Digitalized 35mm Kodachrome slides

[Old school]

Dear ALAMY CONTRIBUTORS,

I have 1000s of Kodachrome 25 & 64 & Ektachrome 100 slides I have digitized using a PACIFIC IMAGE ELECTORNICS POWER SLIDE 5000 set at optimum pixel, color, etc format.  Resulting digitized images are 200+ megapixel high resolution images I downloaded to a dual layer disk holding 8.4 gigabit formatted to 7.8 gigabit.  My question for ALAMY FORUM Contributors, has anyone digitized their 35mm slides and submitted to ALAMY?  If so, what happened?  For any contributor who has digitized Kodachrome slides knows there is a lost of fidelity from the original slide to the 'digitized' image assuming the slide is photographically and technically excellent to begin with.  What did you say to ALAMY regarding this loss?  NIKON produced a slide digitized machine several years ago that is no longer in the market...price: $8,000 U.S.D. way beyond my budget.  I am frustrated at having 1000s of slides that are on disks sitting in boxes.  Commercial companies that 'digitize' slides to disk are too expensive.  Suggestions and lessons-learned are welcome.  Cheers, Paul Jones

[wiskerke]

You could start here:

https://discussion.alamy.com/search/?q=copying slides&quick=1&search_and_or=and

https://discussion.alamy.com/search/?q=digitizing slides&quick=1&search_and_or=and

 

wim

 

[Old school]

Dear Wiskerke, We thank you for your prompt reply...We will take a look. cheers, Flo and Paul Jones

[geogphotos]

I've been copying amateur Kodachrome and other slides using a macro lens holder.

 

I'm submitting them as Archive images because most are not of high enough technical standard to pass normal QC.

 

I've done around 2000 since March 2020.

[Harry Harrison]

Wim has given you good links to pursue. You'll find a lot of debate as to whether a scanner is better than a camera these days, but then you've already done it so maybe that isn't relevant. Basic maths suggests your Pacific scanned images are around 7200 x 4800 pixels at 16-bit. It's unlikely that you'd want to upload them at anything like that resolution, they would of course need to be 8-bit jpegs  anyway, and many downsize to around the minimum size (3000 x 2000 pixels) so that the retouching is minimised and the perceived quality compares well to digital. Alamy have high standards for images uploaded through the normal route and don't necessarily give any leeway if they are seen to be  scans from film. There is an alternative 'archive' route for which you need to seek permission and these will always have the warning to the effect that they may have imperfections. You probably need to consider carefully if your images have anything to offer over equivalent modern digital versions that are already available on Alamy, historical interest perhaps.

[wiskerke]

My first 155 images are scans with the Nikon Coolscan 5000. There have been more, but since deleted. Some because of embarrassing quality, others because nobody was interested let alone buying.

I really should kill off at least half of the remaining ones.

 

wim

[Chuck Nacke]

On 08/02/2021 at 10:18, Old school said:

Dear ALAMY CONTRIBUTORS,

I have 1000s of Kodachrome 25 & 64 & Ektachrome 100 slides I have digitized using a PACIFIC IMAGE ELECTORNICS POWER SLIDE 5000 set at optimum pixel, color, etc format.  Resulting digitized images are 200+ megapixel high resolution images I downloaded to a dual layer disk holding 8.4 gigabit formatted to 7.8 gigabit.  My question for ALAMY FORUM Contributors, has anyone digitized their 35mm slides and submitted to ALAMY?  If so, what happened?  For any contributor who has digitized Kodachrome slides knows there is a lost of fidelity from the original slide to the 'digitized' image assuming the slide is photographically and technically excellent to begin with.  What did you say to ALAMY regarding this loss?  NIKON produced a slide digitized machine several years ago that is no longer in the market...price: $8,000 U.S.D. way beyond my budget.  I am frustrated at having 1000s of slides that are on disks sitting in boxes.  Commercial companies that 'digitize' slides to disk are too expensive.  Suggestions and lessons-learned are welcome.  Cheers, Paul Jones

Paul,

 

I am "Old School" as well.  I would guess that about 25% of the images that I have available on Alamy are scans from 35mm K-14 chromes.  All were done using a CanoScan FS 4000 desk top scanner.  Now I am using VueScan to run the machine.  It is a lot of work, but I am happy with the results.  I do disagree with those who advocate photographing slides with a modern DSLR.  I would also never send out original chromes to be scanned.  Just for the record, I was a BETA tester for Kodak on the PKL emulsion (Kodachrome 200).

 

Most of my scans were submitted to Alamy via the standard route and passed QC with out a problem.

 

A good example of what I am talking about is Alamy image: 2E531YD  That was an early PKL emulsion pushed 1 1/2 stops.  It was used as a two page opener for a story in a U.S. national magazine in 1991.  The image on Alamy was scanned using one of my CanoScan FS 4000's and VueScan.  I do scan full size, 4000 DPI in 16bit aRGB and save as a TIFF, then import for Lightroom for exposure and color balance.  Then I do all of my spotting in Photoshop.  I NEVER use any auto retouching.  My target for a finished JPEG for upload is 50MB, which means that I do downsize the original a small amount. I also take the original chrome out of the mount before scanning and I also use PEC-12 and PEC PADS to clean all K-14's before scanning.

 

For the record I do see a good number of licenses a year from my scans.

 

Chuck

 

PS In my opinion the PACIFIC IMAGE scanner is not a very good unit.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Chuck Nacke
spelling

[geogphotos]

I have a desktop scanner - Minolta Dimage MultiPro. I find that the macro lens/Canon 5D mk3 is superior in all ways especially in terms of speed but also quality. 

 

Remember I am not copying the same sort of professional quality film originals that Chuck is working on. 

 

But that is just my experience. 

 

Yesterday even though I was only six years old I explored the newly built Presidential Palace in Brasilia along with Naomi and Margaret (she took the photos - Naomi modelled).

 

Today we are finishing off in Brasilia - the as yet unfinished cathedral building, and also a protest strike over land tenure,  and then by some miracle, appear  at the Iguazu Falls with a crowd of other tourists in their cool 60s' outfits. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by geogphotos

[MDM]

Is there anything new to be said that is not in Deja Vu ?

[geogphotos]

One thing worth saying in answer to the OP is that Kodachrome is supposed to be much more difficult to scan than other film types. 

[spacecadet]

14 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

One thing worth saying in answer to the OP is that Kodachrome is supposed to be much more difficult to scan than other film types. 

....and that these difficulties are somewhat reduced by the DSLR method. There is something about the emulsion surface texture- it does look very different to chromogenic- that troubles a scanner but not a camera.

 

[MDM]

46 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

....and that these difficulties are somewhat reduced by the DSLR method. There is something about the emulsion surface texture- it does look very different to chromogenic- that troubles a scanner but not a camera.

 

I think the main issue with Kodachrome is that automatic dust removal such as Nikon’s Digital Ice, which uses IR technology, would not work in the early implementation but I think it did or does work in the later ones according to older posts on the forum. Obviously there is no such technology available with camera copying which is probably the only thing scanning has going for it over camera copying in general. 

[Vincent Lowe]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

There is something about the emulsion surface texture- it does look very different to chromogenic- that troubles a scanner but not a camera.

 

 

It's because Kodachrome is unique in that the emulsion retains some of the metallic silver particles which are impermeable to infra-red - other colour emulsions don't.

 

Scroll down to the heading - Kodachrome scans with the ICE dust and scratches remover

[M.Chapman]

For those that might be interested in the DSLR route (highly recommended) a secondhand Nikon ES-1 slide copying attachment has popped up on eBay.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-ES-1-slide-copier/254860531493?hash=item3b56df1725:g:ReQAAOSwB5tgIUf4

 

There are several threads that mention using this Nikon manufactured adaptor with various cameras and lenses on this forum, including within this "mega-thread" on slide copying.

 

 

Mark

Edited February 9, 2021 by M.Chapman

[geogphotos]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

For those that might be interested in the DSLR route (highly recommended) a secondhand Nikon ES-1 slide copying attachment has popped up on eBay.

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-ES-1-slide-copier/254860531493?hash=item3b56df1725:g:ReQAAOSwB5tgIUf4

 

There are several threads that mention using this Nikon manufactured adaptor with various cameras and lenses on this forum, including within this "mega-thread" on slide copying.

 

 

Mark

 

 

Thanks for the reminder of that huge thread! 

 

How things evolve. I now find that I can get by without using a tripod/lightbox with just the camera/attachment laid flat on my desk pointing towards the window - just increasing the ISO is fine. Doesn't work at night though!

Edited February 9, 2021 by geogphotos

[Harry Harrison]

23 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

I now find that I can get by without using a tripod/lightbox with just the camera/attachment laid flat on my desk pointing towards the window 

A sense of duty compels me to recommend pointing it towards a consistent light source, that would work at night also, but if it works for you....

 

As you will have discovered, the beauty of the ES-1 (and your bespoke setup for the Canon/100mm Macro) is that the precise alignment is taken care of and no extraneous light can get in between the lens and slide. Also, since the slide is in effect firmly attached to the camera and lens then camera shake becomes much less of a problem than it would be when the camera and lens is suspended independently above the slide. I have the ES-1 and can use it with my Fuji but the Illumitran still offers advantages to me now that it's setup so I still use that. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Harry Harrison

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Illumitran still offers advantages to me now that it's setup so I still use that. 

Just knocked off another 1700-odd of the OH's slide archive. I can get through a Rondex  (120) in about 20 minutes and now I have the flash trigger I don't even have to draw the curtains.

Though where you get a replacement flashtube I don't know- although there are a lot of bare tubes on ebay if one could ferret out the specs.

Edited February 9, 2021 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Though where you get a replacement flashtube I don't know

The tubes seem to be very reliable, amazing considering their age. Just the viewing bulbs work fine with RAW, or you can replace with these, or similar:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/183005182692

[spacecadet]

8 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

The tubes seem to be very reliable, amazing considering their age. Just the viewing bulbs work fine with RAW, or you can replace with these, or similar:

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/183005182692

Of course- never thought of that. Yes, I had thought of the LED festoons as one of mine is blown. It would make focussing a bit less eye-boggling as well. They come even cheaper if you wait for the slow boat from China.

[Harry Harrison]

5 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Yes, I had thought of the LED festoons as one of mine is blown

I bought those, and though they are not CRI rated they are fine, you'd need to be pretty discerning not to be happy with them. That said, the 'incandescent' old-fashioned type are a pure (100% CRI) light source and easily corrected in RAW. Buy them while you still can. The advantage of using continuous light with the Illumitran is that you can do auto-bracketing if you camera allows it, plus you can ensure that the light stage is in the optimum position, half-way up imho.

[spacecadet]

13 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

I bought those, and though they are not CRI rated they are fine, you'd need to be pretty discerning not to be happy with them. That said, the 'incandescent' old-fashioned type are a pure (100% CRI) light source and easily corrected in RAW. Buy them while you still can. The advantage of using continuous light with the Illumitran is that you can do auto-bracketing if you camera allows it, plus you can ensure that the light stage is in the optimum position, half-way up imho.

I find that the  flash output is a bit more even than the festoons, and less prone to vignette, although I've always used the flash. I can have the stage right at the top without fall-off.

As to the contrast range, my process lens obviously has enough flare to bring it down low enough that I don't need to bracket.

On the other hand, it is a 60s process lens, intended for copying paste-ups presumably, so it should favour contrast over resolution. Hmm. I put it back in Lightroom.

Edited February 9, 2021 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

8 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

19 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

 

I find that the  flash output is a bit more even than the festoons

Since there are two festoons either side of the flash tube at the top you can see two brighter areas, for me at least. Half way down it is very even. There is one big problem with using the viewing  bulbs though, you have to switch the room lights off or, as I do, put a removable cardboard tunnel between the lens and slide.

 

 

 

[spacecadet]

6 minutes ago, Harry Harrison said:

Since there are two festoons either side of the flash tube at the top you can see two brighter areas, for me at least. Half way down it is very even. There is one big problem with using the viewing  bulbs though, you have to switch the room lights off or, as I do, put a removable cardboard tunnel between the lens and slide.

 

 

 

Mind you, I do have a stack of sheets of drafting film as well to reduce the light output. That diffuses it a good deal.

[geogphotos]

I bought a knackered shell of an Illumitron as part of a large photography lot at an auction. The lamp still works but most of the other workings seem to be missing. If anybody wants it for parts and can pick it up I'd happily pass it on to a good home. Don't suppose it is worth much. Yours for whatever you want to pay.

[sb photos]

Before I upload digitised images via the archive route, what is the consensus wether it might be best to use a different pseudonym. I currently use only one for all my uploads. Would this depend upon the expected number of uploads, mine would likely be hundreds than thousands. The worry is a new pseudonym would start with the lowest CTR.

[Cal]

On 09/02/2021 at 07:54, Chuck Nacke said:

Paul,

 

I am "Old School" as well.  I would guess that about 25% of the images that I have available on Alamy are scans from 35mm K-14 chromes.  All were done using a CanoScan FS 4000 desk top scanner.  Now I am using VueScan to run the machine.  It is a lot of work, but I am happy with the results.  I do disagree with those who advocate photographing slides with a modern DSLR.  I would also never send out original chromes to be scanned.  Just for the record, I was a BETA tester for Kodak on the PKL emulsion (Kodachrome 200).

 

Most of my scans were submitted to Alamy via the standard route and passed QC with out a problem.

 

A good example of what I am talking about is Alamy image: 2E531YD  That was an early PKL emulsion pushed 1 1/2 stops.  It was used as a two page opener for a story in a U.S. national magazine in 1991.  The image on Alamy was scanned using one of my CanoScan FS 4000's and VueScan.  I do scan full size, 4000 DPI in 16bit aRGB and save as a TIFF, then import for Lightroom for exposure and color balance.  Then I do all of my spotting in Photoshop.  I NEVER use any auto retouching.  My target for a finished JPEG for upload is 50MB, which means that I do downsize the original a small amount. I also take the original chrome out of the mount before scanning and I also use PEC-12 and PEC PADS to clean all K-14's before scanning.

 

For the record I do see a good number of licenses a year from my scans.

 

Chuck

 

PS In my opinion the PACIFIC IMAGE scanner is not a very good unit.

 

I believe you have a typo (well, two) in the title of image 2E9J6JB