Recommended Posts

Hi,  

 

I have thousands upon thousands of high quality 35mm colour slides.  Many of these of jet aircraft taken from the cockpit of fighter aircraft in the air. For the first time I sent a scan of a 35mm slide to QC, and it failed because of noise.  This is despite the fact I used the 'reduce noise' function in Photoshop.

 

How can I get rid of this noise please.

 

Thanks,

 

Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Robbie

 

There is another thread on the use of scanned slides floating around.

 

These fighter jet images may well be acceptable under the Archival route, if you can't get them through standard QC. The quality standard is lower, and the images are permanently marked as such, but you have to persuade Alamy that they are suitable to use as Archival material.

 

Re scanning, switch off every bell and whistle on your scanner and do all of your processing in LR and or PS. Consider downsizing the images before submitting.

 

I have not been able to make 35 mm scans that are good enough for me to consider uploading as standard stock, while using an Epson 4990 Photo flatbed.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be justified if the aeroplanes are no longer in squadron service or otherwise historic. For my archive I applied a pretty obvious test: if the subject of the image is still there, it's not usually archive, it's just an old photo. Unless the surroundings have changed. Which probably doesn't apply at 35000ft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What scanner are you using? Have you considered copying them using a DSLR with macro lens instead of scanning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for info.  I am using an Epson V500 flatbed which excellent.  I used to have a Nikon Coolscan which was absolute rubbish.

 

Will have a try with DSLR Macro.

 

Thanks,

 

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, spacecadet said:

It'd be justified if the aeroplanes are no longer in squadron service or otherwise historic. For my archive I applied a pretty obvious test: if the subject of the image is still there, it's not usually archive, it's just an old photo. Unless the surroundings have changed. Which probably doesn't apply at 35000ft.

 

Thanks for the info.  Is there a link to sending material on Archive route ?  Many air-air slides I could put on, most of which as you say no longer current.

 

Thanks,

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bryan said:

Hi Robbie

 

There is another thread on the use of scanned slides floating around.

 

These fighter jet images may well be acceptable under the Archival route, if you can't get them through standard QC. The quality standard is lower, and the images are permanently marked as such, but you have to persuade Alamy that they are suitable to use as Archival material.

 

Re scanning, switch off every bell and whistle on your scanner and do all of your processing in LR and or PS. Consider downsizing the images before submitting.

 

I have not been able to make 35 mm scans that are good enough for me to consider uploading as standard stock, while using an Epson 4990 Photo flatbed.

Thanks Bryan. I assume there is a link to submitting on Archival route.  Lots of air-air shots I could put on. 

 

Many thanks,

 

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Robbie Shaw said:

Hi thanks for info.  I am using an Epson V500 flatbed which excellent.  I used to have a Nikon Coolscan which was absolute rubbish.

 

 

There are Coolscans and there are Coolscans. The earlier ones (2 and 3) were probably better than anything else around in their time but are woefully inadequate by today's standards. 4 was a lot better and 5 better still. There is also software and software. I never liked the Nikon software and struggled until I discovered VueScan. And then there is film and there is film. Kodachrome is notoriously difficult to scan, for instance.

 

What I'm saying is that scanning slides to professional standards requires hard work and the right processing chain from film to file.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannot remember what Coolscan it was - two friends had the same machine and we all ditched it.  Yes as you say the Kodachrome is very difficult to scan, amazing how much dust gets on slides !

 

Thanks,

 

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 100% sure, but as far as I know the only scanner that will do dust removal for Kodachrome is the Coolscan 9000, which costs a small fortune. Otherwise it has to be done manually. Chuck (The Original One) posts here from time to time about his slide cleaning method which is comprehensive and effective.

 

Alan

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember that using anti-noise software makes the image softer. Or was it anti-dust software?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I've had the Coolscan V and now 8000ED and I'd be surprised if any flatbed comes close. If I were to spend time scanning it would only be with a dedicated film scanner. 

 

Try the noise reduction in DxO's PhotoLab software; free trial available. It does soften the image somewhat , but you really have to try it to see. Sorry, it's been quite a while since I last did this.

Edited by KevinS
Accuracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Alan,

 

Have not warmed up my CanoScans in years, but if I was going to scan a chrome I would

remove it from the slide mount, clean it carefully with PRC-12 using PEC-PADS and then turn

off all auto retouching and scan it to 16bit TIFF's in aRGB color.  I've scanned a lot of Kodachrome

and never had a problem.

 

For the record I do use CanoScans FS4000's to scan film, I do not use the USB, I have an ADAPTEC 16bit

PCMCIA card that I use to connect the 4000 to an old LENOVO T-62 laptop.  I also do not use any Canon or

third party software to do the scanning.  I do all work on the image after I have moved it to a desktop with

CS.

 

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vpics said:

I seem to remember that using anti-noise software makes the image softer. Or was it anti-dust software?

 

I would imagine both do.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly I have found that in Photoshop reducing noise does seem tom soften the sharpness.

 

Thanks

 

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Thanks Alan,

 

Have not warmed up my CanoScans in years, but if I was going to scan a chrome I would

remove it from the slide mount, clean it carefully with PRC-12 using PEC-PADS and then turn

off all auto retouching and scan it to 16bit TIFF's in aRGB color.  I've scanned a lot of Kodachrome

and never had a problem.

 

For the record I do use CanoScans FS4000's to scan film, I do not use the USB, I have an ADAPTEC 16bit

PCMCIA card that I use to connect the 4000 to an old LENOVO T-62 laptop.  I also do not use any Canon or

third party software to do the scanning.  I do all work on the image after I have moved it to a desktop with

CS.

 

Chuck

Interesting, thanks for your comments.

Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KevinS said:

I've had the Coolscan V and now 8000ED and I'd be surprised if any flatbed comes close. If I were to spend time scanning it would only be with a dedicated film scanner. 

 

Try the noise reduction in DxO's PhotoLab software; free trial available. It does soften the image somewhat , but you really have to try it to see. Sorry, it's been quite a while since I last did this.

Might give this a try.

Thanks,

Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robbie Shaw said:

Many thanks.

 

Robbie Shaw

Looked at the site and tried to load a shot. I no longer have a website so it seems you cannot load an individual shot as it asked for website address.  

 

Robbie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Robbie Shaw said:

Certainly I have found that in Photoshop reducing noise does seem tom soften the sharpness.

 

Thanks

 

Robbie Shaw

You should be able to NR a RAW quite a bit without losing sharpness. I can certainly go up to 50 in LR on high ISO

 

39 minutes ago, Robbie Shaw said:

Looked at the site and tried to load a shot. I no longer have a website so it seems you cannot load an individual shot as it asked for website address.  

 

Robbie

You can't upload on that page- you have to give the URL where the images are hosted.  I used photobucket- Alamy don't mind the ads.

http://s5.photobucket.com/user/markrhdunn/library/archive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 11:28, Robbie Shaw said:

Hi,  

 

I have thousands upon thousands of high quality 35mm colour slides.  Many of these of jet aircraft taken from the cockpit of fighter aircraft in the air. For the first time I sent a scan of a 35mm slide to QC, and it failed because of noise.  This is despite the fact I used the 'reduce noise' function in Photoshop.

 

How can I get rid of this noise please.

 

Thanks,

 

Robbie

 

 

Are you referring to noise or grain? If it's noise maybe you need to clean your cable connections or replace the cables.

 

What kind of film are you scanning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP means image noise, not interference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, spacecadet said:

You should be able to NR a RAW quite a bit without losing sharpness. I can certainly go up to 50 in LR on high ISO

 

You can't upload on that page- you have to give the URL where the images are hosted.  I used photobucket- Alamy don't mind the ads.

http://s5.photobucket.com/user/markrhdunn/library/archive

Great suggestion, think that is the way to go.

 

Appreciate your help.

 

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alamy are saying 'noise', but I suppose it could be grain.  Though shots were taken on K64 which was good for lack of grain.

 

Robbie Shaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now