greg_miller10

Thanks Greg, but there's absolutely no need.

I went back to the camera RAW 'scan' and re-processed it to address all the 'faults' you accused it of.

[ATTACH=full]1279975[/ATTACH]

As you can see, it lacks the punch and drama of my intentional interpretation of the scene. No shadows are blocked, but why anyone would be interested in peering under a rock or between twigs of gorse, I have no idea!

 

Here's another camera 'scan' from a quite difficult neg. It refused to print other than flat and quite lifeless. Digitising it allowed me to put a bit more vibrance into the colours.

[ATTACH=full]1279976[/ATTACH]

Again, there's no sign of the blocked shadows you accuse digital camera copies of always having.

 

Here's a flatbed scan of a wet-print for comparison.

[ATTACH=full]1279977[/ATTACH]And I will get around to cloning out the ugly overhead wires one day!

 

I must add that I've used a procession of different scanners, and that I started scanning nearly 20 years ago. I'm not a novice at the game. So I can say with some authority that digital camera copying loses no tonality if shot RAW and processed properly, and is far quicker than any scanner I've yet to use.

 

It took me no longer than 20 minutes yesterday to digitise an entire roll of film. Most of that time was spent loading strips of film into the film-carrier. Of course it'll take much longer to digitally process and adjust them, but that task is much the same with a scanner workflow.

 

I used colour negative for its flexibility; in the darkroom and to a much greater extent, after digitising.

 

To me the final image should be, as Ansel Adams said, the 'performance' from the negative 'score'. Not necessarily giving a colorimetric perfect rendering, nor showing needless detail in highlights and shadows. If the shadows or highlights need to be sacrificed for the sake of extra contrast or aesthetic effect - so be it.

 

I will give Colorperfect's software a try, but I'm doubtful it can automatically deal with the million different shades of contrast mask out there, and the billion-and-one different lighting conditions that can be encountered.

Cool...let me know how it goes with Colorperfect. This is what that module was designed for. If nothing else and you don't get superior results you'll get quicker results of equal quality to what you're getting here.

- Oh, you were there when I shot that scene were you?

No, the gorse was a yellow green colour, probably more yellow than I've rendered it there, and the lichen-covered rocks weren't neutral grey. Otherwise they'd be the same colour as the white and neutral grey cloud that you see right next to them.

 

Look, I've used a number of film scanners to scan colour negatives, and none of them come close to a decent colour rendering of colour negs straight from the scanner, and nearly always need hand adjustment. They also have a tendency to blocked shadows.

 

Let's see some examples of colour negative scans from you can we?

Then we can pick holes in your colour rendering and tonal range.

Sorry man...I didn't mean to offend but just expressing my experience that your sample precisely demonstrates. Send me the negative if you like for me to scan and you can compare. No use in posting anything unless it's apples to apples. Once I do that, I'll send you my results and you can compare and see the difference. Unless you'd want me to post them in this thread.

Please, also check out the color negative module offered by Colorperfect. It has actual profiles for different film types your photographing and does an ok job of the inversion. It will save you a lot of time.

Too bad that “wonderful Nikon scanner” is an orphan product that Nikon hasn’t supported with parts or service for years. Whip in OS issues and the tedium of requisite work-arounds and the pricing of top-shelf Coolscans starts looking just a bit absurd. Suspect help is on its way with software that will cure the color neg inversion blues. Current production civilian-grade scanners haven’t seen performance upgrades since when?

I've only ever used the Nikon coolscan 9000 HD and everything you say is true. I hated the workflow and the fact I needed to use an ancient computer with it but it did produce good scans...a lot better than an inversion from a digital camera. I think Silverfast has software for them but I was using the unit on lone to see if I wanted to buy it or not so I just dealt with what I had. I didn't buy it because other than producing a good scan, the experience was soul sucking. Now I'm using a Creo iQsmart with older OSX but while there are some issues, it's no where nearly as clunky as the Nikon Coolscan and the scans are a bit better. Anyway...I felt my post was getting a bit negative and needed some positive levity...I get your point.

I have huge experience with trying to get a proper color inversion from a negative photographed with a digital camera. The only thing that comes close to doing it properly is the color negative module from Colorperfect but even this has it's problems.

The Photoshop inversion is linear and what is required is an algorithmic inversion that creates a curve similar to RA-4 photographic paper. Neutralizing the orange mask before inverting in Photoshop helps but it's hit and miss and still creates an inversion with color crossover.

As evidenced in Rodeo Joe's sample, the sky in the upper right is approximately proper sky blue but the foliage is yellow as are the rocks which should be far more neutral in tone. Added to that, the shadows are blocking up and have no detail. Pretty normal for a negative photographed with a digital camera. Sorry Joe...I don't mean to rain on your parade and what you have here is probably good enough for most people but it won't compete with the original posters Nikon Coolscan.

Bottom line is don't sell your Coolscan but do as you had originally suggested. Use the digital camera to create quick and easy images that can be used as a sort of contact sheet. Do your best images in your wonderful Nikon scanner.

The Darkroom is fast, has fair pricing and provides a quality service so you might just want to level up in the quality of scan there that you're asking for.

For as much control as possible in the editing of the photos you might want to consider 48 bit scans. 48 bit scans done on a great scanner like a well maintained drum, Eversmart, Creo or even a Nikon Coolscan will allow you to pull details from your highlights that you may not be able to with a 24 bit scan. Especially in a high contrast light situation.

Greg Miller

Film Rescue International

As mentioned by Glen H, Overexposure isn't going to help you with reversal film, you'll just blow out your highlights. It will help though if you cross process this film into a negative which I'd advise but as you mention you need transparencies. Cross processing will significantly increase the contrast of this film and concerns over the color shifts that come with that will likely be moot because the color will be shifted regardless. Either way the color is going to be funky but that's probably why you want to shoot this anyway.

Over exposing and over developing reversal film will only blow out your highlights and make your shadows thin. My opinion if you need a slide, shoot and develop to spec.

I agree with Ben Hutcherson's date guess.

Greg Miller

Film Rescue International

Yes...use distilled water. It can make all the difference in the world to how well your film dries. With distilled water, there should be no need to even squeegee your film which is nice to avoid micro scratches.I swear by it and it's all we use...to the point we actually bought a water distiller so it's always readily at hand.

Greg Miller

Film Rescue International

My guess would be there would be some small loss in the film's sensitivity to light which can easily be compensated by some small amount of over exposure and possibly, some small amount of over development to bring up the contrast. I think that after doing a test to adjust exposure and development appropriately that this film should work fine for you. As per normal, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlight. In the end, my guess is that you might possibly notice some small increase in grain due to having to possibly increase the contrast of the film either by development or in scanning.

B&W film stands up very well over time undeveloped when compared to color film. As another poster mentioned here, with Verichrome Pan, you can shoot this decades beyond it's process before date but Verichrome Pan is at the apex of all films in terms of how it stands up over time undeveloped. Ilford films have not stood up as well but still, 9 years isn't all that old for a B&W film, especially if it was refrigerated.

Greg Miller

Film Rescue International

At this point you don't have a whole lot of options.

 

Dwayne's Photo is going to be your fastest least expensive option. I'm pretty sure they're the only company on earth that actually has an operational disc film printer. Dwayne's is fast and reputable and if you're fine with prints on a vintage printer then they're probably the way to go.

 

Alternate my own company Film Rescue and Dig my Pics, seem to be about the only ones out there offering these as a scan service that I can find. If there are more I'd love to hear about them so I can share in the future.

 

Alternately you can attempt to scan these yourself on a flatbed scanner but they need to be shimmed in order to hold the film the proper distance off the scanner glass or removed from the hub so they can be set directly on the scanner glass and then choose the appropriate settings in the scanner. For an Epson v750 that setting is "film area guide" in the professional settings. It is best to then sandwich the disc with anti newton ring glass to keep it flat on the scanner glass. I would recommend scanning at at least 3600 dpi. With the 750, you'll need to do some significant sharpening after scanning. We use to use the 750 here with good results and happy clients.

Update...we're now using a Creo iQsmart 3 scanner at 5500 dpi 48 bit. As good as you'll ever see from a disc film.

We use an epson v750 pro with a laser cut carrier to register the film precisely each time. The entire disc is then scanned and the frames seperated out using photoshop actions (this where the precise placement of the film becomes necessary). This scanner allows a 6400 dpi scan which is plenty big for disc film and our lower priced scans are only 2400 dpi and they don't show any digital artifacting in a 4x5 print. Once scanned all frames are then digitally density and color corrected, degrained, sharpened and a small bit of spotting is done. Anyone can do it but whether it's worth the time and effort to do it well may depend on your patients.

 

 

 

All the best

 

Greg Miller

 

Film Rescue International

Update...these scans are now done on a Creo iQsmart 3 at 5200 dpi but instead of the laser cut carrier we are now removing the films from the hubs so that they'll sit perfectly sandwiched in the scanner glass. It's not a huge jump in quality from the v750 but it is as good as you're going to get from these.

At this point you don't have a whole lot of options.

Dwayne's Photo is going to be your fastest least expensive option. I'm pretty sure they're the only company on earth that actually has an operational disc film printer. Dwayne's is fast and reputable and if you're fine with prints on a vintage printer then they're probably the way to go.

Alternate my own company Film Rescue and Dig my Pics, seem to be about the only ones out there offering these as a scan service that I can find. If there are more I'd love to hear about them so I can share in the future.

Alternately you can attempt to scan these yourself on a flatbed scanner but they need to be shimmed in order to hold the film the proper distance off the scanner glass or removed from the hub so they can be set directly on the scanner glass and then choose the appropriate settings in the scanner. For an Epson v750 that setting is "film area guide" in the professional settings. It is best to then sandwich the disc with anti newton ring glass to keep it flat on the scanner glass. I would recommend scanning at at least 3600 dpi. With the 750, you'll need to do some significant sharpening after scanning. We use to use the 750 here with good results and happy clients.

<p>The quality from brand to brand, type within the brand to type within the brand, storage condition to storage condition will be a huge factor in terms of the results you may expect from this film. From 1984, should there be something important on it, normal processing is a terrible idea. If you know it is nothing important then normal processing may be a good approach.<br>

If you want to give me more specific details as to exactly what you have I can give you the trend for that film for expected quality.</p>

<p>Greg</p>

<p>Uhgggg...what is with this picture! Here it is at Deviant Art</p>

<p>http://ultrachrome-x.deviantart.com/art/Ghost-in-the-camera-321582078</p>

<p>We are very seriously considering buying this scanner....</p>

<p><a href="http://www.polielettronica.it/index_htm_files/Digital_Imager.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.polielettronica.it/index_htm_files/Digital_Imager.pdf</a></p>

<p>The problem is that while I can't find anyone saying anything bad about it, there is just so little information on it. Has anyone used one of these before or know anything about them?<br>

It's a toss up between this and the last version of a Fuji Frontier scanner that was manufactured. It would be a little less scary purchasing the Fuji unit but when I look at the operation of the Polilettronica, it just seems far more intuitive and more similar to the photoshop workspace I'm used to. From the above linked to PDF, it has virtually all of the functions we need to take the image from scan to worked and finished. I don't think the Fuji Frontier has this level of manipulation but please correct me if I'm wrong. There are parts and service still available for both machines.</p>

<p>Any thoughts from anyone who has used this scanner would be greatly appreciated. Alternately, anyone that is familiar with a Fuji SP 3000 scanner, I'd like to hear your experiences with that machine.</p>

<p>The link by Steve Smith here to Stephen Frizza is by far the very best results I've seen of newly developed Kodachrome film in color. I've sent Stephen a message asking for a skype meeting to discuss what he's done here. By reading what's posted it sounds like he's come across some discontinued Kodachrome chemicals but I'm curious to have a conversation with him. Thanks for posting this link Steve!</p>

<p>Manuel...we process about 30 or 40 rolls of this film each month from various vintages. It is unpredictable on how it has stood up. We get rolls newer than the mid 2000s that come out very well and other that are newer that don't. Unlike virtually every other expired film, it is difficult to predict the results....especially with the latest version of the film. This is anecdotal on conversations with our customers as to the actual vintage of the film and how it was stored. It is no surprise that your film came out well but it would be a surprise if all rolls of the exact generation of the film you had would have the same result. It's not at all our experience with this film.</p>

<p>This is very close to how we currently handle all questionable rolls of expired color film. In our opinion it is the very best and safest approach to dealing with these. A special thanks to Nick Migliore for letting us use these images and best of luck to him with his publication of these images in his up coming book "Naked City II".</p>

<p><img src="http://www.filmrescue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/BW-to-color1.jpg" alt="" width="936" height="960" /></p>

<p>We are looking a purchasing a high volume scanner and our choices are now down to three units. A Kodak HR 500 plus, Durst Sigma or a Fuji Frontier SP-3000.</p>

<p>We need to be able to use the manual carrier for these to adapt for odd formats such as 110, 126, 828 and 127. Dust and scratch removal is also a big concern and while we are aware that the HR 500 plus can handle Kodachromes we have not had our questions decently answered as to how well the Fuji and Durst units handle these.</p>

<p>I'm interested in any comments people who have had experiences with high volume scanning can make on any of these three scanners.</p>

<p>We've experimented with processing Kodachrome into color and have looked at samples of others attempts. While some semblance of color can be had it is a risky compromise. At very best, Kodachrome that is in stellar condition, it is possible to get a color image that may perhaps have some "lomo" appeal to it but it retains none of the original charm that made Kodachrome desirable in the first place. The procedure is time consuming and therefore expensive and to add to that, if the film is not in good condition there is risk of losing everything for the sake of color. </p>

<p>We don't advise that anyone use this film with the hope of there at some point being a desirable process for the film. That likely will never happen. For someone to invest the time and expense to devise an acceptable process for a film that is no longer being produced, is also unlikely.</p>

<p>To add to this, Kodachrome films, unprocessed are deteriorating faster than most other films. With a Kodachrome that is in the best of conditions, the results in B&W are about like Tri-x with less shadow detail but we are experiencing fewer and fewer films where even this is true.</p>

<p>Bottom line, if you have old Kodachrome that is shot and may have something of importance on it, don't attempt to have it processed into color. In our opinion, better to have an acceptable B&W image than a highly degraded color one, or alternately to get something recognizable in B&W vs nothing in color. If you have unshot Kodachrome perhaps put it in the freezer for future use but don't get your hopes up that there will ever again be a decent process for it.</p>

<p>We've looked at processing this film into color and it can and has been done but the results on even the very newest of this film is very...."lomo" might best describe it. The color is faded and desaturated and while it does have some appeal on some level, it does not maintain any of the charm that was unique to Kodachrome in the first place.<br>

When dealing with what may be important family pictures, we feel that the best approach will be to process the film into a B&W negative where we can achieve results similar to Tri-x on the best of these films. To process into color will be a risky affair for any Kodachrome of significan vintage. We may offer a color service for this film in the nearish future but we suspect the demand, considering the results in color and the time involved in doing it (thus expense) will mean that there will not be a lot of demand for it. Our advise will be that if it might have important images then don't attempt color.</p>