Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The other day I picked up some chromes, both K64 and E6, that I had dropped off at my lab for scanning. I requested high res TIFFs. My previous experience with this lab for C41 scans was great (see gallery), and some of these slides were "duplicates" of the Reala shots.
But the results were not nearly as good as the Reala scans. I had needed to do minimal sharpening with the Reala scans, which I expected. But the scans from the chromes were disappointing to awful. Many were increadibly soft, others slightly so, some lacking in shadow detail and some exhibiting levels/density problems.
So I took the work back today, and the lab owner (I think) agreed there were problems. The technician thinks that it was the GEM grain reduction that caused the problems.
Is this a known issue or common problem? I know there have been discussions here and elsewhere of a specific workflow and/or specific scanners that work better with Kodachrome. My reaction is to say "damn the grain reduction, I want a scan I can work with", and deal with grain later.
Help me out here, as I view this as a learning opportunity for me, and maybe for my lab. I do want to eventually get my own scanner, but for now I depend on a lab.
Earl
But the results were not nearly as good as the Reala scans. I had needed to do minimal sharpening with the Reala scans, which I expected. But the scans from the chromes were disappointing to awful. Many were increadibly soft, others slightly so, some lacking in shadow detail and some exhibiting levels/density problems.
So I took the work back today, and the lab owner (I think) agreed there were problems. The technician thinks that it was the GEM grain reduction that caused the problems.
Is this a known issue or common problem? I know there have been discussions here and elsewhere of a specific workflow and/or specific scanners that work better with Kodachrome. My reaction is to say "damn the grain reduction, I want a scan I can work with", and deal with grain later.
Help me out here, as I view this as a learning opportunity for me, and maybe for my lab. I do want to eventually get my own scanner, but for now I depend on a lab.
Earl
FrankS
Registered User
Wish I could help you Earl, but I do it all wet. 
schmoozit
Schmoozit good...
FrankS said:Wish I could help you Earl, but I do it all wet.
Sounds kinky, Frank!
Finder
Veteran
Perhaps their explanation was just to get you out of the door. See if they can improve it first. Maybe the technician was just having a bad day.
As far as I know the only film that cannot be used with Digital GEM is silver-based B&W - chromagentic B&W is OK. But GEM has to be adjusted to the film. A setting for one film, may not be good for another. If they were using Digital ICE at the same time, that may be add to the problem as it cannot be used with Kodachrome.
As far as I know the only film that cannot be used with Digital GEM is silver-based B&W - chromagentic B&W is OK. But GEM has to be adjusted to the film. A setting for one film, may not be good for another. If they were using Digital ICE at the same time, that may be add to the problem as it cannot be used with Kodachrome.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Finder: The manager/owner was very sympathetic, and they are re-doing the scans. It's not a rush for me, so she marked the order "No Rush, but <b>great</b>" So, I'm satisfied they'll straighten it out. Whether it was GEM or GEM + ICE, I obviously don't know, but I suspect they'll sort it out. The results on the E6 were different than the K64, so your question regarding the latter and K64 may be qluite relevant.
Frank: Yeah, I know ... and I'd love to, too, but I have to make some concessions to the dark side!
Earl
Frank: Yeah, I know ... and I'd love to, too, but I have to make some concessions to the dark side!
Earl
bmattock
Veteran
I don't know what might have caused your problems, which I'm sorry to hear about.
In general, one can say that any technology that attempts to detect and repair color, scratches, dust, noise, or grain, is going to cause some amount of loss of fidelity, regardless of how acceptable or desirable the results are. The question is usually how much the trade-off is worth.
I note that the Digital GEM Photoshop plugin offers an intentional 'soft focus' effect by moving the adjustment slider entirely from one side to the other. Perhaps this is what happened in your case.
I have never used Digital ICE, as my particular scanner does not have it. I have tried the Polaroid plug in (when I ran Windows) and found it lacking. I have also tried the Vuescan grain reduction, the Minolta software version of same, etc. Didn't care for the effect they had on overall sharpness. I hate doing it, it's a huge pain, but I fix scratches and dust by hand, at 400% enlargement, nearly pixel by pixel. I just do my best to avoid damage on my negs/slides.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
In general, one can say that any technology that attempts to detect and repair color, scratches, dust, noise, or grain, is going to cause some amount of loss of fidelity, regardless of how acceptable or desirable the results are. The question is usually how much the trade-off is worth.
I note that the Digital GEM Photoshop plugin offers an intentional 'soft focus' effect by moving the adjustment slider entirely from one side to the other. Perhaps this is what happened in your case.
I have never used Digital ICE, as my particular scanner does not have it. I have tried the Polaroid plug in (when I ran Windows) and found it lacking. I have also tried the Vuescan grain reduction, the Minolta software version of same, etc. Didn't care for the effect they had on overall sharpness. I hate doing it, it's a huge pain, but I fix scratches and dust by hand, at 400% enlargement, nearly pixel by pixel. I just do my best to avoid damage on my negs/slides.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Trius said:
From what reason ever, your lab's scanner has not the right setup for slides.
I myself used lab scans for the web for some years, from several mass labs and from the local photogs scanner too and I know how different the quality can be.
Grain reduction is necessarily payed by sharpness, but why should this be used for a 100 ISO slide film ??? Stupid answer or they wanted to get you out of the shop.
Buy your own scanner , if you want to print your scan with ink jets use a dedicated film scanner, if the scans ar for the web only a flatbed is enuff, it scans to MF nicely and even prints, sometimes on par with negs.
This way only you'll get it all under control and one day the scanner has paid itself anyway, sooner or later. My flatbed is paid after 60 films(CDs).
Regards,
bertram
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Bertram: you are right. I need a scanner; using the lab is a stopgap measure. Either a Minolta or the Nikon Coolscan V. I <b>had</b> hoped that this lab would be reliable; the other work they've done for me has been good, and it is a small operation where the owner is present and hands-on. Maybe they'll learn something from this experience and I won't have to worry in the future.
Once I get the scans back the second time, I'll post an update.
Earl
Once I get the scans back the second time, I'll post an update.
Earl
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Trius said:
My advice would be to think carefully about the ink jet printing issue. If you don't print you don't need the power of a Minolta 5400 a Nikon V.
Ink get printing is divided in two different parts, B&W and Colour.
For B&W you best use a separate printer with a bulk system, for colour a second one not too cheap. Ink is expensive, paper is expensive too , calibration of printer and monitor is difficult.
First inform yourself by experienced folks who do ( A4 and A3 !)ink jet printing for more than half a year, it's expensive and there is a looong and slow learnin curve.
The mean thing is all cartridges are parts proprietary systems, you depend on one manufacturer !Iwas told recently that a new Epson do not take bulk systems any more and in general one should write off an printer after 5years, not sure ift it will still work then or do it's duty.
Forget that all if you just want print some postcard sized color photos from time to time, it is no real prob then. A $ 300 printer will do it.
But the question then is if you need a dedicated $ 700 filmscanner for for those 4X6prints.
Take care,
Bertram
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Bertram: Yes, I know all issues. I've learned a lot here and elsewhere. I want all my options for printing open, so I want the most capable scanner I can afford.
Earl
Earl