Jump to content
  • 0

Digitalized 35mm Kodachrome slides


Question

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
4 hours ago, Old school said:

Dear Chuck, Thank you for taking the time to reply.  Your skills far exceed my own.  My PACIFIC IMAGE scanner is at least 5-years old.  I am assuming your CanoScan FS 4000's and VueScan are more recent technology than My PACIFIC IMAGE scanner. Nikon had one for $8k which was too much for my budget.  I agree not to send my slides to an outside vendor.  Again, our thanks  Flo and Paul

Paul,

 

The CanoScan has not been made in more than ten years, but it is an "Old Style CCD film scanner."  From what I know the NIKON 4000, 5000 and 9000, Canon FS 4000 and the Minolta scanners (Desktop) work well.  None are currently made and all are becoming hard to find in good working order.  I've never used a PACIFIC IMAGE scanner, so I have no

idea.

 

Chuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Old school said:

One alternative is to re-calibrate our PACIFIC scanner to a JPEG setting

Dear Flo & Paul, I'd forgotten that you asked for very similar advice way back in November 2019, I'm actually surprised that it was so long ago, that's what lockdowns do for you I suppose. not much has happened since.

 

You got a lot of very useful advice from the forum then, 8 pages of it, and I think it's fair to say that the majority were suggesting that you perhaps learn a little more about the technology. Evening classes were suggested, camera clubs, a keen local photographer perhaps. The phrase that you've used that I've quoted worries me a little, it suggests that your knowledge really hasn't increased that much otherwise I'm sure you would realize that you wouldn't need to rescan, you just need to deal properly with the scans that you have already. Can I respectfully suggest that you really are going waste a lot of your precious time if you don't learn the basics, the advice on this forum can only take you so far.

 

https://discussion.alamy.com/topic/12156-vintage-35mm-digitalized-images/page/7/

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 13/02/2021 at 04:00, NYCat said:

 

You can find hers in an advanced search and I like them. Stockimo likes a different look and some of the filters for iPhone images are similar to what she has done.

 

Paulette

 

On 12/02/2021 at 23:43, M.Chapman said:

 

I was just curious - If they are washed out and not usable under normal conditions, why upload them?

 

Mark

 

 

Thanks Paulette!

 

Mark, because they can be used for story illustrations, book covers, web content - probably would not be used for travel guidebooks and such. Stockimo doesn't seem to accept images unless they are pushed around or roughed up a bit, so they went through Stockimo QA just fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I've been using the new Super Resolution feature in Adobe Camera Raw. Most of their “upgrades” have been minor, but, in my view, this is the biggest thing since they added layers a quarter of a century ago. So far, I haven't submittet a scanned 35mm slide as anything other than archival, but there's a good chance that this Photoshop upgrade is just what's needed to bring old film images up to snuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 

54 minutes ago, DDoug said:

I've been using the new Super Resolution feature in Adobe Camera Raw. Most of their “upgrades” have been minor, but, in my view, this is the biggest thing since they added layers a quarter of a century ago. So far, I haven't submittet a scanned 35mm slide as anything other than archival, but there's a good chance that this Photoshop upgrade is just what's needed to bring old film images up to snuff.

 

That is a big claim. I would think ACR itself might qualify for that title.

 

I've not looked at it yet but Super Resolution is about upsizing which should not be necessary to pass QC where downsizing is the way to go given that all that is required is a 17MB file. I have submitted several DSLR copies of slides downsized to around 3000x2000 pixels with no problems 

 

Super Resolution would seem to be most useful for making very large prints. The Enhance Details feature might be useful for enhancing raw files but this has been around for a couple of years so is not new. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, DDoug said:

I've been using the new Super Resolution feature in Adobe Camera Raw. Most of their “upgrades” have been minor, but, in my view, this is the biggest thing since they added layers a quarter of a century ago. So far, I haven't submittet a scanned 35mm slide as anything other than archival, but there's a good chance that this Photoshop upgrade is just what's needed to bring old film images up to snuff.

 

Not sure what you gain from this. The Archival route is there for old images. I have had some that can and did pass QC but not sure that it matters. 

 

But they are still going to be old images. That is their USP. And regardless of sharpness there are all sorts of other 'issues' with old slides - DUST bunnies - that won't get better being uprezzed. 

 

Edited by geogphotos
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

Not sure what you gain from this. The Archival route is there for old images. I have had some that can and did pass QC but not sure that it matters. 

 

But they are still going to be old images. That is their USP. And regardless of sharpness there are all sorts of other 'issues' with old slides - DUST bunnies - that won't get better being uprezzed. 

 

I have a number of film images that qualify as archival because the same thing could not be photographed on digital, presumably in better quality, today. There are hundreds or more other images that don't meet that criterion. They were shot on film only because that's what I had at the time.

 

When I first submitted a set of four images to Alamy, three passed: a couple of digital captures and a medium-format film image. The fourth, a 35mm slide, failed. Since then, I've only submitted 35mm slide scans as archival. Lately, I've been using the Super Resolution feature, which they claim uses artificial intelligence to interpolate in some sort of smart way.

 

I've run several images through that process, looking for strange halos and artifacts in the results, and I don't see them. The shots from a 16 megapixel camera look like they were something larger. The film scans appear to have higher resolution. I've got PhotoZoom software that purports to beat uprezzing in Photoshop, but this appears to be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Some slides are older than others and some are better quality than others and some have been kept in clean environments so dust might not be a problem. Post processing skills also vary. I was shooting on film until 2005 which is not ancient yet. If they go through normal QC without a problem, then why not do that - they won't have the warning label on them either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
25 minutes ago, DDoug said:

I......, but this appears to be better.

 

I would be interested in seeing your results.  I had a play earlier today and to be honest I didn't find much improvement over normal bicubic enlargement.  I haven't tried it on a film scan though.

 

See my posting here - 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

If the slides are already of sufficient quality to pass QC not sure what you gain from making them at larger file size than they already are.

 

Should the slides have faults, as a very large number will at 100%, then making the file bigger will just make those faults bigger. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

If the slides are already of sufficient quality to pass QC not sure what you gain from making them at larger file size than they already are.

 

Should the slides have faults, as a very large number will at 100%, then making the file bigger will just make those faults bigger. 

 

 

 

I agree. Super Resolution is not the tool for this job. Downsize, not upsize. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The reason I was interested in Adobe Camera Raw's "Super Resolution" is that I would like to standardize 

my scans at 50MB and sometimes I would like to crop a 35mm frame.  In theory this could be one way

of achieving a constant 50MB's.  I will need to test Super Res myself.

 

Chuck

Edited by Chuck Nacke
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I just had a quick play with super-resolution. It's quite impressive, but does risk over-sharpening if not careful.

 

Update - I should clarify I was applying "super resolution" to a RAW digital camera image of a real scene and not a digitised 35mm slide image

 

But... why did Adobe decide to "spawn" a seperate DNG, it hardly makes for a smooth workflow.

Is Super resolution only available in ACR for PS, and not in LR develop module? In LR I only see the enhance option and no Super-resolution (even though both LR and PS and ACR are the latest).

 

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2021/03/10/from-the-acr-team-super-resolution.html#gs.wmqkt2

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

I just had a quick play with super-resolution. It's quite impressive, but does risk over-sharpening if not careful.

But... why did Adobe decide to "spawn" a seperate DNG, it hardly makes for a smooth workflow.

Is Super resolution only available in ACR for PS, and not in LR develop module? In LR I only see the enhance option and no Super-resolution (even though both LR and PS and ACR are the latest).

 

https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2021/03/10/from-the-acr-team-super-resolution.html#gs.wmqkt2

 

Mark

 

If you are working on raw files then DNG is a good output as it is essentially raw for all practical purposes and there is a lot of processing leeway. That is why I do panoramas in Lightroom (same as ACR) as the output is a DNG as well as the fact that it can run the merge in the background. Lightroom Classic had an update recently but not for the M1 Macs whereas Photoshop has been updated and now runs natively. I don't know about ACR (I don't have an M1 Mac) but it seems like there is a temporary separation between ACR and Lightroom which will probably not last too long I expect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Had a look at Super Resolution and my first and final impression with regard to slide copies is that it does horrendous things as it totally exaggerates the grain and introduces some awful colour noise as well. Viewed at 100% in Photoshop the results I got are shocking and totally useless. There are no controls so it is a blind in and out job.  The Enhance Detail feature (not new) on its own only works on raw files so will not work on scans (unless they are raw scans presumably). I seriously doubt that this is usable for upsizing scans that would come anywhere near passing QC or produce good prints. 

 

I also had a go at upsizing an older 12MP raw NEF file from a D700 shot at ISO200 (lowest ISO on the D700) and compared it to simply converting the raw with the same settings as the enhanced DNG and then upsizing it to the same degree (2x). The differences were noticeable - the Super Resolution file has better detail and is sharper. I tried it on a 36MP file from a D810 (ISO64) and the differences are even more noticeable - Super Resolution does give an image with better detail and sharper (435MB or thereabouts which would print to 1.25 metres at 300 ppi). The differences are even more noticeable on 45MP files from my Z7 (also ISO64). 

 

So great marketing and good workj from Adobe and at least it's free with the subscription but as far as being the best thing since Photoshop Layers - gizza break. I wonder has DDoug even been using ACR or Lightroom all these years. Do I recall him talking about being a Silkypix user and having some aversion to ACR? Super Resolution is not even the best thing about the most recent updates in my opinion. The speed enhancements in Lightroom are way out in front in that regard. The Develop Module on steroids or what. I could list numerous fantastic features that have been introduced over the years to the Photoshop family. 

 

So I would conclude that it would definitely be useful for upsizing digital camera files for printing or for simply upsizing cropped images if required but I would not use it for upsizing scans or camera copies of slides due to the effect on the film grain.    

 

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, MDM said:

Had a look at Super Resolution and my first and final impression with regard to slide copies is that it does horrendous things as it totally exaggerates the grain and introduces some awful colour noise as well. Viewed at 100% in Photoshop the results I got are shocking and totally useless. There are no controls so it is a blind in and out job.  The Enhance Detail feature (not new) on its own only works on raw files so will not work on scans (unless they are raw scans presumably). I seriously doubt that this is usable for upsizing scans that would come anywhere near passing QC or produce good prints. 

 

I also had a go at upsizing an older 12MP raw NEF file from a D700 shot at ISO200 (lowest ISO on the D700) and compared it to simply converting the raw with the same settings as the enhanced DNG and then upsizing it to the same degree (2x). The differences were fairly minor but the Super Resolution file has better detail and is sharper. I tried it on a 36MP file from a D810 and the differences are more noticeable - Super Resolution does give an image with better detail and sharper (435MB or thereabouts which would print to 1.25 metres at 300 ppi). 

 

So great marketing and good workj from Adobe and at least it's free with the subscription but as far as being the best thing since Photoshop Layers - gizza break. I wonder has DDoug even been using ACR or Lightroom all these years. Do I recall him talking about being a Silkypix user and having some aversion to ACR? Super Resolution is not even the best thing about the most recent updates in my opinion. The speed enhancements in Lightroom are way out in front in that regard. The Develop Module on steroids or what. I could list numerous fantastic features that have been introduced over the years to the Photoshop family. 

 

So I would conclude that it would definitely be useful for upsizing digital camera files for printing or for simply upsizing cropped images if required but I would not use it for upsizing scans or camera copies of slides due to the effect on the film grain.    

 

 

 

 

I switched from Silkypix to ACR a few years ago. I still use SP to modify the color of some images, such as putting Astia skin tones in a Velvia environment, after the initial raw processing is done in ACR. Yes, ACR has improved with updates, but most other changes seem incremental to me. Adding layers was huge. Other than raw processing, though, I don't see a lot of improvement in the various iterations after CS4. ACR is the reason I subscribe to Lightroom and Photoshop rather than simply using an older version of PS.

 

Perhaps I use the term “scans” too loosely. I sold my Canon film scanner a few years ago and now digitize film with a camera setup, so any work is done on raw files. The point isn't to submit larger images, either for digitized film or photography, but improved detail. I reduce them back to the original or perhaps even smaller sizes.

 

At the time when I joined Alamy, the minimum requirement was eight megapixels. Now it's six. It seems that, depending on lens, emulsion, technique, etc., 35mm film images are somewhere around the borderline. If detail can be increased without overemphasizing grain, that would definitely be a benefit. My enthusiasm for Adobe's Super Resolution has more to do with effects on photography than digitized film, but I'm hoping that somehow the noise/grain can be managed in a way that some of the improvement in detail can be preserved, enough so that they would pass QC. Otherwise, I have a lot of slides languishing on shelves whose images can't legitimately be called archival or historical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
8 minutes ago, DDoug said:

I switched from Silkypix to ACR a few years ago. I still use SP to modify the color of some images, such as putting Astia skin tones in a Velvia environment, after the initial raw processing is done in ACR. Yes, ACR has improved with updates, but most other changes seem incremental to me. Adding layers was huge. Other than raw processing, though, I don't see a lot of improvement in the various iterations after CS4. ACR is the reason I subscribe to Lightroom and Photoshop rather than simply using an older version of PS.

 

Perhaps I use the term “scans” too loosely. I sold my Canon film scanner a few years ago and now digitize film with a camera setup, so any work is done on raw files. The point isn't to submit larger images, either for digitized film or photography, but improved detail. I reduce them back to the original or perhaps even smaller sizes.

 

At the time when I joined Alamy, the minimum requirement was eight megapixels. Now it's six. It seems that, depending on lens, emulsion, technique, etc., 35mm film images are somewhere around the borderline. If detail can be increased without overemphasizing grain, that would definitely be a benefit. My enthusiasm for Adobe's Super Resolution has more to do with effects on photography than digitized film, but I'm hoping that somehow the noise/grain can be managed in a way that some of the improvement in detail can be preserved, enough so that they would pass QC. Otherwise, I have a lot of slides languishing on shelves whose images can't legitimately be called archival or historical.

 

 

I recalled that because I have not come across anyone else who uses it. I was editing my previous post as you quoted me so I have added a bit more. I would, however, argue vehemently for the numerous features that have been added to Photoshop, ACR and Lightroom over the years as well as some of the stuff that has happened under the bonnet since CS4. It's getting very late here so I better shut down for the night but happy to talk more tomorrow.

 

I think my main conclusion now is that Super Resolution is very good for upsizing images of scenes from digital cameras but probably effectively useless for scans or camera copies (what I do as well). I really don't think upsizing is the way to go with these - downsizing is far more effective for managing grain. I would be surprised if you find different. 

 

 

 

Edited by MDM
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
15 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

 

I recalled that because I have not come across anyone else who uses it. I was editing my previous post as you quoted me so I have added a bit more. I would, however, argue vehemently for the numerous features that have been added to Photoshop, ACR and Lightroom over the years as well as some of the stuff that has happened under the bonnet since CS4. It's getting very late here so I better shut down for the night but happy to talk more tomorrow.

 

I think my main conclusion now is that Super Resolution is very good for upsizing images of scenes from digital cameras but probably effectively useless for scans or camera copies (what I do as well). I really don't think upsizing is the way to go with these - downsizing is far more effective for managing grain. I would be surprised if you find different. 

 

 

 

I do downsize to the original or even smaller size, as I said. However, the increase in detail gained by the upsizing appears to be preserved after the image is reduced and management of noise appears to work better at the larger (interim) size.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, MDM said:

So I would conclude that it would definitely be useful for upsizing digital camera files for printing or for simply upsizing cropped images if required but I would not use it for upsizing scans or camera copies of slides due to the effect on the film grain.    

+1

 

100% agree - I've updated my post to avoid confusion. Thanks.

 

Might be worth a separate thread on Adobe super-resolution instead of buried in the slide copying thread?

 

Mark

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I routinely use ACR for my normal Canon 5D3 files so I am used to using the sliders etc.  But for slide copies find that the only tool worth using is the Geometry option if I have misaligned the slide in the holder a little too much. Everything else is better done in Photoshop. 

 

I suppose that the additional step of having digitised a piece of film is what throws ACR. Some more recent Kodachrome copies have just gone live if you care to click the blue number.

Edited by geogphotos
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I made my earlier comments regarding slide digitizing based on some initial positive results. After further testing with other originals, I have to agree that any improvements with slides are slight at best. As for results on digital capture (using Fuji cameras with X-Trans sensors in my case), I think it's a leap forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I suppose that it is the difference between upscaling genuine pixels and pixels that come from a photo of film grain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
14 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

+1

 

100% agree - I've updated my post to avoid confusion. Thanks.

 

Might be worth a separate thread on Adobe super-resolution instead of buried in the slide copying thread?

 

Mark


I’ve seen enough really. I spent a few hours late last night checking it out and there is not a lot more to see I think. It is probably useful for upsizing images for printing but I have no use for it in my general workflow as I rarely need to upsize. The idea that it will revolutionise photography - not worth the time of day or night arguing that one I think. It definitely should not be in a slide copying thread unless you want to demonstrate what not to do (upsize slide copies or scans that is). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 19/03/2021 at 23:37, MDM said:

 

If you are working on raw files then DNG is a good output as it is essentially raw for all practical purposes and there is a lot of processing leeway. That is why I do panoramas in Lightroom (same as ACR) as the output is a DNG as well as the fact that it can run the merge in the background. Lightroom Classic had an update recently but not for the M1 Macs whereas Photoshop has been updated and now runs natively. I don't know about ACR (I don't have an M1 Mac) but it seems like there is a temporary separation between ACR and Lightroom which will probably not last too long I expect. 

I'm quite happy if it wants to create a separate DNG, but when I click "Open" in ACR dialoge I only get the un-enhanced version opening automatically in PS, and not both versions (or even better just the enhanced version). I have to navigate manually to the DNG and open it again (it opens in ACR) and then click "Open" again. Hence my comment about workflow.

 

Maybe there's something wrong with my understanding or setup?

 

Mark

 

 

Edited by M.Chapman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

I'm quite happy if it wants to create a separate DNG, but when I click "Open" in ACR dialoge I only get the un-enhanced version opening automatically in PS, and not both versions (or even better just the enhanced version). I have to navigate manually to the DNG and open it again (it opens in ACR) and then click "Open" again. Hence my comment about workflow.

 

Maybe there's something wrong with my understanding or setup?

 

Mark

 

 

 

It is a bit weird and it confused me as well until I noticed the new DNG on the desktop but it is the only way it could work as it needs to produce a new DNG image rather than open the existing file (which could be raw, DNG, TIFF etc). I think it would make more sense in Lightroom when they implement that so you don't have to close an ACR dialog to see the new DNG file. It will just appear in the library (as with panoramas or HDR). 

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
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.