I just received my Coolscan V this week. It has been working flawlessly
and solidly for the 40 slides that I have scanned, until I come across
this one:

http://www.jacklam.net/photo_net/CCDflare.jpg


It is a 100% crop from a Provia 100F slide. Looks like it is fairly
correctly exposure when viewed on a light table.

I have heard so much about the CCD flare problem with the Coolscan
series, and I have always worried that I would get a lemon that shows
excessive flare problem.

I have yet to see the same flare problem on another slide. I know the
flare problem tend to happen with kodakchrome or sometimes velvia, but
haven't heard that it happens with Provia. Do you consider this to be
normal for a Coolscan V and is within an acceptable tolerance? Or I
simply got a lemon and should return it for an exchange?


thanks,


Jack

"Jack" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>I just received my Coolscan V this week. It has been working flawlessly
> and solidly for the 40 slides that I have scanned, until I come across
> this one:
>
> http://www.jacklam.net/photo_net/CCDflare.jpg
>
>
> It is a 100% crop from a Provia 100F slide. Looks like it is fairly
> correctly exposure when viewed on a light table.
>
> I have heard so much about the CCD flare problem with the Coolscan
> series, and I have always worried that I would get a lemon that shows
> excessive flare problem.
>
> I have yet to see the same flare problem on another slide. I know the
> flare problem tend to happen with kodakchrome or sometimes velvia, but
> haven't heard that it happens with Provia. Do you consider this to be
> normal for a Coolscan V and is within an acceptable tolerance? Or I
> simply got a lemon and should return it for an exchange?
>
>
> thanks,
>
>
> Jack
>

Does not look like a Flare.

It looks to me to be a out of focus frame with bright sun side lighting a
person in the shadow.

It looks to be an image that may have been shot late in the evening just
before sunset.

--
CSM1
http://www.carlmcmillan.com
--

In message <(E-Mail Removed)>, Jack
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>I just received my Coolscan V this week. It has been working flawlessly
>and solidly for the 40 slides that I have scanned, until I come across
>this one:
>
>http://www.jacklam.net/photo_net/CCDflare.jpg
>
>
>It is a 100% crop from a Provia 100F slide. Looks like it is fairly
>correctly exposure when viewed on a light table.
>
>I have heard so much about the CCD flare problem with the Coolscan
>series, and I have always worried that I would get a lemon that shows
>excessive flare problem.
>
>I have yet to see the same flare problem on another slide. I know the
>flare problem tend to happen with kodakchrome or sometimes velvia, but
>haven't heard that it happens with Provia. Do you consider this to be
>normal for a Coolscan V and is within an acceptable tolerance? Or I
>simply got a lemon and should return it for an exchange?

How does it look if projected? A light table only illuminated from
behind, and lots of defects in slides are not obvious until they are
enlarged.

Personally I suspect that the side light has 'pulled' the exposure and
that most of the slide is under-exposed. As someone else said, it also
looks out of focus and that will make the over-exposed bits look more
'flary'.

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

Jack wrote:
> I just received my Coolscan V this week. It has been working flawlessly
> and solidly for the 40 slides that I have scanned, until I come across
> this one:
>
> http://www.jacklam.net/photo_net/CCDflare.jpg
>
>
> It is a 100% crop from a Provia 100F slide. Looks like it is fairly
> correctly exposure when viewed on a light table.
>
> I have heard so much about the CCD flare problem with the Coolscan
> series, and I have always worried that I would get a lemon that shows
> excessive flare problem.
>
> I have yet to see the same flare problem on another slide. I know the
> flare problem tend to happen with kodakchrome or sometimes velvia, but
> haven't heard that it happens with Provia. Do you consider this to be
> normal for a Coolscan V and is within an acceptable tolerance? Or I
> simply got a lemon and should return it for an exchange?
> ...

The best first step to the answer of your question would be to find out
whether the alleged flare is actually present on film. If it is there,
then the scanner is not to blame. I remember seeing a very similar
effect on film that was severely overheated at the latent image stage
(after being exposed but before being developed).

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

"Jack" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
SNIP
> I have heard so much about the CCD flare problem with the
> Coolscan series, and I have always worried that I would get
> a lemon that shows excessive flare problem.
>
> I have yet to see the same flare problem on another slide. I know
> the
> flare problem tend to happen with kodakchrome or sometimes velvia,
> but
> haven't heard that it happens with Provia. Do you consider this to
> be
> normal for a Coolscan V and is within an acceptable tolerance? Or I
> simply got a lemon and should return it for an exchange?

It's not flare but it's more like blooming, charge flowing from an
overexposed CCD element to its neighbors (assuming it's not in the
film as well).

It presents a trade off, because when you reduce the overexposure,
things get darker all-over. You may want to experiment with combining
two scan exposures, one as you did and one with reduced exposure, and
then align (which may proof to be difficult in practice), mask, and/or
blend the images. Whether the shot is worth the effort is up to you.

Bart

On 7 Jul 2006 01:57:54 -0700, "Jack" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I just received my Coolscan V this week. It has been working flawlessly
>and solidly for the 40 slides that I have scanned, until I come across
>this one:
>
>http://www.jacklam.net/photo_net/CCDflare.jpg

Unless you're talking about that very small area on the upper right
edge in the sky area, I don't see any flare either. It looks more
like exposure issues to me. Unless you're Ansel Adams, it's mighty
hard to not wash out the highlights and still get the detail that's
showing in the shadowed face. Note that the only areas with a
significant over exposure problem are the edge of the face in the
forehead and cheek area, and the side of the nose. Those are also
likely to be the most oily areas on the face, reflecting even more
light, more harshly. Look at the t-shirt: it's catching the same
amount of sunlight, yet there's pretty good detail in the highlights,
for the most part. But it's a dull surface, not capable of reflecting
like an even slightly oily face (normal skin oils on a warm day) in
bright sun. Hopefully I'm seeing the same area you're looking at, not
somewhere altogether different in the photo.

You mentioned that the photo in the link is 100% cropped from the
original slide. Certainly there must be a tiny edge that got cut off
or the slide mount would show up as a thin but solid black edge. Have
you considered, as one suggested, looking at a projection of the slide
itself to see a true 100% image at much greater enlargement? Or you
could use a loupe, if you have one, to inspect the slide itself. I
agree with others - a light table is of only limited value here, at
best.

C.R.