wasn't dust- were watermarks!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

i posted about a question about some round marks i found after i used
the 'dust-catcher' image from the napp article in photoshop user.

i found the problem! the marks were indeed water marks on the sensor
-using visible dust folks cleaning kit (www.visibledust.com) i got
them all off ... the kits seem expensive but i read that someone who
actually visited their office says you can see that their brushes are
better than regular make up brushes ...in any case 1)it worked 2)its
about the same price as a cleaning at my professional shop and 3) i
can now do it on my own ...and the folks at visible dust couldn't have
been nicer - walked me through everything over the phone - nfi - just
a happy user ..... steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

pshaw@emmet.com wrote:

> i posted about a question about some round marks i found after i used
> the 'dust-catcher' image from the napp article in photoshop user.
>
> i found the problem! the marks were indeed water marks on the sensor
> -using visible dust folks cleaning kit (www.visibledust.com) i got
> them all off ... the kits seem expensive but i read that someone who
> actually visited their office says you can see that their brushes are
> better than regular make up brushes ...in any case 1)it worked 2)its
> about the same price as a cleaning at my professional shop and 3) i
> can now do it on my own ...and the folks at visible dust couldn't have
> been nicer - walked me through everything over the phone - nfi - just
> a happy user ..... steve
>
>

It was dust. You can't remove water marks with a dry brush.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:

> the kits seem expensive but i read that someone who actually visited
> their office says you can see that their brushes are better than regular
> make up brushes

I really must get into the photo accessory business.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kodak Photoflo will get rid of those watermarks, right<g>?

D.

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:115tgv03jhc3n08@corp.supernews.com...
> <pshaw@emmet.com> wrote:
>
>> the kits seem expensive but i read that someone who actually visited
>> their office says you can see that their brushes are better than regular
>> make up brushes
>
> I really must get into the photo accessory business.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Douglas Tourtelot" <tourtelot@nospanspeakeasy.net> wrote:

> Kodak Photoflo will get rid of those watermarks, right<g>?
>
> D.
>

My lawyer says that any possible answer I give would probably be
actionable. No comment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Douglas Tourtelot wrote:

> Kodak Photoflo will get rid of those watermarks, right<g>?

Just pour it into the camera while chaning lenses and agitate well.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http/tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote
> I really must get into the photo accessory business.

Yes indeed. As Barnum is alleged to observe, a new potential customer is
born every minute.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote
> "jfitz" <jfitz@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Which is why I wrote "alleged to observe" rather than "observed".
>>
>> The entire story can be found here:
>> http/www.historybuff.com/library/refbarnum.html
>
> You're aware of the fact yet you prefer to further the fiction?

Because the point was the humor of the content of the quote, not to whom it
is generally attributed. To attribute it to Hannum would have brought on
endless corrections from those who thought Barnum was misspelled. I thought
anyone who knew the origins of the quote would also pick up on the "alleged"
qualifier. Appears I was wrong.