Slide film for Coolscan IV

[joachim]

I have been scanning negatives for the past years, but Kodak pleased to discontinue my favourite product. I tried quite a bit of REALA, which I have the impression is a pig on the Nikon Coolscan. In the hope that slides are easier, I started to experiment with slides. To speed me up, any suggestions on slides which work well on the Nikon Coolscans? Pointers to samples are appreciated.

 

[minoltist7]

I have Coolscan IV. It has not the best dynamic range, and scaning images with high contrast can be a tough task. But I usually tweak shadows in Photoshop.
see samples:
this is Agfa Optima (negative)
http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/516/516150.jpg
this is Velvia 100F: shadows almost black
http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/462/462009.jpg
http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/462/462007.jpg

 

[joachim]

I have Coolscan IV. It has not the best dynamic range, and scaning images with high contrast can be a tough task. But I usually tweak shadows in Photoshop.
see samples:
this is Agfa Optima (negative)
http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/516/516150.jpg
this is Velvia 100F: shadows almost black
http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/462/462009.jpg
http://pics.photographer.ru/nonstop/pics/pictures/462/462007.jpg

Hi,

thanks for the answer. If you view the slides on a light table, is there detail in the black parts, which the coolscan lost or is the slide also black?

Ta.

 

[minoltist7]

Hi,

thanks for the answer. If you view the slides on a light table, is there detail in the black parts, which the coolscan lost or is the slide also black?

Ta.

Yes, when I look to the slides against the bright light (let's say, light bulb), I see some details in the shadows, which are lost in scans.

Probably, multiple scanning with different settings and merging in HDR program (like Photomatix) may help. I didn't try yet

 

[Robburrito]

I have a Nikon Coolscan V, and have scanned a lot of old Kodachrome without much problem, you could try that. I've also scanned Kodak Elite Chrome 200 and gotten good results. The one time I tried Velvia 50 was pretty much a disaster, had trouble getting my exposure right to begin with and then it did not scan well at all. Fuji Reala has never scanned well for me either. For print film, Kodak 400UC has given me good results.

 

[lZr]

Slides need accurate exposure. It is not easy to scan them, because slides have emphasized color brilliance we don't see on negatives. It is almost impossible to reproduce the slide brilliance and look at the digital file on LCD screen. Better on CRT monitor somewhat.

 

[joachim]

I have a Nikon Coolscan V, and have scanned a lot of old Kodachrome without much problem, you could try that. I've also scanned Kodak Elite Chrome 200 and gotten good results. The one time I tried Velvia 50 was pretty much a disaster, had trouble getting my exposure right to begin with and then it did not scan well at all. Fuji Reala has never scanned well for me either. For print film, Kodak 400UC has given me good results.

Hi,

thanks for this. I sent a roll of Elite Chrome 200 for processing yesterday and am waiting for it to return. I am curious to see how that scans. (Also one each of Velvia 100, Elite Chrome 100 and Elite Chrome 100 extra.) If the Elite Chome 200 would do well, this would be neat.

The 400UC (sold as Elite Color 400 here) is discontinued in the UK. I could still get some stock, but I do not see the point in gearing up for this any more. I have a roll of 160VC to try.

 

[joachim]

Slides need accurate exposure. It is not easy to scan them, because slides have emphasized color brilliance we don't see on negatives. It is almost impossible to reproduce the slide brilliance and look at the digital file on LCD screen. Better on CRT monitor somewhat.

Hi Lazar,

Thanks for pointing this out. I used to shoot a lot of slides for projection in the past (four years ago) and think I am reasonably comfortably with the exposure issues. I tend to bracket a lot (with a motor winding Contax G1 this is a piece of cake). I am most concerned about getting good colour easily. With Reala this is to much work (involves me using the colour wheel). Other issues are the shadows as discussed by minoltist7 - I don't want to end up with holes.

 

[Monte920]

To me, it is much easier to get satisfactory results from negatives than slides. As a matter of fact, Reala scanned images plus some tweaks in the Photoshop gave me very excellent results. If you have trouble with Reala, you probably will have more trouble when scanning the slides. Some have discussed previously, slide flims generate brilliant colors and retain details in the shadows thanks to its big dynamic range. The Coolscans, even those with multi-scan function, are not able to reproduce such wide dynamic range on the original slides. You may get the colors almost as close when compared to the originals, but overall the scanned images simply look duller than the originals. Try it, and you will know what I am talking about!!! :bang:

 

[joachim]

To me, it is much easier to get satisfactory results from negatives than slides. As a matter of fact, Reala scanned images plus some tweaks in the Photoshop gave me very excellent results. If you have trouble with Reala, you probably will have more trouble when scanning the slides. Some have discussed previously, slide flims generate brilliant colors and retain details in the shadows thanks to its big dynamic range. The Coolscans, even those with multi-scan function, are not able to reproduce such wide dynamic range on the original slides. You may get the colors almost as close when compared to the originals, but overall the scanned images simply look duller than the originals. Try it, and you will know what I am talking about!!! :bang:

Hi Monte,

thanks. I am presently waiting for my slides to come back and see where I get. If things fail, I might move back to negatives. But comparing to Kodak HD (discontinued), which scanned without to much trouble Reala is a pest. I will give Kodak 160VC a try in this case. There are not many choices left these days 🙁

 

[kaiyen]

I actually prefer scanning slides. I, too, have a Nikon IV, and if I scan with Vuescan set to Image rather than Slide I get something very, very close to what I can see with a 10x loupe on a lightbox. Not much loss in shadows, but there is some. If I were worried about shadow detail to that much extent, I would indeed shoot negative film, but I like not having to deal with color correction.

Shooting Astia works best for me as it has more latitude. Provia is a nice middle ground between Astia and Velvia.

 

[joachim]

I actually prefer scanning slides. I, too, have a Nikon IV, and if I scan with Vuescan set to Image rather than Slide I get something very, very close to what I can see with a 10x loupe on a lightbox. Not much loss in shadows, but there is some. If I were worried about shadow detail to that much extent, I would indeed shoot negative film, but I like not having to deal with color correction.

Shooting Astia works best for me as it has more latitude. Provia is a nice middle ground between Astia and Velvia.

Hi,

thanks, I also have vuescan. I will remember the image setting when I give it a go. Still waiting for my rolls to come back.