Slide Damage?

[Martin L]

Just digitising some old Kodachrome slides. First digitisation of such old slides.

When on the PC I just noticed that at 100% there are some artifacts that look like noise on the image. However on closer inspection they look like crystals as they are angular rather than normal fungi type threads (they have been cleaned with cloth and isopropyl and not steel wool  )

It looks like some kind of breakdown of the emulsion as the surface looks kind of pitted as well.

 

So:

 

a) Is this normal and expected for slides about 40 years old and therefore acceptable as just part of normal deterioration?

b) Can they be recovered?

c) Or are they fooked?

d) Does it matter?

 

 

[Martin L]

5 hours ago, Pav said:

My scans from 90s (Ecta 200) have noise I can't even process, so I skip them when I see them.

 

Thnks, I think a lot of slides I have were a mix of Koda and  Ektachrome 200. Maybe Ekta is just more susceptible to this kind of fungal damage.

Buying dodgy boxes of film from shacks in the tropical mountains may not have helped

[Martin L]

2 hours ago, geogphotos said:

If PEC solution doesn't work it would suggest to me some form of fungus or other deterioration of the surface..

 

Personally I would still go ahead and submit to Alamy using the Archive route - assuming the image subject matter is worth it.

 

You can always reduce the image size.

Thanks. I think the subject matter is interesting (don't we all).

Funny I seemed to be a much better photographer in those days. Being expensive I guess film made you think more about what you were going to take.

I'll try and get hold of some PEC12 and give that a go as well.

I don't have archive access so I'll get onto big Al and see what they say.

 

 

[spacecadet]

Since I asked for the 100% crop it's a shame I can't offer any ideas. Fungus is usually progressive and not discrete like this and they're too regular and diffuse to be dust spots IMO.

Kodachrome always came in a branded mount so you can tell them apart that way. Processing could suffer from short or ineffective stabilisation, which was actually a formaldehyde preservative- the dyes were sort of pickled. You can sometimes smell it even now.

I would go try for the archival route as well, assuming the images qualify as historic in some small way- the bar is quite low. Old vehicles, street scenes, buildings now demolished, skyscraper-free cityscapes and so on.

Even some of my early digital images would probably qualify now😉

Edited December 4, 2022 by spacecadet

[Martin L]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

I don't have an idea either I'm afraid but I think the crucial fact is that you can see it on the transparency. Hard to say how much impact it would have on the whole frame though, especially if resized downwards for archival. Just to get an idea of scale, that uploaded section is 1062 x 800 pixels, has that been resized or is that how you uploaded it? Your 7D would be giving you around 5100 x 3400 px full frame I'd guess once you've cropped it a little so that's quite a large area of the slide that you're showing us if that is indeed the size of it.

Thanks Harry, it was just a screen grab from 'actual size' view from the tethering software display. Not resized. Not messed with.

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Interesting article, tantalised by the 'DigiDupe' lightbox that they made seeing as I'm thinking of making something similar myself:

 

"Each slide was lit by a custom-made light box, named the DigiDupe. This light box has internal mirrors and a frosted glass top, diffusing the light and therefore generating a more uniform lighting setup. Dust particles and other issues such as scratches become less visible in the created digital file, leading also to less time needed for postcapture file editing."

 

I wonder what light source they used in it.

100% agree that diffuse light that strikes the slide from a wide range of angles can help reduce the appearance of dust and scratches, and can save considerable time in post-processing. 

 

Mark

[M.Chapman]

deleted - duplicate post

Edited December 4, 2022 by M.Chapman

[M.Chapman]

deleted - duplicate post

Edited December 4, 2022 by M.Chapman

[Martin L]

1 minute ago, M.Chapman said:

100% agree that diffuse light that strikes the slide from a wide range of angles can help reduce the appearance of dust and scratches, and can save considerable time in post-processing. 

 

Mark

Okay we get it

[Martin L]

43 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Since I asked for the 100% crop it's a shame I can't offer any ideas. Fungus is usually progressive and not discrete like this and they're too regular and diffuse to be dust spots IMO.

Kodachrome always came in a branded mount so you can tell them apart that way. Processing could suffer from short or ineffective stabilisation, which was actually a formaldehyde preservative- the dyes were sort of pickled. You can sometimes smell it even now.

I would go try for the archival route as well, assuming the images qualify as historic in some small way- the bar is quite low. Old vehicles, street scenes, buildings now demolished, skyscraper-free cityscapes and so on.

Even some of my early digital images would probably qualify now😉

 

Thanks, yes as I said to Ian, I think they have historic interest. Lots of things, happened, changed in the late 80's.

Koh Pha Ngan Island empty apart from a couple of wooden shacks rather than the 'tourist paradise' it is today.

The town hall on the set of Back To The Future at Universal Studios......hmmmmmm....where have I seen that before........

(Your safe, its not going in,, very blurred due to the bumpy tourist truck )

Its probably down to the processing in far out of the way labs (and my poor storage, why did I think things lasted forever in those days)

[spacecadet]

17 minutes ago, Martin L said:

The town hall on the set of Back To The Future at Universal Studios......hmmmmmm....where have I seen that before........

(Your safe, its not going in,, very blurred due to the bumpy tourist truck )

😄

Definitely host a few somewhere, postimages.org will do, then point Alamy to them. That's all I did. You then bypass QC as you know.

My archival images outperform the ordinary stuff by a huge amount..

Wish I could take some more pix in 1979. Maybe have a word with Doc Brown outside the courthouse.............

Edited December 4, 2022 by spacecadet

[Harry Harrison]

36 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

100% agree that diffuse light that strikes the slide from a wide range of angles can help reduce the appearance of dust and scratches, and can save considerable time in post-processing. 

 

Frosted glass, quite surprised at that, more durable than perspex/plexiglass I suppose. Perspex SPECTRUM OPAL 1TL2 is supposed to be the stuff to use otherwise I think (used in the EFH). Still, that's off topic, sorry Martin!

[M.Chapman]

42 minutes ago, Martin L said:

Okay we get it

Yes, sorry. Browser appeared to freeze, clicked submit, nothing happened (or so I thought), so clicked twice more. Then got 3 identical postings.

 

Mark

[Pav]

21 hours ago, Martin L said:

Just digitising some old Kodachrome slides. First digitisation of such old slides.

When on the PC I just noticed that at 100% there are some artifacts that look like noise on the image. However on closer inspection they look like crystals as they are angular rather than normal fungi type threads (they have been cleaned with cloth and isopropyl and not steel wool  )

It looks like some kind of breakdown of the emulsion as the surface looks kind of pitted as well.

 

So:

 

a) Is this normal and expected for slides about 40 years old and therefore acceptable as just part of normal deterioration?

b) Can they be recovered?

c) Or are they fooked?

d) Does it matter?

 

 

 

A - Yes, especially emulsion 'cancer like' black intrusions in my case

B - Yes, Photoshop can do magic

C - I'm not proud of all my recent scans - check my images, somehow they sell (minimal colour work, spot removal in Photoshop, brightness/contrast and saved) 

D - If that sells, it sells

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Pav

[zxzoomy]

5 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Interesting, let me know if you have any that come with copyright transfer?

 

Do you sell on Ebay?

Sorry, I have scarcely any with copyright and yes to the other question but I can hardly advertise on here, lol. 

[Martin L]

1 hour ago, Harry Harrison said:

Frosted glass, quite surprised at that, more durable than perspex/plexiglass I suppose. Perspex SPECTRUM OPAL 1TL2 is supposed to be the stuff to use otherwise I think (used in the EFH). Still, that's off topic, sorry Martin!

No, all info is great. I'm going to change my set up and try deflecting the light side to side to see if that helps

[Martin L]

29 minutes ago, Pav said:

 

A - Yes, especially emulsion 'cancer like' black intrusions in my case

B - Yes, Photoshop can do magic

C - I'm not proud of all my recent scans - check my images, somehow they sell (minimal colour work, spot removal in Photoshop, brightness/contrast and saved) 

D - If that sells, it sells

 

Thanks.

What I meant when I said can they be recovered, it was more to do with physical recovery to prevent too much effort post.

Actually I'll have to look at them all as some early ones have fared a lot better than some others like my travels in Russia. (Its a Putin conspiracy I tell you. Trying to hide the truth through cr*p processing!)

 

[wiskerke]

7 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

Interesting article, tantalised by the 'DigiDupe' lightbox that they made seeing as I'm thinking of making something similar myself:

 

"Each slide was lit by a custom-made light box, named the DigiDupe. This light box has internal mirrors and a frosted glass top, diffusing the light and therefore generating a more uniform lighting setup. Dust particles and other issues such as scratches become less visible in the created digital file, leading also to less time needed for postcapture file editing."

 

I wonder what light source they used in it.

 

No idea. I could ask or try to organize a visit, but that may take a while. Besides it's usually someone who has never worked with enlargers inventing a new wheel.

With enlargers especially with large formats, the discussion always was about condensor or diffusor heads. Did I say discussion? I meant war.

In general if you want a perfect evenly lit surface, make the reflecting box wider and deeper. With collimated light the design is totally different. However here also the solution usually is to make the whole system bigger: the diameter of the condensor system larger and the light source further away. I have build both and my favorite enlarger is a true hybrid. Never ever seen a second one. I mainly used it for 35mm and 6x6 but it allows 6x9 and it's based on a 4x5. Part of the housing holding the thing together is an aluminum camping pot. Just use what you have.

 

wim

 

[Vincent Lowe]

23 hours ago, wiskerke said:

I have build both and my favorite enlarger is a true hybrid. Never ever seen a second one...

 

Back in prehistory, when the world was sepia and the internet was made of wood, I had a Meopta enlarger, Optimus 4 I think.  This had condenser lenses but also a diffuser which clipped on to the condenser housing.  I seem to recall it not making much difference.  I later picked up a Meopta colour head for next to nothing at a flea market.  It was actually for a different model but I manufactured an adaptor and made it fit.

[Pav]

51 minutes ago, Vincent Lowe said:

Back in prehistory, when the world was sepia and the internet was made of wood, I had a Meopta enlarger, Optimus 4 I think.  This had condenser lenses but also a diffuser which clipped on to the condenser housing.  I seem to recall it not making much difference.  I later picked up a Meopta colour head for next to nothing at a flea market.  It was actually for a different model but I manufactured an adaptor and made it fit.

 

At the moment you have 2 options (still running businesses)- Plustek (German office but from China, 3.6k real dpi, very entry, low density, only 35mm) and Reflecta (10k dpi, mid quality, acceptable density) + the rest sh*t from alliexpress and ebay delivered from China - don't bother. All Nikon pro scanners are too old to be considered 'working'.

 

A bit of DIY in Photoshop and you can print it if you need hard copies, to work with enlargers you must be really desperate

 

Pav

[wiskerke]

1 hour ago, Vincent Lowe said:

Back in prehistory, when the world was sepia and the internet was made of wood, I had a Meopta enlarger, Optimus 4 I think.  This had condenser lenses but also a diffuser which clipped on to the condenser housing.  I seem to recall it not making much difference.  I later picked up a Meopta colour head for next to nothing at a flea market.  It was actually for a different model but I manufactured an adaptor and made it fit.

 

I still have exactly all of those things. 😁

You never know when you may need a part. 🤣

 

wim

[Vincent Lowe]

1 hour ago, wiskerke said:

 

I still have exactly all of those things. 😁

You never know when you may need a part. 🤣

 

wim

Indeed!  I don't have the enlarger heads any more but the rest makes an excellent copy stand...🙂

[wiskerke]

3 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

Indeed!  I don't have the enlarger heads any more but the rest makes an excellent copy stand...🙂

Yep I use the film carrier of a Krokus 6x9 in my 35mm copy stand. Extended with some film guides made out of the film strip holders of one of my first film scanners the Polaroid SprintScan35. (A rebranded Microtek 35 of which I've also owned 2: the T and the Plus or the Plus and the T-plus, something like that. All 3 in rapid succession. To think we actually made money from 1950dpi scans!) 

 

wim

[wiskerke]

6 hours ago, Pav said:

All Nikon pro scanners are too old to be considered 'working'

 

My Nikon Coolscan 5000 goes out on loan now and then. And it's still going strong now around 20 yrs old. Ed Hamrick's Vuescan fortunately keeps up it's excellent work as the software for it. (And for 7099 other types of scanners.)

 

wim

[Martin L]

Deleted - Wrong info

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Martin L
Deleted

[Martin L]

Just as an update to this.

Ian's response about 'light source not bright enough' gave me a bit of a pointer to check. So I changed the light source for a brighter one, created my own diffuser from a bit of white sprayed perspex and that worked a treat in 'removing' or 'disguising' a lot of the brown flecks and dirt.

It was okay but a bit slow to use as it needed constant adjustment.

However this weekend by luck I found an LED Slide Viewer for £3 in a charity shop.

Took it apart, removed the front magnifying lenses and as it has quite a long barrel between the lenses and the LED light source, I could just rest and point the camera down the barrel.

Camera tethered to the PC so it could be controlled through that and, bingo, works a treat

So thanks to everybody for their help.