 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006How 'bout this dust on the sensor thing?
How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) I've shot three weddings in the last three weeks, and they all have the same blurry patch on them, and I did lockup the mirror and used a bulb to attempt to dislodge it.  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) The Copper Hill method works well. It is essentially the same method that the manufacturer would use if you sent it in to them. The warnings in your camera manual are greatly exaggerated, but then if you are a klutz and destroy your camera, well, it is because you are a klutz, not because there is anything wrong with the Copper Hill method. :-) http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) I've spent huge amounts of time spotting and retoucing dust spots, hairs, scratches, and gunk from the water (the last usually embedded in the emulsion during processing); it's a far bigger problem than dust has ever been for me with a DSLR. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in the emulsion during processing); it's a far bigger problem than > dust has ever been for me with a DSLR. Sounds like you're talking about a black and white darkroom and/or scanning without d-ice. If you're going the pro lab route there are no dust problems with film that can't be solved by simply requesting a reprint sans dust spots. And such a helpful response you've given. >> > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, >> > I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And such a helpful response you've given. There should NOT be crud on film at a good lab. The common method though is handle film like crap and let the scanner/software fix it. I have flawless B&W images. I have spent well over 25 years in pro labs and the answer is handle all film like it's our own. That concept has been tossed away with false economy. Labs will now try to squeeze the last penny out of the wash/stabilizer using it weeks after it should have been changed. > > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > > > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dust problems with film that can't be solved by simply requesting a > reprint sans dust spots. ICE doesn't work with silver-image B&W films, so those have to be fixed by hand. You've had much better luck with pro labs than I have, sounds like. > And such a helpful response you've given. People need to keep a sense of proportion. I've spent minuts of my life retouching out dust from digital photos; it's just not much of a problem. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite >> > > rant, I [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > life retouching out dust from digital photos; it's just not much of a > problem. I've heard of things costing an arm and a leg, but your nuts!?! Ouch! That goes to far, me thinks. ;-) SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite >> > > rant, I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You've had much better luck with pro labs than I have, sounds like. my luck is just as bad. the price of pro lab is higher but quality of results is just as hit and miss. >> And such a helpful response you've given. >>> > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite >>> > > rant, I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >>> And such a helpful response you've given. When you're paying pro prices, it's up to you to say if their results are not acceptable. In my experience, they'll reprint every time, until you quit bitching. You're not afraid to stand up for what's right, are you? ;-) SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > >>> > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite > >>> > > rant, I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > not acceptable. In my experience, they'll reprint every time, until you > quit bitching. You're not afraid to stand up for what's right, are you? Scratches are the problem I have with pro labs, and reprinting doesn't help. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > > >>> > > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite > > >>> > > rant, I [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> > Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> If the lab is scratching your negatives, then you are using the wrong lab. That's not an issue with a real pro-lab. They be out of business by the end of the week if they started that. So switch labs. If you find that more than one lab has scratched your negatives, check you camera. Maybe something inside the camera is scratching them. Pro labs aren't hit or miss. They produce great prints each and every time. That's why they are pro labs. If they aren't doing it for you, either change labs or check your exposures. Or maybe you are asking them to do something that isn't possible. I use a couple of labs. They make great prints and have a person look at every print while it is being packaged. But that is more expensive and you pay a premium for it. Pat. > If the lab is scratching your negatives, then you are using the wrong > lab. That's not an issue with a real pro-lab. They be out of business [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > either change labs or check your exposures. Or maybe you are asking > them to do something that isn't possible. I know too many people who've had too much trouble with too many pro labs, covering all the labs in the city at one time or another, to take your attitude. Certainly they're far better than Proex or whoever, the consumer labs; but they're not perfect. That's why you don't send in all the films from an event in one batch. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) > > I've shot three weddings in the last three weeks, and they all have the same > blurry patch on them, and I did lockup the mirror and used a bulb to attempt > to dislodge it. It is really a filter that you are cleaning not the surface of the sensor so it is not as scary at it might first seem, still some care is needed. If the bulb blowing thing does not work then I try a brush. If that does not work I use a very small amount of alcohol on a cotton swab, most people would not recommend this but it works for me. As long as I don't shoot with f/number larger then about f/16 I have very little problems with dust and only rarely have to clean the sensor. If you are seeing a blurry patch it sounds like a lot more then just a little dust on the senser, it sounds like a bit blotch of something, should not be hard to see. Scott > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) > > I've shot three weddings in the last three weeks, and they all have the same > blurry patch on them, and I did lockup the mirror and used a bulb to attempt > to dislodge it. Get the sensor cleaned once a year from Nikon. Buy a backup camera. Never take the lens off. SignatureThe sometimes insomniac. www.gregblankphoto.com > How am I supposed to clean that off? I had just this issue the other day - so I went a bought a $30 artists brush, and promptly smeared all kinds of crap over the sensor - guess I shouldn't have skipped the bit about cleaning and testing the brush first (but it felt so clean on my fingers!) Time for plan B ... Got an $80 "kit" from a national supplier - it consists of a small bottle of distilled water with some kind of 'secret sauce' added, and 12 sterilised long-stem medical cotton buds. You put 2 drops on the 1st bud and give the sensor a good clean - this leaves all kind of smeared water droplets which you then remove with buds 2 & 3 (and 4 if you need it). In the end I concluded a number of things ... 1. This stuff is a real rip-off 2. 1/2 way through the process it looks aweful 3. It worked absolutely 100% - not a single spec to be found anywhere. Morale of the story ... 1. Buy one of these rip-off kits, but see if you can source the sterilised cotton buds from your doctor next time you visit. 2. You're really only cleaning the glass filter over the sensor - it'll probably scare the crap out of you the first time, but much easier from then on in. > In the end I concluded a number of things ... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1. Buy one of these rip-off kits, but see if you can source the > sterilised cotton buds from your doctor next time you visit. The dry method: Compressed air. For more stubborn specks use an eye shadow brush followed by compressed air. The wet method: A Pec pad wrapped around any swabbing device, even a chopstick, with a drop of Eclipse (methanol) does wonders. Why do people like to overcomplicate this simple process so much? Why do people like to waste money on rip-off kits? Rita > The dry method: > > Compressed air. For more stubborn specks use an eye shadow brush followed > by compressed air. I would not recommend this method. You can drip liquid propellant from the compressed air can onto the sensor, permanently damaging it. Also, the eye shadow brush is likely to have glue on it that will get onto the sensor, plus pushing the dirt around on a dry sensor is likely to scratch it. The wet method is called the Copper Hill method and it works fine. >> Compressed air. For more stubborn specks use an eye shadow brush >> followed by compressed air. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the sensor, plus pushing the dirt around on a dry sensor is likely to > scratch it. Carelessly using *ANY* method will cause damage. It's easy to prevent "liquid propellant" from coming out if you keep the can upright and not shoot full blast. Eye shadow brushes are easily cleaned and prepared to yield perfect sensor brushes. Like anything else in life, if you're happy buying a $100 placebo called a "sensor cleaning kit" from the various vendors out there, by all means.... > The wet method is called the Copper Hill method and it works fine. Yep! Great method and a very informative article. I've used the PecPad with Eclipse wrapped around a homemade sensor swipe many times and it's great. It's too damn easy to duplicate these "kits" and "techniques" by improvising. Rita I've never had a chunk of stuff on my sensor, but doesn't seem like it would be too blurry. Seems like it would have fairly well defined edges and be pretty opaque in the middle. Check your lens, esp. the back piece of glass. There might be something there. Good luck. > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) > > I've shot three weddings in the last three weeks, and they all have the same > blurry patch on them, and I did lockup the mirror and used a bulb to attempt > to dislodge it. > I've never had a chunk of stuff on my sensor, but doesn't seem like it > would be too blurry. Seems like it would have fairly well defined > edges and be pretty opaque in the middle. Not so. Specks on the sensor are definitely blurry. :-) Usually the specks are invisible -- the get lost in the background clutter. But against sky or large areas of a single color the specks become visible as little blurry dots (sometimes not so little). The way to check for dust on the sensor is to take a picture of a white sheet of paper. It does not have to be in focus; in fact, it works better if the paper is not in focus. You can change lenses and shoot again, if you want. The specks of dust will be in both pictures at the same location, visible as grayish blurry dots. The Copper Hill method is to wipe them off with a stick wrapped in a PecPad with one or two drops of Eclipse on it. You can buy special sticks that match the size of your sensor, but that is not completely necessary. Using compressed air to clean the sensor may not be a good idea. You can drip liquid propellant onto the sensor, damaging it permanently, or you might just blow more dust onto the sensor. According to cjcampbell <christophercampbell@hotmail.com>: > > I've never had a chunk of stuff on my sensor, but doesn't seem like it > > would be too blurry. Seems like it would have fairly well defined [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > clutter. But against sky or large areas of a single color the specks > become visible as little blurry dots (sometimes not so little). Indeed so. > The way to check for dust on the sensor is to take a picture of a white > sheet of paper. It does not have to be in focus; in fact, it works > better if the paper is not in focus. You can change lenses and shoot > again, if you want. The specks of dust will be in both pictures at the > same location, visible as grayish blurry dots. You left out one thing which is certain to make the specks visible if they are present -- or to hide them depending. That is to shoot at the smallest aperture you can. Beyond a certain point (e.g. more open than f11) they are very hard to find, and often not visible. The reason for this is: 1) The dust is not directly on the sensor, but rather on a filter mounted above the sensor. (IR blocking, and anti-aliasing as well on some cameras.) 2) The smaller the aperture (numerically larger), the narrower the cone that the light beam forms. 3) At large apertures, the cone is larger than the dust speck, and thus most of the light will still reach the sensor at a given point, even if a dust speck is directly over it. 4) At small apertures, the only light to normally reach the sensor is blocked by the dust particle, plus a blurry gray zone around it from light reaching it only from part of the lens. > The Copper Hill method is to wipe them off with a stick wrapped in a > PecPad with one or two drops of Eclipse on it. You can buy special > sticks that match the size of your sensor, but that is not completely > necessary. It is a good product. I believe that Eclipse is a particularly pure form of some alcohol, though I forget which. If you can get that directly in larger quantities, and the Pec Pads from some other source after your first batch, all you really need from the kit is the special stick, designed to maximize the cleaning accomplished by a single swipe, unlike cotton "buds" (called "Q-tips" (a brand name) in the US). If you know the shape desired, and have machining capabilities, you should be able to make your own stick -- but the easiest way to know this is to buy the kit, so there you are. :-) > Using compressed air to clean the sensor may not be a good idea. You > can drip liquid propellant onto the sensor, damaging it permanently, or > you might just blow more dust onto the sensor. Truly compressed air has no propellant other than more air, but it is likely to have water condensed from the air as a side effect of the compression. My choice for blowing off would be dry nitrogen, but a 3000 PSI tank of that is not a comfortable thing to have around the house. :-) Some "air" blowers really are liquid CO2, and if you hold the dispenser in the wrong orientation, you will get spurts of liquid CO2, which will be cold enough so you risk damage to the protective filters over the sensor. The sensor itself is protected behind these. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- > > I've never had a chunk of stuff on my sensor, but doesn't seem like it > > would be too blurry. Seems like it would have fairly well defined [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > again, if you want. The specks of dust will be in both pictures at the > same location, visible as grayish blurry dots. At a small aperture, like f22. The sky works fine, too. SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> >> The way to check for dust on the sensor is to take a picture of a white >> sheet of paper. It does not have to be in focus; in fact, it works [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The sky works fine, too. Indeed, that is how I found that my camera has a dust problem. I was taking photos with significant sky using f/16 and it was clearly apparent that there was a problem once I got back to my computer to take a look. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >>> The way to check for dust on the sensor is to take a picture of a >>> white sheet of paper. It does not have to be in focus; in fact, it [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > apparent that there was a problem once I got back to my computer to > take a look. Today's CreativePro offers another digest: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/23423.html?cprose=daily > How am I supposed to clean that off? And just to give a luddite rant, I > never had that fecking problem with film! ;-) > > I've shot three weddings in the last three weeks, and they all have the > same blurry patch on them, and I did lockup the mirror and used a bulb to > attempt to dislodge it. That blurry patch could be a small smudge ( from a finger or thumb) on the lens, which, if it were shot with film wouldn't be seen in print, but witih digital, in the bright sun, such things can be really noticable. This happened to me, and just because I clean the lens before a wedding, I found that I have to check the lens periodically to make sure i didn't touch it accidentally leaving a small finger smudge. This caused me a small nightmare in photoshop, once. Patrick |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.