Scanning kodachrome

[barthome1]

In looking for a scanner to use on color slides, I ran into some
comments about the difficulty in scanning kodachrome slides.
Can anyone give further details?

Thanks

Bart
(e-mail address removed)

 

[bmoag]

Because it is a thicker and denser emulsion lower end scanners have
difficulty or may not be able to scan Kodachrome. Some dust removal programs
in older scanners will not work correctly with Kodachrome. Years ago I had
the original HP and Minolta scanners and these just simply could not handle
Kodachrome at all.

Ergo if you have alot of Kodachrome and want the best scans possible you
will have to get the best film scanner you can afford. I beleive Canon has
discontinued the Canoscan 4000, which was ok but not great on Kodachrome.
This essentially leaves the Nikon scanners and the Minolta 5400.

 

[Ken]

In looking for a scanner to use on color slides, I ran into some
comments about the difficulty in scanning kodachrome slides.
Can anyone give further details?

Kodachromes are difficult because they are more contrasty (especially if
even slightly underexposed). The dyes are also different colors giving
problems with Nikon scanners. Nikons latest software apparently is
apparently much better. Vuescan also seems to do a good job.

With nice evenly exposed slides I can get a reasonable result without much
effort, but some slides need a fair amount of manipulation to look right.
This compares to the E6 emulsions which once set up hardly need any
manipulation.

Interestingly I found it almost impossible to get some Kodachromes scanned
with a Minolta Dual Scan III into reasonable shape but have much better
results with a Nikon Coolscan V.

Ken

 

[Roy]

Because it is a thicker and denser emulsion lower end scanners have
difficulty or may not be able to scan Kodachrome. Some dust removal
programs in older scanners will not work correctly with Kodachrome. Years
ago I had the original HP and Minolta scanners and these just simply could
not handle Kodachrome at all.

Ergo if you have alot of Kodachrome and want the best scans possible you
will have to get the best film scanner you can afford. I beleive Canon has
discontinued the Canoscan 4000, which was ok but not great on Kodachrome.
This essentially leaves the Nikon scanners and the Minolta 5400.

I have used both the Minolta 5400 and an older Nikon Scanner (Coolscan IV),
and did not find either of them very good with Kodachrome.

I never liked the results which came back from Kodak, so mostly used E6
Process Film when I wanted Slides, and that was not all that often.

I can say that the Minolta is very good on Colour Neg and E6 Slides. I never
found the old Nikon much good on Neg, but it was good on E6 Film.

I have no first hand experience of the newer Nikons.

Roy

 

[BjarneK]

Interestingly I found it almost impossible to get some Kodachromes scanned
with a Minolta Dual Scan III into reasonable shape but have much better
results with a Nikon Coolscan V.

Ken

Has anybody tried with the Imacon scanners, do they offer a better
result (with Kodachrome)?

Bjarne

 

[tom]

Recently on the Scan Hi End group on Yahoo has been a great discussion
about the Imacons. Most of the people who described their experiences
said the scans were quite good, but the scanner was over priced. A
drum scanner will give much higher quality at less cost. The Imacon
"virtual drum" is hype, it is not a drum, and does not come close to a
drum scan.

Has anybody tried with the Imacon scanners, do they offer a better
result (with Kodachrome)?
Bjarne

Tom Robinson

 

[tom]

Check my tutorial for scanning Kodachrome using a ccd type scanner
here:
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html

and the other tutorial for cleaning Kodachrome, and dating it.

If your slides are worth it, get a drum scanner. You can get an old
Howtek for $1000-3000 on ebay. If you are on a real budget, the lowest
cost scanner that does well is the discontinued Polaroid SS4000, about
$300 on ebay. If you get the new Nikon 8000, be sure to buy the
optional glass carrier, which I think is made by Aztec
here:http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm

Top issue with scanning Kodachrome is shadow detail. Second issue is
dust spotting, the digital ice does not work with most Kodachrome
because the film is opaque to the IR channel in the scanner, so the
scanner cannot see the dust. People who have got it to work anyway
report that it softens the image unacceptably. Having said all that,
there is nothing as beautiful as a good Kodachrome scan.

Vuescan has been modified in the latest version for scanning
Kodachrome, it has seperate gain controls for R G B and this helps with
the shadow detail.

Tom Robinson

 

[Mike Engles]

I have used both the Minolta 5400 and an older Nikon Scanner (Coolscan IV),
and did not find either of them very good with Kodachrome.

I never liked the results which came back from Kodak, so mostly used E6
Process Film when I wanted Slides, and that was not all that often.

I can say that the Minolta is very good on Colour Neg and E6 Slides. I never
found the old Nikon much good on Neg, but it was good on E6 Film.

I have no first hand experience of the newer Nikons.

Roy

Hello
Well exposed Kodachromes are fine on a LS50. Under exposed ones are not
so good. ICE works pretty well With Kodachromes on the LS50

Mike Engles

 

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen]

tc> Recently on the Scan Hi End group on Yahoo has been a great discussion
tc> about the Imacons. Most of the people who described their experiences
tc> said the scans were quite good, but the scanner was over priced. A
tc> drum scanner will give much higher quality at less cost. The Imacon
tc> "virtual drum" is hype, it is not a drum, and does not come close to a
tc> drum scan.

tc> Tom Robinson

I think that's basically right. The Imacon is a CCD scanner with an
actively cooled CCD, a light path free of mirrors and a glassless film
holder which bends the film slightly to get a very straight line
across the film which is easy to get a good focus on. Hence the name
"virtual drum". But it's a very good scanner, on medium format scans,
it easily beats the Nikon LS 8000 from what I have seen.
I don't know how close it comes to a drum scan, but the actively
cooled CCD should give a lower noise floor than the other CCD scanners
out there.
Overpriced? Sure, but so are drum scanners.

 

[Don]

Check my tutorial for scanning Kodachrome using a ccd type scanner
here:
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/stuff/kodachrome2.html

Excellent page! I'm still poking around but I particularly liked:

http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/f1/ekcode.html

A couple of quick suggestions for the high quality section, if I may
(if you haven't covered it). Using anti-Newton mounts may cause
problems because the glass is "roughened up" and I didn't see any
reference to "pepper spots".

But, again, as someone who's been "tortured" by Kodachromes for a long
time ;o) I really appreciate the page!

Top issue with scanning Kodachrome is shadow detail.

I think that goes for all slides due to their wide dynamic range.
Having said that, though, Kodachrome is indeed very dense.

The top issue for Kodachrome IMHO is the blue cast! (At least on
Nikons.) The Kodachrome mode doesn't really go far enough and
additional image editing is essential to get the color balance right.

Second issue is
dust spotting, the digital ice does not work with most Kodachrome
because the film is opaque to the IR channel in the scanner, so the
scanner cannot see the dust.

Actually, Kodachrome has a silver residue (like conventional B&W
negative) and ICE confuses these silver particles (impenetrable to IR
light) with dust (also impenetrable to IR light).

That means if the Kodachrome is overexposed (very bright) where the
silver has all been washed out in development, ICE works perfectly.

For all other Kodachromes (i.e. normal exposure) ICE just doesn't work
if you're after high quality. Enlarging the image to about 300% shows
this clearly. This also seems to vary with Kodachrome age as there
isn't one single Kodachrome.

Vuescan has been modified in the latest version for scanning
Kodachrome, it has seperate gain controls for R G B and this helps with
the shadow detail.

As one of the people largely responsible for convincing the author to
implement separate RGB controls - in spite of his long term obstinate
reluctance - I must also add that even with this control, in my
experience, VueScan is just too buggy and unreliable to be used for
any serious scanning, although it may suffice for a quick-and-dirty
job if the quality threshold is low.

Don.

 

[Preston Earle]

Bart asked: "In looking for a scanner to use on color slides, I ran into
some comments about the difficulty in scanning kodachrome slides. Can
anyone give further details?"
-------------------------------

I scanned a number of old Kodachrome slides my father made between 1939
and 1952. I used a Minolta ScanDual II for scanning and Photoshop and
the Polaroid D&SR utility to clean them. (There was a lot of cleaning,
as the slides had been stored somewhat carelessly for the past 50
years.) I posted an album for my sister to see at
http://www.ofoto.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?&collid=14696763705&page=1&sort_order=0
(or http://tinyurl.com/43mcs) if you want to see the quality of the
scans. (I think you can view them directly.)

I was very satisfied with the SD-II's performance, though the III (and I
presume the IV model) are even better. As to the cleaning. I posted a
sample of one slide before cleaning, after physical cleaning, and after
cleanup in PS and D&SR See
http://www.ofoto.com/BrowsePhotos.jsp?&collid=93371162305&page=1&sort_order=0
(or http://tinyurl.com/4vv5u). It took a lot of time to scan, clean. and
color-correct, but it was worth it to rescue these images and get them
into the 21st century.

Preston Earle

 

[hpowen]

"VueScan is just too buggy and unreliable to be used for
any serious scanning, although it may suffice for a quick-and-dirty job
if the quality threshold is low."

A pity I didn't realize that before using Vuescan to process my photos
for a recent competition. Apparently the judges weren't aware of it
either (1 first place, 1 second place awards in a field consisting of 8
categories and several hundred entries).

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

"VueScan is just too buggy and unreliable to be used for
any serious scanning, although it may suffice for a quick-
and-dirty job if the quality threshold is low."

A pity I didn't realize that before using Vuescan to process
my photos for a recent competition. Apparently the judges
weren't aware of it either (1 first place, 1 second place
awards in a field consisting of 8 categories and several
hundred entries).

Don't (or do) worry, "Don" is apparently spreading "the news" in:
<http://www.google.com/[email protected]>
so the judges will soon be all the wiser.

Bart