Old slides - comment.

[Ben Fullerton]

[Rather long, but difficult to express clearly in a few lines.]

I have several thousand slides, a few hundred of which are over fifty
years old. 90% or more of the old ones are Kodachrome (ASA 25, I think)
and the remainder are Ektachrome.

We also have a few commercial slides of unknown emulsion which were
purchased from souvenir shops about fifty years ago.

The question of 'image stability' has been discussed here on what reads
like a very high tech level. I would like to get back to the basics - and
ask a few questions about the point of all this discussion.

First - my personal experience with the emulsions of the 1950s:

Kodachrome, properly stored (as defined by Kodak - dark, cool, dry), and
with an estimated total projection time of less than 10 minutes (no single
projection of over 30 seconds), has no changes visible to the human eye
(the only really important detail?) after 50 years.

Ektachromes from that period, with identical storage and use, have shown
slight visible shift of some colors.

The unknown emulsion purchased slides are useless except maybe for
conversion to 'grayscale' images, ad even then will probably require
contrast enhancement post-scanning.

As Kodachrome has a totally different chemistry as compared to all other
color slides (unless I am not up to date on changes of the past ten or
fifteen years), are the new slide films - which are claimed to be superior
in life span to Kodachrome - using yet another totally different emulsion
chemistry?

As for color fidelity - One of the faculty members (often referred to
locally as "the wizard) that I had frequent contact with during my years
as a Physics Technologist (Dalhousie University) was involved in a project
for the Dal. medical school which involved color fidelity.

In approximately the 1970s or 1980s, with all of the color films available
then and color tv (CCTV), there were major problems in generating images
that were acceptable for medical instruction purposes - where, for
example, even slight color shifts of internal organs were critical to
correct understanding of their condition.

Back in the more common world of family, travel, and advertising image
reproduction, it was generally understood that color film was incapable of
reproduction of the full detail of colors found in nature - or if you
like, the full color spectrum of visible light.

Kodachromes were recognized as favoring reddish hues, and therefor more
favorable for 'people' photos. Ektachrome and most others of the day were
seen as favoring blues to some extent - great for scenics.

For the average user, both then and now, I feel that the important thing
is not the absolute maintenance of the original photo colors and balance,
but the preservation of an image that looks 'natural' to the viewer. As
seems so important to some, how do you preserve the original subject
matter to ensure that there is zero shift in this comparison standard?

Yes, I understand that it is probably easy to have a set of laboratory
standard colors with long term stability, but the question here seems to
be more on the line of our everyday surroundings - people, clothing,
buildings, nature scenes from forests to beaches, city scenes, etc. etc.

Bottom line for many of us - does the photo look natural?

If it does, why are some so hung up on the fact that the shade of the red
car (or dress or house) - that was recorded imperfectly by the film when
the photo was taken - has shifted by some trivial amount in the five or
fifty years since the photo was taken?

Am I that far out to lunch in just wanting natural looking digital
reproduction of something that I saw and photographed fifty years ago?

For anyone that has read this far - thanks for your patience in hearing me
out.

Ben Fullerton - Photography enthusiast for over 60 years.

 

[CSM1]

[Rather long, but difficult to express clearly in a few lines.]

I have several thousand slides, a few hundred of which are over fifty
years old. 90% or more of the old ones are Kodachrome (ASA 25, I think)
and the remainder are Ektachrome.

We also have a few commercial slides of unknown emulsion which were
purchased from souvenir shops about fifty years ago.

The question of 'image stability' has been discussed here on what reads
like a very high tech level. I would like to get back to the basics - and
ask a few questions about the point of all this discussion.

First - my personal experience with the emulsions of the 1950s:

Kodachrome, properly stored (as defined by Kodak - dark, cool, dry), and
with an estimated total projection time of less than 10 minutes (no single
projection of over 30 seconds), has no changes visible to the human eye
(the only really important detail?) after 50 years.

Ektachromes from that period, with identical storage and use, have shown
slight visible shift of some colors.

The unknown emulsion purchased slides are useless except maybe for
conversion to 'grayscale' images, ad even then will probably require
contrast enhancement post-scanning.

As Kodachrome has a totally different chemistry as compared to all other
color slides (unless I am not up to date on changes of the past ten or
fifteen years), are the new slide films - which are claimed to be superior
in life span to Kodachrome - using yet another totally different emulsion
chemistry?

As for color fidelity - One of the faculty members (often referred to
locally as "the wizard) that I had frequent contact with during my years
as a Physics Technologist (Dalhousie University) was involved in a project
for the Dal. medical school which involved color fidelity.

In approximately the 1970s or 1980s, with all of the color films available
then and color tv (CCTV), there were major problems in generating images
that were acceptable for medical instruction purposes - where, for
example, even slight color shifts of internal organs were critical to
correct understanding of their condition.

Back in the more common world of family, travel, and advertising image
reproduction, it was generally understood that color film was incapable of
reproduction of the full detail of colors found in nature - or if you
like, the full color spectrum of visible light.

Kodachromes were recognized as favoring reddish hues, and therefor more
favorable for 'people' photos. Ektachrome and most others of the day were
seen as favoring blues to some extent - great for scenics.

For the average user, both then and now, I feel that the important thing
is not the absolute maintenance of the original photo colors and balance,
but the preservation of an image that looks 'natural' to the viewer. As
seems so important to some, how do you preserve the original subject
matter to ensure that there is zero shift in this comparison standard?

Yes, I understand that it is probably easy to have a set of laboratory
standard colors with long term stability, but the question here seems to
be more on the line of our everyday surroundings - people, clothing,
buildings, nature scenes from forests to beaches, city scenes, etc. etc.

Bottom line for many of us - does the photo look natural?

If it does, why are some so hung up on the fact that the shade of the red
car (or dress or house) - that was recorded imperfectly by the film when
the photo was taken - has shifted by some trivial amount in the five or
fifty years since the photo was taken?

Am I that far out to lunch in just wanting natural looking digital
reproduction of something that I saw and photographed fifty years ago?

For anyone that has read this far - thanks for your patience in hearing me
out.

Ben Fullerton - Photography enthusiast for over 60 years.

Color films that are stored in a cool, dry, and dark place will have the
best preservation of the original image. And not thrown into a drawer loose
and scratched up.

Kodachrome is a silver-based emulsion and seems to have the best color
fidelity over time.
The only problem with Kodachrome and film scanners is the light source that
the film scanner uses. LED based film scanners have the most problem with
Kodachrome.

My Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV and its Cold Cathode Light source work well
for both Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film. (I actually like the color
reproduction of Kodachrome. The color is more vivid).

Digital ICE is a problem for Kodachrome, because the sliver is opaque to IR
light.

Ektachrome film will color shift over time if exposed to sunlight. The color
shift is due to the dye of some layers fading at different rates.

I have Ektachrome slides that have been stored in archival plastic sheets
and notebooks that still look the same 25-30 years later.

For me the best judge of the correct color is the human eye, if the image
looks right, then for all practical purposes it is correct. After all we do
not make pictures for machines.

If you can get your computer monitor and printer to reproduce images that
look the same or almost the same, then you have the best that you can do.

There is no guarantee of the color fidelity remaining over the years of the
original image, besides, who can remember that well what the shade of the
red car was 25-50 years later?

The best yard stick of good color, is do the people look OK? Does concrete
look grey in the picture. Or have a Kodak Grey Card in the picture.

There is software that does a pretty good job of restoring color shifts due
to fading, but when the fading is severe, nothing will fix the image.

 

[Don]

Bottom line for many of us - does the photo look natural?

If it does, why are some so hung up on the fact that the shade of the red
car (or dress or house) - that was recorded imperfectly by the film when
the photo was taken - has shifted by some trivial amount in the five or
fifty years since the photo was taken?

I would venture a guess that there are probably several reasons. Some
people are just naturally "picky" in both good and bad sense. That is
to say, some just want to preserve as much data as possible to prevent
any further deterioration while others may be sticklers for detail for
reasons of pedantry alone regardless of its relevance to context.

Living in a glass house, I'm not the one to throw stones, though. ;o)

However, as someone who does want to freeze any further deterioration
it's often good to step back and ask myself if I'm going too far with
my "urge for perfection" (it's very easy to get caught up). And that's
a question each person answers differently based on their own
requirements, needs and context. But, as you suggest above, it's a
question which needs to be asked at regular intervals, IMHO.

Am I that far out to lunch in just wanting natural looking digital
reproduction of something that I saw and photographed fifty years ago?

The "problem" with that is because it's based on a subjective view of
what looks natural. Now, whether one takes that relative route or goes
for absolute definitions is, again, a function of one's requirements.

So, depending on each person's threshold, at one extreme some may have
an arm's length look and go "ah... it's good enough..." while others
will take an electron microscope to the slide and shriek in horror
about all those sub-atomic particles "out of place" in the scan.

fx: Don himself now starts to look increasingly self-conscious and
avoids eye contact pretending to whistle... ;o)

For anyone that has read this far - thanks for your patience in hearing me
out.

And thank you for taking the time to write it all out! ;o)

Don.

 

[Jim]

Am I that far out to lunch in just wanting natural looking digital
reproduction of something that I saw and photographed fifty years ago?

For anyone that has read this far - thanks for your patience in hearing me
out.

Ben Fullerton - Photography enthusiast for over 60 years.

Ben you are certainly not out to lunch unless both of us are. However, the
manufacturers of the time were happy merely to get something that looked
reasonably good for a couple of years or so.

My experiences with various emulsions from the 50s are:

1. Anscocolor - slight green shift. I should mention that this was slide
film.
2. Kodachrome - as good as the day they were taken. By the way Ben,
Kodachrome at ASA 25 was introduced around 1960 as Kodachrome II. If your
slides say Kodachrome the ASA index was 10 (or was it 8?). I have many of
the slides from the first roll I took in 1954.
3. Ektachrome E2 - nothing left but the red
4. Ektachrome E4 - the same, but this emulsion came into existence around
1960.

All of these slides were stored in boxes and out of light. It is very
doubtful that any were exposed to projection for more than 10 minutes.

Jim

 

[Ben Fullerton]

Right here at the top - thanks for the interesting and informative
thoughts that have been expressed here so far.

[More in context below.]

Jim ([email protected]) wrote:

: : >
: > Am I that far out to lunch in just wanting natural looking digital
: > reproduction of something that I saw and photographed fifty years ago?
: >
: > For anyone that has read this far - thanks for your patience in hearing me
: > out.
: >
: > Ben Fullerton - Photography enthusiast for over 60 years.

: Ben you are certainly not out to lunch unless both of us are. However, the
: manufacturers of the time were happy merely to get something that looked
: reasonably good for a couple of years or so.

Most of them anyway. Kodak, and or the photo magazines, were already
promoting the long life expectancy of Kodachrome, even back in the 50s.

: My experiences with various emulsions from the 50s are:

: 1. Anscocolor - slight green shift. I should mention that this was slide
: film.

I never tried Ansco slide films. Lucky, I guess.

: 2. Kodachrome - as good as the day they were taken. By the way Ben,
: Kodachrome at ASA 25 was introduced around 1960 as Kodachrome II. If your
: slides say Kodachrome the ASA index was 10 (or was it 8?). I have many of
: the slides from the first roll I took in 1954.

Ah, yes. I didn't think that ASA 25 sounded right, but could not remember
the earlier number .... and 8 rings more of a bell with me than 10, but I
may still be suffering memory problems.

Now ... I also remember the introduction of Kodachrome II with the 'nice
and high' ASA of 25!

Then, if I now finally have it all sorted out, Kodachrome 64 followed
somewhat later with Kodachrome 200 (which many felt was inferior to the
64) and now, as far as I can find out from the one or two retailers who
can get it for me today, we are back to Kodachrome 64 *only! (I shot a
couple of rolls of K 64 in the past year!)

: 3. Ektachrome E2 - nothing left but the red

I might have a roll or so of this but I am not sure.

: 4. Ektachrome E4 - the same, but this emulsion came into existence around
: 1960

I tried a few rolls when I wanted a faster film, or wanted to favor blues,
but stayed mostly with K 64 because of the much longer predicted storage
life. (Many of my slides are family pictures .... many of which will
probably be of interest to future generations of Fullertons.)

: All of these slides were stored in boxes and out of light. It is very
: doubtful that any were exposed to projection for more than 10 minutes.

: Jim

..... and the bad news from another response to my inquiry .....

My slide scanner is a Nikon, which uses LEDs as a light source, and
another respondent has pointed out that LEDs are not as good with the
'sliver particle' Kodachrome final slides (after the processing which, I
seem to recall, uses a 'substitution' process for, rather than a chemical
alteration of, the material present at time of exposure.

Well, it will have to do - as I cannot afford to have two slide scanners.

Again, thanks to all who replied.

Ben Fullerton

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

The only problem with Kodachrome and film scanners is the light source that
the film scanner uses. LED based film scanners have the most problem with
Kodachrome.

Eh??? What "problem" do LED based scanners have with Kodachrome?

The only people that seem to have experienced problems are those who
have used old scanners which had inadequate dynamic range to cope with
Kodachrome, and that would apply equally to LED and white light
scanners.

The only other "problem" users of LED (ie. Nikon) scanners have with
Kodachrome is remembering that ICE doesn't work reliably with it - but
that is an issue of IR transmission of Kodachrome that is equally
relevant to all ICE equipped scanners.

There is a good argument that the full capability of KC is best
reproduced by an LED scanner, because of the intrinsic colour purity,
but that seems counter to your statement. So if you know of any other
problems that are unique to LED scanners with KC feel free to tell us
all.

 

[CSM1]

Eh??? What "problem" do LED based scanners have with Kodachrome?

The only people that seem to have experienced problems are those who have
used old scanners which had inadequate dynamic range to cope with
Kodachrome, and that would apply equally to LED and white light scanners.

The only other "problem" users of LED (ie. Nikon) scanners have with
Kodachrome is remembering that ICE doesn't work reliably with it - but
that is an issue of IR transmission of Kodachrome that is equally relevant
to all ICE equipped scanners.

That is the problem I was referring to, the fact that silver effectually
blocks IR light.
LED light is also more coherent and not diffused.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

That is the problem I was referring to, the fact that silver effectually
blocks IR light.

It also blocks the IR light used by ICE in white light scanners, so it
is certainly not unique to LEDs. Or do you know a version of ICE in
film scanners which does not use IR light, and which one. As far as I
am aware, ICE does not work reliably with Kodachrome in any film
scanner, irrespective of the light source, for precisely this reason. So
the problem you are referring to is NOT a disadvantage unique to LEDs,
it is common to ICE and Kodachrome, NOT LEDs.

LED light is also more coherent and not diffused.

The coherence of the LED light makes no effect on the scan since the
coherence length is significantly less than the optical path length in
the scanner, we are not talking about laser diodes here just simple
light emitting diodes without stimulated emission, so the coherence is
extremely limited: but I guess you probably mean "collimated" since you
contrast it to diffuse.

Again though, the collimation is no more than many white light scanners
- in fact no more than most of those that are currently available. The
whole reason why the Scanhancer was developed was to overcome the
consequences of the collimated white light source on Minolta scanners,
and was so successful that Minolta adopted it and renamed it a Grain
Dissolver. They appear to no longer require it in the most recent issue
of that scanner - and which light source does that use? Light emitting
diodes? Surely not!

 

[Ben Fullerton]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>, CSM1

: >The only problem with Kodachrome and film scanners is the light source that
: >the film scanner uses. LED based film scanners have the most problem with
: >Kodachrome.
: >
: Eh??? What "problem" do LED based scanners have with Kodachrome?

When I wrote that, I had just finished reading, in another thread of this
ng, that the silver used in the final Kodachrome colors also causes
problems with the normal scans as well as the IR 'ICE' scans. the writer
made it sound so convincing that I accepted the thought that there might
be some lesser quality in the results.

Now I can't recall the exact thread, and do not have the time right now to
do a proper search.

From the comments here, It seems that I was a bit too quick to accept the
criticism of the LED light source - and I am, as you might guess, very
pleased to hear that others do not agree with that point of view.

: The only people that seem to have experienced problems are those who
: have used old scanners which had inadequate dynamic range to cope with
: Kodachrome, and that would apply equally to LED and white light
: scanners.

Mine is the CoolScan IV ED. I hope that it does not fit in the 'old
scanners' category mentioned in the above paragraph. ??

: The only other "problem" users of LED (ie. Nikon) scanners have with
: Kodachrome is remembering that ICE doesn't work reliably with it - but
: that is an issue of IR transmission of Kodachrome that is equally
: relevant to all ICE equipped scanners.

: There is a good argument that the full capability of KC is best
: reproduced by an LED scanner, because of the intrinsic color purity,
: but that seems counter to your statement. So if you know of any other
: problems that are unique to LED scanners with KC feel free to tell us
: all.

My CoolScan IV is sounding better all the time.

Thanks!

: --
: Kennedy
: Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
: A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
: Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Ben F.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

Kennedy McEwen ([email protected]) wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>, CSM1

: >The only problem with Kodachrome and film scanners is the light source that
: >the film scanner uses. LED based film scanners have the most problem with
: >Kodachrome.
: >
: Eh??? What "problem" do LED based scanners have with Kodachrome?

When I wrote that,

I don't think you wrote that Ben, Carl did. ;-)

I had just finished reading, in another thread of this
ng, that the silver used in the final Kodachrome colors also causes
problems with the normal scans as well as the IR 'ICE' scans. the writer
made it sound so convincing that I accepted the thought that there might
be some lesser quality in the results.

The Nikon LED system spot samples the dye densities at specific
wavelengths rather than averaging the dye density across a wide range of
wavelengths as in a white light scanner with colour filters on a
tri-linear CCD. This has the major benefit that crosstalk of one dye
density into the measurement of another is minimised and thus colour
purity in the scan is maximised. The slight downside is that the colour
balance can be slightly different from that of the directly viewed scan
if the spectral density of each dye is different from that for which the
scanner is profiled.

From the comments here, It seems that I was a bit too quick to accept the
criticism of the LED light source - and I am, as you might guess, very
pleased to hear that others do not agree with that point of view.

There are many of us that don't agree with the criticism, including Ed
Hamrick who is on record as stating that he prefers the Nikon approach
because of the benefits that the LED illumination provides.

: The only people that seem to have experienced problems are those who
: have used old scanners which had inadequate dynamic range to cope with
: Kodachrome, and that would apply equally to LED and white light
: scanners.

Mine is the CoolScan IV ED. I hope that it does not fit in the 'old
scanners' category mentioned in the above paragraph. ??

It certainly isn't. Also, if you scan some Kodachrome using Nikonscan
you can see the difference in colour balance that the unique spectral
dye density of that film produces by making two scans, one with the
Kodachrome profile enabled and one without.

My CoolScan IV is sounding better all the time.

There isn't a better desktop film scanner in the sub-3000ppi category.

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

SNIP

When I wrote that, I had just finished reading, in another thread
of this ng, that the silver used in the final Kodachrome colors
also causes problems with the normal scans as well as the IR
'ICE' scans.

There *should* be no significant amount of (residual) silver in the
image, but due to less than optimal processing (at the final bleaching
and rinsing stage), there may be some. It basically is an error, often
caused by poor quality control, because the image should consist of
dyes only.

The (for IR) opaque silver will cause problems for any ICE procedure,
regardless the lightsource.

Bart