Re: pinholes

["Russ Rosener" <rrosener@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
>From: "Amber" <ambersexton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: infrared@xxxxx
>Subject: pinholes
>Date: Fri, Mar 19, 1999, 7:56 PM
....
>If a negative is riddled with them it has been suggested to me to 
>make a perfect print and have it retouched and a 4x5 or 8x10 copy 
>negative made.  This is also not very practical but is worth it if the 
>image is worth it.
>
>
>Amber
>ambersexton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

It might be easier and cheaper to scan the 8 x 10 print at high resolution,
say at least 300 dpi and re-touch it using Photoshop. Then you could print
the corrected digital file or have a new negative made from that with much
less quality loss. I have not yet been bitten by the pinhole bug. Could it 
have something to do with the ph of water in certain areas? I wonder what
would happen if the film were developed commercially in a dip & dunk
processor which uses nitrogen burst agiatation. That seems to give much
better development.

Russ Rosener

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************