Thanks all.
Once again, WT has come up trumps! There was no clue at all that this was a Wednesday, Graham (
) but I can now be sure about location and an approximate date, say Summer 1965, and now we know it's a Wednesday that narrows the options a bit. Andy's photo confirms Dog Star's comments for me.
As for my scanning format, using jpg I'm sorry to say that I don't recognise the same artefacts as others. Certainly when Simon used my 35mm jpeg of "Biggin Hill" for a poster size print I could see no problems, and Simon reported no problems in getting it printed from a 2400 dpi Photoshopped scan sent to him on disc. I know the purists may not like jpeg but it's a format which is exceptionally easy to use and manipulate. If push comes to shove and there is a wish to use these images for publication or similar in the future the negs can always be rescanned and post processed to remove defects.
In short, I know there are shortcomings with jpg but it suits me
.
Having said which, Andy, your photo above, for which many thanks for posting, is showing signs of deterioration. Some of my negs are suffering too but can usually be improved if I spend a lot of time in Photoshop. Unfortunately most film stocks have great longevity but considerable fragility if they are subject to damp, excessive heat cycles etc. (There are some notable exceptions to that rule we won't go in to here.) One way of sometimes improving things is to put the damaged materials through a stabliliser bath for that particular process but even that's risky as some of the bugs which attack film create a by product which effectively dissolves the emulsion at the point of damage, so the best possible quality copy should always be taken before any attempt is made t improve the original.
Don't quite know how I was side tracked on to that, so a thanks once again for the help. There are more to come, and certainly some you may enjoy, Mick, so don't think I've forgotten you!
Brian
