Poor KR Scanning at Dwayne's?

[christopher_m]

I had my slides scanned to CD at processing. I've been happy with their processing, but noticed that some of

their scans seem to stink compared to the actual slide. Both pictures are of the Collesium in Rome taken on the

same day and, I believe, at the same exposure. The first I think rather accurately represent the slide. The

second has this nasty bluish hue that isn't visible on the actual slide. <p>

 

I was starting to curse the film as be utterly fickle, until I started looking at the actual slides. Is it poor

scanner, or is it just that the slides are very hard to scan in the first place?

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28882854@N00/2992642617/" title="Colleisum by chris00nj, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2992642617_0caf512220_b.jpg" width="1024" height="659" alt="Colleisum"

/></a>

<p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28882854@N00/2996745302/" title="01_024 by chris00nj, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3160/2996745302_f75bc3da34_b.jpg" width="1024" height="659" alt="01_024" /></a>

[bob_sunley]

Looks more like bad lighting. :) Blue sky is approx 12,000 K, and that is what you see in the shadows.

[christopher_m]

But when you see the actual slide, you don't see that bluish hue.

[JDMvW]

Looks like the scanner might have accidentally been left on Ektachrome? In any case this is simple to fix.

 

Even a simple sequence of "auto contrast" + "auto levels" + "auto color" will solve most of the tint color problem. Then a little manual color manipulation will bring it to what you may want.<div></div>

[christopher_m]

A definite improvement. Did you do that in Photoshop or what?

[JDMvW]

Yes, Photoshop. It was CS3 version, but the same thing can be done back to version 7 and earlier. On my home scanner, I occasionally mix different films by accident and that can produce overly blue or red pictures. It's in Elements too, of course.

 

There are multiple paths for correcting color balance, but the advantage in my opinion of using the "auto" settings first (always leaving the original intact and "saving as") is that the path from there using the various levels and color settings under Image>Adjustments to add more red, yellow or whatever. Here is one where I have used "color" to push up midrange and shadow red and yellow and highlight blue. This can, of course, be over done since "snap" is the "sugar" of eye candy.<div></div>

[patrick_mont]

I had this happen on a couple of slides in the order I just got back in the mail yesterday. This was the first time I had any of my Kodachromes scanned. Most of them were okay before using photoshop

[patrick_mont]

I am going to try to give an example...<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Kodachrome is hard to scan, because the dyes' spectral responses are screwy, and you're scanning with three light colors (red, green, blue) that are not the same as the dye colors (cyan, yellow, magenta). The normal problem with Kodachrome is winding up with a scan that's way too blue.

 

All Kodak's modern color films are designed to scan well (C-41, and at least the E-series Ektachromes), but Kodachrome predates that design criterion. Kodachrome was designed to look subjectively good to the naked eye.

[tbs]

Like John says, Kodachrome predates any thought of scanning in the modern sense. The current version of Kodachrome, K-14, was formulated in the mid 1970s. When I do scan Kodachrome, I use my own Nikon Coolscan-5000, which is generally said to be one of the best at handling the film's unusual dye set and tricky emulsion. The Coolscan-9000 may be even better at it, but costs twice as much as a 5000.

 

The best way, by far, to view Kodachrome slides is to use a high quality projecter, Kodak or Leica, with a high quality projection lens on a good screen. Then you really see what the film was meant for.

[davidlong]

I just got my first set of scans back from them, and am not very happy with the color. I think I'll just stick with having them develop my Kodachrome and then either try some other scanning services, or buy a scanner myself.

[profhlynnjones]

If you do much scanning, buy a scanner. The best are really not that expensive. I've been using UMax, Microtek, Epson, Nikon, and Minolta among others since 1992. I use nothing but Epson, they work perfectly well with Old Kodachrome, new Kodachrome, color negs, color inter negs (no other scanner will do this) and b/w negs without the emphasizing of grain as happens in more expensive scanners whose names I certainly wouldn't mention. I have a 3200 in my office, an old 2400 and a relatively new 4780 in my home office.

 

I could afford more expensive scanner but I can't find any better than those that I have. We have 15 or 20 scanners in our department in several different brands and I have had the opportunity to use all of them, that is whay I personally use Epson.

 

Lynn (Prof. of Photography)

[larrydressler]

Lynn

 

Well I thought I was the only person who felt this way about the epsons. using a 4490 and a 3170 myself I just use custom holders. I built them myself. The film holders that come with the beast are just not perfect for holding film flat.

[Robert_Lai]

Christopher,<p>There seems to be another post in this forum questioning the <a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00RObg"

>bluish rendition of Kodachrome when

scanned.</a>

<p>At this point, I would suggest that you get a Q60 chart from Wolf Faust, photograph it with the film of your choice under

the lighting that you will be using, then get that image scanned by your photo lab. Then, you can use profiling software to

correct a color correction profile that you can apply to all of your scans as a batch process, and have them automatically

color corrected at once.