Scanning very dark Kodachrome w/ coolscan V

[Hecate]

That doesn't do sub-pixel alignement (unless you scale the images up
first) and certainly doesn't cope with "run out" in the scan direction,
resulting in the two images being slightly different sizes in one axis.

That's true, but I find it a useful technique which works most of the
time. So it's another part of the armoury. I doubt very much that any
one technique is perfect for all situations, and this one is no
different.

 

[Hecate]

I used a similar procedure only instead of opacity I would try
different blending modes, for example, subtract one image from the
other. But I like your opacity idea better!

However, there are two additional problems, one mine and the other
conceptual:

1. I only have Photoshop 6 here and it doesn't support layers for
16-bit images.

That is a problem unless you're willing to work in 8 bit or give Uncle
Adobe yet another slice of cash...

I found a workaround, but it's cumbersome.

2. Most misalignments are sub-pixel i.e. one image needs to be nudged
a half or maybe a third of a pixel.

Again, I found a way to do that but it's also very messy and time
consuming.

It depends on how much accuracy you require. I don't do "good enough"
but I do do "unable to see the difference without a microscope". ;-)

 

[Don]

With vuescan you can do both scans from file. No alignment problems
here...

VueScan doesn't do ICE so you can't get an "ICEd image" from the raw
file.

Don.

 

[Don]

That is a problem unless you're willing to work in 8 bit or give Uncle
Adobe yet another slice of cash...

I don't think Adobe deserves *any* cash for "deactivated" software and
I, for one, don't buy crippled software on principle.

Besides, since I'm not a pro, PS 6 is fine, and I did find a
workaround - albeit cumbersome - to be able to do pretty much
everything with 16-bit images.

It depends on how much accuracy you require. I don't do "good enough"
but I do do "unable to see the difference without a microscope". ;-)

It *has* to align *perfectly* at 1600% magnification! Juuuust
kidding... ;o)

Actually, small misalignments may even have a positive effect. I'm
currently fooling around with (multi-pass) multiscanning and then
blending the images by hand in PS. A small misalignement actually has
the unintended benefit of reducing the grain slightly.

I also noticed that the first the scan is usually off (presumably
while the slide settles in as the scanner purrs and fusses around) but
after that all subsequent scans seem to align almost perfectly.

Don.

 

[Hecate]

I don't think Adobe deserves *any* cash for "deactivated" software and
I, for one, don't buy crippled software on principle.

Nor do I, but the Suite upgrade price was ridiculous and as I use PS
all the time along with Illy, Acrobat and InDesign...

Besides, since I'm not a pro, PS 6 is fine, and I did find a
workaround - albeit cumbersome - to be able to do pretty much
everything with 16-bit images.

You might want to look around for a cheap upgrade to 7. You'd love the
patch tool and healing brush

It *has* to align *perfectly* at 1600% magnification! Juuuust
kidding... ;o)
LOL!
Actually, small misalignments may even have a positive effect. I'm
currently fooling around with (multi-pass) multiscanning and then
blending the images by hand in PS. A small misalignement actually has
the unintended benefit of reducing the grain slightly.

I also noticed that the first the scan is usually off (presumably
while the slide settles in as the scanner purrs and fusses around) but
after that all subsequent scans seem to align almost perfectly.

I'm glad something I said works

 

[Erik Krause]

VueScan doesn't do ICE so you can't get an "ICEd image" from the raw
file.

Vuescan does IR clean, which has more or less the same result. You can
even save the IR-channel independently and use it as a mask (or
whatever) in photoshop. I used this technique with the CS patch tool
with very good results...

 

[Don]

You might want to look around for a cheap upgrade to 7. You'd love the
patch tool and healing brush

Yeah, I know! I'm messing around a lot with the clone tool these days
(to fix Kodachromes because ICE makes faces when I feed it
Kodachromes). Anyway, I saw people mentioning this "healing brush"
thingy and I thought "Oh, goody!".

However, a search for "healing brush" in PS 6 help file came up with:

"You need to upgrade to PS 7!"

No, just kidding... ;o)

Seriously though, I just got a new hard drive and - after months of
mud wrestling with my LS-30 - I also got an LS-50 so my funds are
pretty low right now... :-( And the lotteries keep drawing wrong
numbers! ;o)

Don.

 

[Hecate]

Vuescan does IR clean, which has more or less the same result.

Less if you have a Minolta scanner. I don't know about Nikons ;-)

 

[Don]

Vuescan does IR clean, which has more or less the same result.

Actually it's more less than more... ;o)

Seriously though, in my experience VueScan's IR is not even in the
same league as ICE.

Don.

 

[Wilfred]

Less if you have a Minolta scanner. I don't know about Nikons ;-)

It seems VueScan's cleaning algorithm isn't very successful in
separating the defected areas from the clean areas because the IR
channel produced by some 5400s (including mine) is very low in contrast.
If you have Photoshop CS you may want to try my actions to perform the
separation manually by setting the sliders in a Levels dialog:
http://www.vandervegte.com/Actions.html.
Apparently, Nikons produce a more contrasty IR channel, though I never
made the comparison.

 

[Erik Krause]

Less if you have a Minolta scanner. I don't know about Nikons ;-)

I didn't find noticeable differences between Nikonscan ICE(3) and
Vuescan IR-cleaned images from my Nikon LS40. If Minolta is worse, you
should ask Ed whether he can correct that.