Paul Glendell Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 It is some time since I scanned kodachrome slides ( not surprising I guess ) I now have lots to scan with my Nikon coolscan 4000 Ed and nikon software. It was a well known problem that although the nikon scanner was really good you couldn't use digital Ice with it to remove dust etc with kodachrome slides. Inevitably there is a lot of dust on the slides. Has anyone any idea if things have changed and any form of software can do it now or any company produced anything that can remove dust when scanning kodachromes? Any help would be greatly recieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I believe the Coolscan 9000 can do it, but that costs an arm and a leg. The 5000 certainly can't. The Original Chuck will be along in a moment to tell you that there's no substitute for hours of work cleaning the slides. He's probably quite right. I followed his advice a few years ago and bought some PEC-12 and pads, but when I sat down and thought about the number of slides I have and the hours that would be necessary, I lost the will to live. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I took Chuck's advice and used PEC-12 to clean some of my Kodachromes. It works and did not take me hours. (You have to remove the slide from the mount.) It would not be a worthwhile to scan run of the mill images. And by the way I have an earlier model Coolscan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I think scanning is getting a bit old hat now (are scanners still made?). An alternative method is digital duping. You don't get any grain aliasing, dust is minimised, shadow detail and highlights can be improved beyond the capability of a drum scanner (I know because I have hundreds of drum scans provided my specialist agency) and resolution is good. I have just had a 16x16" print made from a dupe of a 6x6 fuji neg, and the sharpness is amazing. Velvia can be a bit tricky, but I put the camera on triple bracketing and merge the three exposures using a basic PS action (shadows from overexposed, highlights from underexposed). With Kodachrome you shouldn't need that. You should find that dust is much less of a problem. In fact, in comparison with my last film scanner ... well, there is no comparison. You do need a high res, full-frame or higher, camera with a very sharp macro lens. I keep the original flat in an old neg carrier placed over a purpose made light box that doesn't spill much light in a darkened room. Focussing has to be very precise. From a very contrasty Velvia 6x6: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Like Robert, I use the same method for copying negs and slides….although the bracketing and combining of a high contrast slide is not something I would know how to do ! Kodachrome, as Robert says, is not usually a problem….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Glendell Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 Thanks to all, the digital duping is not something I had thought of before Robert (Environmental images person I assume?) , I'll look in to it. Shame my old lightbox has just packed up. I'll also look at the cleaning ideas posted above. Regards to all Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 "(Environmental images person I assume?)". That one, alas, Paul. I use a D800 with 60mm macro lens, and when I need to put it on auto-bracketing to obtain three different exposures. To obtain highlight and shadow layers I go: Select and copy image, create new channel (alpha 1), hide rgb channels, copy image back onto alpha channel, load selection, delete alpha, copy selection. If you were to then paste this onto a new file with a white background, you would see only mid tones to highlights showing. For shadows do exactly the same, except check the box 'invert' under 'load selection'. I temporarily call the files im, im (2), im (3), always place them in the same folder (temporarily) and then have a complete routine that loads them, and creates and combines the layers, so it is just a matter of clicking the mouse once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 "(Environmental images person I assume?)". That one, alas, Paul. I use a D800 with 60mm macro lens, and when I need to put it on auto-bracketing to obtain three different exposures. To obtain highlight and shadow layers I go: Select and copy image, create new channel (alpha 1), hide rgb channels, copy image back onto alpha channel, load selection, delete alpha, copy selection. If you were to then paste this onto a new file with a white background, you would see only mid tones to highlights showing. For shadows do exactly the same, except check the box 'invert' under 'load selection'. I temporarily call the files im, im (2), im (3), always place them in the same folder (temporarily) and then have a complete routine that loads them, and creates and combines the layers, so it is just a matter of clicking the mouse once. I would have thought that using Merge to HDR Pro would be ideal for this job although I wonder if it is even necessary to use 3 exposures considering the dynamic range of the D800 which should greatly exceed that of the transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Glendell Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 By coincidence I have a D800 and in my case a 105 macro so I'll definately have a go at this. I also have lots of medium format stuff to upload so this would be a lot better solution than buying a large format scanner Thanks for the help paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 I would have thought that using Merge to HDR Pro would be ideal for this job although I wonder if it is even necessary to use 3 exposures considering the dynamic range of the D800 which should greatly exceed that of the transparency. You should see my transparencies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 well, you can scan Kodachrome with digital ice on many Nikon scanners. It wont suddenly fall over. I do have a LS9000 but sometimes I didn't realise I was scanning a Kodachrome because I had updated the mount so just used the normal setting instead of the special one for Kodachrome. Sometimes it was fine, but other times I would get that strange Kodachrome fringe. Usually around twigs or leaves. But the dust was pretty well gone. You could usually touch out the fringes with the clone tool but it might take a few minutes. Well it might take quite few minutes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 THere's a reason Illumitrans still sell for a few hundred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 This falls under the category of old rather than new technology, but I sometimes still use a nifty little dust-removal program called "Polaroid Dust and Scratch" that Polaroid developed for their scanners during the 1990s (I believe). It's only usable on skies, though, because it softens details too much. This program is still available for free on the Web if you hunt around. I found a 2002 version last year when I updated my computer. I seldom scan old Kodachromes these days; however, when I do, I first use a Kodak liquid film cleaner (probably expired), then the Polaroid program for the sky, and clone tools for what's left of the dust, which is all just a wee bit too labour-intensive. Digital duping definitely sounds like the sensible way to go. This one from the 1980s took me ages to clean up. You wouldn't believe how much dust was hiding in the trees.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Everything I would normaly say has been said. I have not scanned a 35mm K in a while, I just remembered that I need to order some PEC-12 and Pads.... As most know, more than 80% of the images that I have on Alamy are 35mm scans. I might give the digital duping a try some time, but I miss all those hours sitting in front of the computer with good music and whisky (I miss those days just like a fish misses a bicycle...) Charles (not the original one...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Nikon scanner won't cut it for professional use. With Kodachrome I use a Drum-scanner with the phaseone software or the Imacon software. I found that to be the only way, especially with Kodachrome 25 and 64. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Nikon scanner won't cut it for professional use. With Kodachrome I use a Drum-scanner with the phaseone software or the Imacon software. I found that to be the only way, especially with Kodachrome 25 and 64. Does that solve the dust problem? Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Nikon scanner won't cut it for professional use. With Kodachrome I use a Drum-scanner with the phaseone software or the Imacon software. I found that to be the only way, especially with Kodachrome 25 and 64. Does that solve the dust problem? Alan Also copying slides using a camera would not solve the dust problem so that is a bit of a diversion really. According to this article on ScanDig (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Kodachrome.html, Digital ICE Professional works (came with the Nikon Coolscan 9000) as has been mentioned above. The scanner is no longer made and prices for 2nd hand ones are pretty outrageous. ScanDig do the scanning for fairly reasonable prices but are based in Germany. Prices in the UK are generally very high but this one seems reasonable from a quick browse (http://www.a1scan.co.uk/prices.htm), Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 The thing about all prosumer dedicated slide scanners is that a lot is resolved. They are terrific for grain and dust, not so good for shadows and highlights (well ... you can't have everything). I suspect Christian is referring to the Imacon virtual drum scanner, which isn't a actually a drum - it's a superior CCD. A true drum, using fluid mounting would deal with the dust problem to a large extent while achieving maximum resolution and great shadow/highlight detail. However, the OP just wants to scan a bunch of slides, not spend a year learning how to be a professional scanner having remortgaged the house in order to buy all the kit. I'm not quite sure what MDM's comment is based on. Digital duping, with the right equipment, will at least partially deal with dust. A while back I attempted to scan some old high resolution films (Kodak tech pan) using slide scanner. I can't remember whether I turned ICE off because it wasn't much good, or maybe couldn't use it on negs anyway. I gave up because it then took me well over an hour remove all the dust (slide scanners are optimised for slides, where a lot of fine dust is hidden by grain and ICE sort of works). I then tried an Epson flatbed. The dust was a lot less evident, and the image detail even less evident. With my current method I can reproduce the same material with visible dust levels lower than an Epsom, and resolution on a par with a slide scanner. I occasionally supply an American agency, somewhat more picky even than Getty, and never have a problem. For those who might want to try this method on Velvia, or underexposed slides, my method (earlier post) above will partiall deal with lost shadow detail. You could probably produce the three layers from a single exposure, but it is actually simpler to just have three bracketed exposures. I then use tools in LR to bring out as much detail as I can in that layer (exposure that will form that layer). Here is an example of 6x6 Velvia taken back in 1990 that was previously both unusable as an original and unscannable, probably even on a drum. It's already sold once (not here yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I'm not quite sure what MDM's comment is based on. Digital duping, with the right equipment, will at least partially deal with dust. A while back I attempted to scan some old high resolution films (Kodak tech pan) using slide scanner. I can't remember whether I turned ICE off because it wasn't much good, or maybe couldn't use it on negs anyway. I gave up because it then took me well over an hour remove all the dust (slide scanners are optimised for slides, where a lot of fine dust is hidden by grain and ICE sort of works). I then tried an Epson flatbed. The dust was a lot less evident, and the image detail even less evident. With my current method I can reproduce the same material with visible dust levels lower than an Epsom, and resolution on a par with a slide scanner. I occasionally supply an American agency, somewhat more picky even than Getty, and never have a problem. It was based on speculation only as I've never tried it (yet). I will try it sometime. I just assumed that focusing on the film would also reveal any dust on the surface. I'm not clear how this would be improved in the shooting. Digital ICE works like magic when it does work (uses infrared to detect dust and scratches) but doesn't work on conventional BW film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Brooks Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 For any transparency any size. Nikonscan 8000 + digital ice equals sharpness loss. 5D11 + Canon 100mm macro lens in a copy setup, equals sharper image with greater dynamic range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 . I just assumed that focusing on the film would also reveal any dust on the surface The scanner has to do that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 . I just assumed that focusing on the film would also reveal any dust on the surface The scanner has to do that as well. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Cheap(ish) neg scanners including Nikon scanners exaggerate grain, dust and scratches. Professional scan operators used to (probably still do) use an oil-based mounting fluid either on drum or high end flatbed scanners. Either will produce less visible dust (etc) without the fluid, but with it dust is minimised even more and image quality is improved even further. In my opinion a full-frame camera with a top notch macro lens precisely focussed will produce comparable results. A drum scan might have some qualities missing from a dupe, but this is compensateds for in other ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I just came across this Nikon Slide Copier ( http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-es-1-slide-copier-52mm-copying-adaptor/p1537536) which is made (they say) for the wonderfully sharp 55mm 2.8 Nikkor which I just happen to still have. I might just get one for a rainy day when I can find give time to looking through my slides and negs. It's not too expensive and might even inspire me to give it a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian58 Posted April 18, 2015 Share Posted April 18, 2015 Nikon scanner won't cut it for professional use. With Kodachrome I use a Drum-scanner with the phaseone software or the Imacon software. I found that to be the only way, especially with Kodachrome 25 and 64. Does that solve the dust problem? Alan Also copying slides using a camera would not solve the dust problem so that is a bit of a diversion really. According to this article on ScanDig (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/Kodachrome.html, Digital ICE Professional works (came with the Nikon Coolscan 9000) as has been mentioned above. The scanner is no longer made and prices for 2nd hand ones are pretty outrageous. ScanDig do the scanning for fairly reasonable prices but are based in Germany. Prices in the UK are generally very high but this one seems reasonable from a quick browse (http://www.a1scan.co.uk/prices.htm), Yes but I was also refering to true drum-scanning, that would solve the dust problem. The Imacon is a decent compromize between coolscan and drum and most of the time it solves the problems. Of course, proper drum scan is the best option and rather expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.