Scanning Kodachrome

[wakarimasen]

Hello Folks,

I have just received my developed slides from a roll of Kodachrome, which I used for the first time earlier in the year. Whilst I am blown away by the quality of the slides (and seriously considering never using colour negatives again) I don't seem to be able to scan them particularly well on my Scan Dual II. Does anyone have any tips?

Best regards,
RoyM

 

[35photo]

Hello Folks,

I have just received my developed slides from a roll of Kodachrome, which I used for the first time earlier in the year. Whilst I am blown away by the quality of the slides (and seriously considering never using colour negatives again) I don't seem to be able to scan them particularly well on my Scan Dual II. Does anyone have any tips?

Best regards,
RoyM

You need to buy a Kodachrome target to calibrate your scanner with. Not cheap $50...its the only way to get the color RIGHT!

 

[hanskerensky]

Hi Roy,

Is the Scan Dual II equiped with an Infrared Dust Removal function ? That could cause problems with Kodachrome slides which still contain silver salts. I scanned some hundred Kodachrome slides with a Nikon Coolscan IV and sometimes had to switch the ICE function off.

 

[srichmond]

I use a Nikon 9000 and got pretty good results by turning on the digital GEM:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/quixotic54/sets/72157623095455167/

 

[Dwig]

...I don't seem to be able to scan them particularly well on my Scan Dual II...

Exactly why do you think you are not scanning them well? What "flaws" in the resulting images leads you to think that your scanning technique is at issue?

One thing you need to understand is that absolutely no reproduction method (type-R print, type-C print using an interneg, dye transfer print, digital print from a scan, monitor display from a scan, ...) can ever reproduce all of the characteristics of a slide seen in a viewer or with a lupe on a light box.

 

[wakarimasen]

Hello Gents,
Thanks for the replies. I didn't get a notification, hence the delay in responding.
I'm sure that the Scan Dual II has no ICE, so that shouldn't be causing a problem.
As for the question of 'why are they not being scanned well,' I guess I may be guilty of simply comparing the scan to the slide and finding it wanting. The scans are definitely not as sharp, the colours not so vivid, and overall the images are lacking 'punch.'
I read somewhere that Kodachrome produces 'muddy' scans without some significant effort. Perhaps I just need to put a little more elbow grease in!
Best regards,
RoyM

 

[literiter]

I use a Nikon Coolscan 9000. I found it will scan Kodachromes beautifully at good resolution by using the scanner's "Kodachrome" mode. I tried in the "positive" scanning mode for E6 and made trash of the scan.

I have no idea of the technology that would differentiate between Kodachome and E6....but here seems to be a big one as far as my scanner is concerned.

 

[Knarxx]

SilverFast helps here

SilverFast helps here

You need to buy a Kodachrome target to calibrate your scanner with. Not cheap $50...its the only way to get the color RIGHT!

Correct, color calibration is essential, LaserSoft Imaging offers quality Kodachrome targets. The Kodachrome features of scanner software SilverFast are very useful too, no color casts, highly detailed scans and even dust and scratch removal is possible. Some info: http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/kodachrome/en.html

 

[dmr]

I use the Scan Dual IV and I've had excellent results scanning Kodachrome. Some samples are in the gallery.

I've found that the real "secret" to scanning is attention to detail. Be sure you have a well-exposed clean slide. A poor slide will not make a good scan. GIGO! Dust it off. 🙂

For a scan which I want to make a quality print of, I always scan at max res, 16 bits, and 4 passes or so. It make a humongous file, but that can be cut down when editing.

I always do very little tweaking with the scan software, just levels and such if they appear to be off, and only if really needed. I've found that I get better results doing the tweaking "in post" with Photoshop.

I've done some very stunning prints from Kodachrome slides scanned on the SD IV.

 

[wakarimasen]

Thanks gents - I'll keep plugging away.
Best regards,
RoyM

 

[dmr]

Thanks gents

Gents?

You don't know me very well, do you? 🙂

 

[wakarimasen]

Gents?

You don't know me very well, do you? 🙂

Oh dear .... and I was doing so well :bang:

Thanks for your help folks!

Best regards (from a chastened)
RoyM

 

[dmr]

Oh dear .... and I was doing so well :bang:

Thanks for your help folks!

Best regards (from a chastened)
RoyM

ROFL! 🙂

..........

 

[Steve M.]

There's no reason that Kodachrome would produce a muddy scan. A transparency is a transparency is a transparency. Are you scanning them as a positive and not a negative? I never had any issues w/ a Scan Dual III and slide film, but remember, your scan is simply your starting point. Open your file in PS, do an Auto Levels and Auto Color and they will probably pop into life. Then you'll have to go to Curves, play w/ Levels, Contrast, Saturation, and then sharpen it up. You have to post process quite a bit to get a good image, but it doesn't take long at all.

My best scans from your scanner were from scanning as a color neg (but you'll want to go w/ a positive for slides), 48 BIT color, and resample at 4X. I suggest you use one slide as a test and scan it into a folder using every setting possible, post process the scans to the best of your ability, and compare them to see which is the best way to go.

 

[OMboy]

Hi Roy

I use a Nikon Coolscan IV ED and there are two settings in the Nikon software for positive (E6) scanning - one for Kodachrome and one for everything else.

35photo and Knarxx hit the nail on the head I reckon - the scanner or software needs to be calibrated for Kodachrome and the Nikon software conveniently has a Kodachrome calibrated setting.

One other thing to note - it is important to present the correct side of the slide to the scanner lens. In my IV ED the slides have to be loaded emulsion (dull) side downwards.
Maybe try scanning a slide both sides and see if one way is a vast improvement.

 

[iamzip]

If you buy the silverfast software for your scanner, certain versions even have a kodachrome profile built in. You can download free trial software from the website and see if it improves your scans.

 

[Lilserenity]

I have never had a Scan Dual II, but I have used a Coolscan III and now an LS2000 (Super Coolscan 2000) which are perhaps even a bit older than the Scan Dual II.

The LS2000 is similar to the Scan Dual's specs and I get wonderful results from the LS2000 so in theory I'd have thought the Scan Dual would be good enough; it was certainly well regarded enough in the day.

Have you projected the slides? This may help you see better whether the slides are underexposed. It sounds obvious but Kodachrome is notoriously fickle about underexposure and 1 stop is often more than enough to either make or break a shot. Mostly you've got 1/2 a stop of play at very most in my experience.

I use VueScan and that works well for me for Kodachrome. The IT8 target will help you get accurate colours but not necessarily help with the muddiness of the scan.

I found this review of the SDIII here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSEIII/DSEIIIA.HTM - in it they try scanning a very contrasty slide of a train -- there may be some tips of what you can do to boost the shadow detail or reduce the grain in the shadows, I think the SD II and III were largely similar.

If this is the first time you are using Kodachrome (and isn't it just so horrid that this stuff is no longer made!) and scanning, it might just be your exposure needs a bit of work on. You might get away with 1/2 a stop under on projection, but that can make a big difference to a scanner with Kodachrome.

Here's an example:

This: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4507422736/
Is a shot that is 1/3rd a stop underexposed. It was a high contrast scene anyway, but shooting this accidentally at an effective ISO 80 (I use a Leica MR meter, and to some extent you have to interpret the needle's proximity to other stop markings if it's close to them...) -- the result is a scan that is passable but the shadows have immediately blocked up on a scan. Projected this is passable and there is some shadow detail. However projected, there's a 150W light bulb, and in the scanner 3 LEDs in my case!

This: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lilserenity/4504101150
Is a properly exposed Coolscan LS2000 scan (left) and 9900F flatbed (right) -- seeing as the Scan Dual II isn't too dissimilar in raw specs to the LS2000 you should get good results with absolutely nailed exposures.

Also I've not IT8 calibrated. Maybe I should, but I got on how the slides are projected and then tweak the scan to that look.

So my consideration here would be the exposure of those slides,

Vicky

 

[wakarimasen]

Hello Folks,

Thanks for all of your comments - how does this one look?

Best regards
RoyM

 

[AndrewNYC]

Look nice!

Look nice!

I use a Nikon 9000 and got pretty good results by turning on the digital GEM:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/quixotic54/sets/72157623095455167/

Can you share how strong you are setting the GEM? Also, did you use ROC or Digital Scan Enhancer?

 

[maclaine]

Lots of good tips in this thread, many of which I've tried before. I started scanning using a crappy HP flatbed on moved up to an Epson V500 a few months ago. I was initially using Vuescan, but ended up buying Silverfast, which I don't regret at all. The "Kodachrome" setting is useful as a starting point, but I don't find it to be too exact.

The truth is, every shortcut I've tried has never really given me much success, and the best scans I've gotten from it are when I scan it at a HUGE resolution (4000dpi sometimes, if I'm feeling adventurous), clean up all the dust, then sit there with the slide on my light box and a loupe and manually adjust the colors and levels in Photoshop until it looks as close as I can get it. It's a gigantic pain in the ass, but I'm pretty OCD about trying to "get it right" if I'm going to go to the trouble of scanning it. As a side benefit, I've learned TONS about color casts, complimentary colors, and all the various ways to adjust color using PS along the way, and whereas color adjustments used to be a total mystery to me, I can now look at a scan and figure out what the cast is and how to adjust it pretty quickly.

Still, while I love color slides and Kodachrome in particular, I have hundreds of slides I've never bothered scanning because the process is just too much for me sometimes. Black and white is so much easier, in comparison, and even with that I'm totally OCD about getting as much detail out of the negative and cleaning up every last bit of dust.

Here are some examples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maclaine/4369176089/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maclaine/4071457462/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maclaine/4189071675/


This one is actually K200, which I miss dearly

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maclaine/3105301727/