Canon on FARE 2

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by erik, Apr 9, 2003.

  1. ...who knows which is right? :) 1) The Press Release (find full text at "....FARE level 2 helps deliver high quality scans from damaged originals and increases support adding compatibility for Kodachrome film..." OK, that sounds good and as lot of my old family slides are on Kodachrome it might be worth waiting for the next generation F4000... BUT: ---------------------- 2) My email to Canon and their response: ...Dear Erik Hammarlund, Thank you for your inquiry. Unfortunately like FARE 1.0, FARE 2.0 does not support Kodachrome or black and white monochrome film.... ------------------- I wrote back pointing out the press release and asking for some clarification. We'll see what I get. -Erik
  2. FARE and Nikon's ICE (as currently practices) depend on the fact that color film (C-41 and E-6) are transparent to IR light, so anything you see on an IR scan is dust or a scratch. Both Kodachrome and coventional B&W film block IR light, so you can't use FARE or ICE with them. This seems to be a rather fundemental problem. Unless they come up with a new scheme that doesn't depend on IR transmission I don't see how they are going to be able to use these schemes on Kodachrome. I suppose if Kodachrome is transparent at some wavelength other than visible FARE and ICE could use that. Anyone know the transmission of Kodachrome film base from .5 to 5 microns??
  3. I use a Nikon 4000. True, the IR scan used in the ICE dirt and scratch process makes it pretty useless for Kodachrome and BW film. The alternative: generous application of canned air to blow away as much dirt as possible, and the Healing tool in Photoshop 7 to clean up the rest. It's the same workflow with Provia and ICE enabled, it just takes a bit more time, and the results are the same.
  4. I had assumed they had redesigned FARE to use a different wavelength, which would include Kodachrome film--maybe because a certain wavelength transmitter dropped in price...? I dunno. It sure would be nice. I mean, "ir" covers a pretty broad spectrum. Surely there's SOME wavelength that isn't scanned for visuals, but will pass through kodachrome emulsion? We'll see.
  5. Everyone loves quoting how ICE cannot be used with Kodachrome. I've scanned dozens and dozens of Kodachrome with my LS-4000 with ICE set for ON and had no problems and it worked beautifully. From what I hear (again, hearsay) it supposedly does not work with some Kodachrome emulsions. But all I've heard from people who have had FIRSTHAND experience is that it works fine for them. All those who say it does not work had no firsthand experience in it NOT working but like to quote the manuals and articles they've read. Perhaps FARE 2 is the same and it will work with Kodachrome most of the time too. So, is there ANYONE who has had a problem FIRSTHAND with ICE not working with Kodachrome?
  6. Yes, I use the Nikon 4000 daily. On Kodachrome I find much better results without ICE. Dark details, seen as opaque by ICE's IR scan, get blurred and gummed up. A typical example would be iron railings on a balcony, or even eyelashes in a closeup. Larger dark toned areas (like shadows and black-skin fleshtones) will also have some plugging up, as if the film grain were heavier in those areas. I have no experience with Canon scanners, but if the FARE technology is similar, then it would have the same inherent shortcomings. Like I said, the work-around is to be extra attentive to cleaning the chrome, and spending a bit of extra time with the miraculous Heal tool. Black and white film (both negative and Scala) have even worse results with ICE: the whole image is gummed up and black. The same cleaning and healing work produce satisfying images.

Share This Page