Not a Scratch--What Is It?

Rick Granick

SPFG, Supreme Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Resource Provider
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Posts
21,824
Loc
Cincinnati, OH
I'm framing a 16x20 photo print from a digital image (I think, based on the grain of the enlargement). As I'm brushing the dust off for glazing and fitting I notice what appears to be a scratch-like mark on the dark suit of one of the figures. Close examination with magnifier in raking light shows absolutely no variation in the surface texture. In other words, it's not a scratch and not a streak of something on the surface. The weird thing is that I don't remember seeing this eyesore when designing the frame job or when Perfectmounting the photo. So if it's not a scratch and not anything on the surface, what else could it be, and why wouldn't I have noticed it before? I always look for defects during the design process so I can point them out to the client.
Guess I'll call the client and tell them I notice a mark in the image, and ask if they want to look at it before I finish the framing.
Any clues?

shrug.gif
Rick
 
Ever see the original Omen with Gregory Peck?

I'd be really careful, Rick - especially around Rottweilers.

(I'm sorry I have nothing constructive to contribute. Maybe by bringing this back to the top, someone else will.)

P.S. Not sure about the spelling for "Rottweilers." ieSpell suggested "rototillers" or "retailers."

I'd be careful around those, too.
 
But, seriously folks [rimshot] …

It could be “noise” in the original digital file which was reproduced accurately when printed, although straight line noise is rather unusual.

If the digital image was generated from a “real” photo or a negative, the scratch could have been there to begin with and the operator/retoucher just missed it. The “Dust and Scratches” filter works wonders but only if you notice the flaw in the first place.

... or there could have been a hair or something across the scratch when it was printed. Then the hair fell off leaving a white area. But that's a stretch.
 
Sometimes minor scratches don't show any difference in the surface. Also, is this an inkjet print or a photographic print on RC paper? Makes a difference in what the problem could be. Could it be dirt or adhesive on the surface? I've found that even the softest brushes can scratch photographic emulsion. I try to only use cotton gloves to clean them off with.
 
Anne:
It feels like an RC, but the surface has a slight textured finish, like very fine ripples. The picture is a "not great" shot that appears to have been taken at a wedding party, but the reverse of the picture had no logos or "professional print" indications of any kind. It was plain white.
I really don't think this is a scratch, because if you look at the surface texture reflecting raking light, even with magnification, there is absolutely no disturbance of the finish.
I thought maybe the brush had picked up and dragged something like a tiny bit of nailhole putty or something, but again, nothing appears to be on the surface, and a gentle rubbing with a cotton swab moistened with adhesive release does nothing at all.
The weird thing is that if this mark were there all along, I would normally have noticed it right away. It is much more visible from certain angles than others.
???
shrug.gif
Rick
 
The eye and the brain are not a perfect team.

How many times have you blanked a mat, cut it and then as you are fitting the piece you find a speck that had to be there all the time. You even looked it over when you checked in the order, but the eye/brain never "saw" it.
shrug.gif
 
Sounds like something that was there all along. It was probably caused by a piece of dust on the negative. Just because there is alot ofgrain showing doesn't mean it is a digital print. Prints made from negatives that are poorly exposed or large prints made from small negatives can also have alot of grain. If it is a dust spot, I wouldn't worry about it. It isn't something you did to the print, it was a preexisting condition. If it was in my shop, I could take my brushes and dyes and take it out for you. Best just to leave it alone. If you try to fix it you might wind up damaging it instead.
 
Some inkjet prints are extremely moisture sensitive. If you have one of those, a droplet of spittle deposited on the picture during the design process might have made the mark.

It would not have been seen at the time, but might have been smeared when it was put away. Surface texture would be unaffected.
 
Rick,
I know that your question was "what is it", but you have your true answer: It's there, and indeterminate.

Now take your other answer, and call the person before you fit it.

Some days we stumble on the smallest minutia, and we seem to be unable to get past it, like a stuck record. Practice getting past it and move on.

It' the same reaccurring theam here on the grumble, AND I am at fault of doing the same, although not as much as I used to.

We obsesse about I pay 2.47 and she pays 2.32, I get once a week delivery and he gets twice, I cut mats right handed and she cuts left with a CMC, I charge $60/hr he only $59 and on and on.

At the Vegas breakfast, one point was clear, survival was in imitating the BBs. Send a newletter, and keep moving as a BUSINESS, and where we are set apart is in that we can do that, and still respond nimbly and personally with our customer base.

Nimbly: Can I have that tomorrow at 3:00? Yes, if we use any of these 12 mouldings that I have that is very doable and still quiet lovely. (The mats you can pick out of your scrap, as well as fabric). And then there is that 3.5' of fillet that has been floating around: "we can even add this fillet, and set off the earrings and necklace, and that would only be $32 more.....

NOT so nimble: Well, it first has to ship to Kansas City at our sweat shop. There it will be placed on the rush pile. If they don't lose it, and they get those new people trained up in time, we can have it back here by next month, would you like fries with that? Super sized?
 
Baer:
You are absolutely right, of course, and that IS my plan- has been all along. I just thought that before I speak to the cust. I could glean some insight from folks on the Grumble who are more conversant in photography than I am.
:cool: Rick
 
If its an Ink Jet print and the mark is in the direction the print head went then I would say that it was almost certainly from the printer head or a part of it whizzing past an touching the ink prior to the ink fully absorbing into the paper surface, this can have a major impact on the "sheen" when viewed from angles and is especially noticeable in heavily saturated areas.
 
Just an update on this. I believe the spot was caused by a scratch in the negative. There were several other (but far more subtle) ones in other parts of the photo too.
I called the customer to see if they wanted to inspect the picture before I fit it. They came in and looked at it, and weren't too distracted by the mark. They told me to just go ahead, which I did, and they were happy with the results. I told them that I just have an "eagle eye" when it comes to these kinds of things. (Of course I was also trying to head off a potential fault-finding if they had found the mark as a surprise in the finished job.)
Anyway, all's well that ends well.
thumbsup.gif
Rick
Thanks for all the suggestions.
 
Back
Top