulations and editing
 
Last edited:
I think to a certain degree, it's down to the subject matter and the photographers intent as to keeping the image as pristine as possible.

Personally, I only really shoot still life and landscape shots, I resolutely don't shoot people unless I can't possibly avoid it, even the words "street photography" make me feel nauseous at the thought of shooting it myself, and I've no real delusions about being some kind of "artist" and "making a statement" with my shots. I have a simple brief - to produce an Image that I like, and am happy to have printed large and framed on my wall. There's nobody else I'm trying to get approval from - though when it's considered to be a good image by others, I'm obviously pleased. But personally, I can take no pleasure from a shot that is well received, if I can find faults in it...

I'm an obsessive kind of person - some have said bordering on OCD at times, and i'm the same with anything I do - if there's a fault in anything I do, I cannot look at anything else.

Case in point - I redecorated the living room last summer. I'd decided that the Fireplace wall should be wallpapered, as a kid of "feature". This wall requires 8 lengths of paper, with the repeat of the pattern this meant 3 rolls of paper. My first attempt took half way through the 6th roll before I was happy. Then in the evening, as the paper dried and I viewed it in artificial light, I realised that 2 of the lengths in the middle of the wall didn't quite match. I rummaged through the waste bags, and realised i'd bought paper from 2 different batches. Needless to say, the wallpaper was stripped and in the binbags before I went to bed that night, and the following day I was back out, buying a further 7 rolls of identical matching wallpaper, and restarting the project from scratch. Not only could I not have lived with it, I doubt I would have slept without stripping the paper that night! So - when I say I'm drawn to imperfections in my images, you can perhaps understand why I'm coming down on the side of "no dust or scratches please"

I can happily "see past" the technical faults on other peoples imagery, provided it's something like a portrait - where I'm looking at the shot to see the person in the shot, rather than "the interplay of light and shadow, of colour and tone", but frankly, there'll still be a voice in the back of my head saying "it's a shame they didn't take proper care of their negatives"...
 
Adobe Lightroom is the digital darkroom so I think it's no crime to tidy a scanned negative/print! I used to do my burning & dodging in the darkroom with immaculate negatives & then touch up any areas digitally to be printed for my portfolio. For my own preference, I do like dirty prints.
Much like @menthel posted →
Photos have been manipulated since the dawn of photography. There is nothing wrong with it, be it digital or in the dark room.
Click to expand...

"Quality should still count for something." ~ @Edtog.
I definitely agree, it does. This all just depends on individual taste & the purpose of the photograph. Work can be experimental, where perfection isn't a necessity or it can be more professional, with care & time put into the presentation to create a pristine print. Best of both for me, I think.
 
Asha said:
I'm not sure it's so much the quality of the image that would win people over from digital to film as to how quick they can have a result. I have been asked many times why i bother taking so much time over getting a LF shot when I could easily shoot it with a dslr or compact and have an instant result....When I show and explain the old process of viewing a ground glass, and having to use a plate holder etc etc and then having to develop, many of them are quite fascinated but nonetheless usually state that they "don't have the time to mess around like that"!
Is that not modern life all over?? ...faster faster and faster!!! therefore even using a 35mm dslr wouldn't be fast enough for these people as the the results are not available to view instantly....I don't think the possibility of a better quality image with film would persuade them to go at a slower pace TBH.
I find it quite sad really as by living life at such a rapid pace, they miss so much, having said that it is uplifting when one sees some younger geberations still interested in film.
As for Lomo, I suspect some of my film shots would come under that heading even though I don't purposely shoot lomo shots. As said i shoot what i want, how I want, usually with a view to obtaining a quality shot purely for my own satisfaction.
Click to expand...


I think Asha's post hits the nail on the head. It's down to easiness and impatience more than anything. Why bother taking the time to look at the little things when you can spend less time taking loads of digital photos & not really looking at any of them. That's why, in my opinion, photography has went WAY downhill in recent years. People now seem to be more concerned with getting lighting, focus and exposure 'right' (whatever that is) than they are in actually taking a good picture. Many a time has someone said to me 'I don't know if I could be a photographer - I don't understand aperture & all those other numbers!' & I'm thinking 'eh? All you have to do is see!'. It may sound like a horrible cliche, but it's bloody true! I really think my photography was better when I knew less about the technical things & spent more time actually making the photograph.

I find it quite sad that, on here, when a lot of people have commented on a critique thread that has some really great pictures, they dismiss it instantly because 'it's too grainy', or 'is a bit soft'. Quality does definitely count for something, which is why I use film, but it shouldn't count for everything.
 
Last edited:
I hate dusty negatives, but I actually quite like wrecked ones. Here is a roll I developed wrongly (tried loading two rolls of 120 onto one spiral, which is possible but I ended up overlapping a few frames):

vxYKh.jpg


xwiP2.jpg


The emulsion of one roll stuck to the other one, so I have some ghost images and all kinds of weird stuff. Oh and I scrunched the rolls together and chucked them in the bin, went back a few hours later to see if anything came out.
 
@FruitFlakes
That actually looks real interesting :}
 
Joenail said:
I think Asha's post hits the nail on the head. It's down to easiness and impatience more than anything. (i)Why bother taking the time to look at the little things when you can spend less time taking loads of digital photos & not really looking at any of them. That's why, in my opinion, photography has went WAY downhill in recent years. (ii)People now seem to be more concerned with getting lighting, focus and exposure 'right' (whatever that is) than they are in actually taking a good picture. Many a time has someone said to me 'I don't know if I could be a photographer - I don't understand aperture & all those other numbers!' & I'm thinking 'eh? All you have to do is see!'. It may sound like a horrible cliche, but it's bloody true! (iii)I really think my photography was better when I knew less about the technical things & spent more time actually making the photograph.

(iv) I find it quite sad that, on here, when a lot of people have commented on a critique thread that has some really great pictures, they dismiss it instantly because 'it's too grainy', or 'is a bit soft'. Quality does definitely count for something, which is why I use film, but it shouldn't count for everything.
Click to expand...

i) It's not actually compulsory to machine gun and shoot 400 frames in an outing on digital - to be honest, a couple of times when I've been out shooting with the 7D and a couple of EOS-3's, I've probably exposed more frames on film than I have on the digital - mainly due to the fact that I've taken the same frame on B&W and colour film (and, if it's been on E6 colour, I've very probably bracketed the shot - film stock is cheap - missing the shot through Velvia 50's lattitude is mortifying and expensive to re-shoot!!)

(ii) Just because you take the time to get the technical aspects right, doesen't actually preclude also taking the time to get the composition just as you'd like, and, much more importantly, taking whatever time it takes to get the light correct... Admittedly, sometimes we're talking about a 10 second window of correct light - say at sunrise/sunset or as the sun comes from behind just the right cloud - but that's why you sometimes spend the might in a Bivi half-way up a mountain, just to be ready for it!.

(iii) I think my photography improved immeasurably when I actually understood the technical stuff well enough to be able to actually just let a small part of my brain take care of it, while I got on with thinking about the actual shot.

(iv) If you disagree with someone's critique on a shot - provide your own, explaining why in your opinion the particular look either works for the shot, or at least doesn't intrude on the shot. The problem some people have with giving critique, is that they haven't necessarily been exposed to more "artistic" interpretations of shooting - not everyone has an Arts background - my education in matters artistic consisted of a 1 hour weekly lesson for 3 months, before my A-Level general studies - and actually comprised sitting in the Library looking at books of old-master still lifes. Some of that stuck in my memory though...
 
TheBigYin said:
i) It's not actually compulsory to machine gun and shoot 400 frames in an outing on digital - to be honest, a couple of times when I've been out shooting with the 7D and a couple of EOS-3's, I've probably exposed more frames on film than I have on the digital - mainly due to the fact that I've taken the same frame on B&W and colour film (and, if it's been on E6 colour, I've very probably bracketed the shot - film stock is cheap - missing the shot through Velvia 50's lattitude is mortifying and expensive to re-shoot!!)

(ii) Just because you take the time to get the technical aspects right, doesen't actually preclude also taking the time to get the composition just as you'd like, and, much more importantly, taking whatever time it takes to get the light correct... Admittedly, sometimes we're talking about a 10 second window of correct light - say at sunrise/sunset or as the sun comes from behind just the right cloud - but that's why you sometimes spend the might in a Bivi half-way up a mountain, just to be ready for it!.

(iii) I think my photography improved immeasurably when I actually understood the technical stuff well enough to be able to actually just let a small part of my brain take care of it, while I got on with thinking about the actual shot.

(iv) If you disagree with someone's critique on a shot - provide your own, explaining why in your opinion the particular look either works for the shot, or at least doesn't intrude on the shot. The problem some people have with giving critique, is that they haven't necessarily been exposed to more "artistic" interpretations of shooting - not everyone has an Arts background - my education in matters artistic consisted of a 1 hour weekly lesson for 3 months, before my A-Level general studies - and actually comprised sitting in the Library looking at books of old-master still lifes. Some of that stuck in my memory though...
Click to expand...


i) I don't necessarily mean 'machine gunning', but it is a general thing that folk take more time/less pictures overall with film because of the whole wastage factor. A roll of film (36exp) can & does last me 4-5 days, but with digital I'll take somewhere in the region of 400 pictures in one sitting just because I'm not paying for each individual exposure & I can easily look at what's wrong on the screen.

ii) You're absolutely right, it doesn't always mean sacrificing other aspects of picture-making because you know about lighting. What I mean is that, people (this is just what I have experienced, others may well see differently), a lot of the time, spend more time & worry more about lighting & grain, etc than they do about what the subject, whatever it may be, looks. The results are a beautifully lit, sharp photograph with an uncomfortable & unnatural looking model.

iii) That one is completely subjective to how each person works, as is most things about photography.

iv) I do try to critique people's pictures in a more artistic way. I saw that still life when you put it up & really like it. Definitely a contrast between that & a lot of stuff I see on here!

P.S, I don't want to seem like I'm trying to force my opinions/priorities on people here too much, I'm just putting mine across, maybe a little too strongly.

-J
 
Joe - i'm just playing devils advocate here - I've nothing against you "ruining" (imo) good images with more experimental or arty techniques, and would actually quite like to see the reception that they'd get within the creative sharing sections. I'm also really happy that the art school people and hipsters are buying into film - the more people that buy film, the better chance it'll keep in production a bit longer, and while ever the hipsters are only buying plastic cameras with terrible picture quality, I'm not over worried about them driving the price of second hand cameras up either. I just really, really don't want people browsing into F&C to get into a mind-set that all the shots on film look rough as a badgers harris! I'd far rather have them come in here and see pictures of the quality (technical and composition wise) produced by Gandhi or AlanSmithee




http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4236792&postcount=5610
 
I have been to many photography exhibitions and despite varying subject matters, styles and approaches, one thing is true: The images are almost always of high quality and I never see dust and hairs.
 
Also, it is a pathetic stereotype to say people who use digital cameras take a spray and pray approach to photography. Almost as pathetic as the stereotype that people who use film are a bunch of dirt and hair loving hipsters. The smarter ones of us realize that shooting hundreds of frames of digital photos does cost us, in editing time and storage space, especially for the less technically minded who are limited to the size of their laptop hard drives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top