Kodakchrome is a little difficult to scan but it do fine with some
adjustment. I only have one roll of Kodakchrome in my life,
just picked a few and scanned here:
K64 with OM camera and lenses of course, in 1990 (scanned w/4000ED):
This two need quite some color adjustments:
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/K64-01.jpg (w/o the permission from my wife to
post :-))
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/K64-03.jpg
For this one only simple level and curve used (with warm evening light):
http://www.accura.com.hk/temp/K64-02.jpg
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Wajsman"
>I found the images nice and interesting, but I too thought that some
> of them looked flat. I was a big user of Kodachrome during my film
> days too, especially when I lived in Switzerland between 2000 and 2003
> and could have it processed with a turnaround of a few days (the lab
> was in Lausanne). But I can understand why Kodak discontinued it. It
> is a bitch to scan, as you mention, not only with the Sprintscan but
> also with the Nikon scanner that I used. Kodachrome really comes into
> its own when viewed with a good quality loupe on a light table or on a
> good slide projector like the Leica Pradovit. But it does not fare
> well in the digital realm. For those who prefer to shoot film and scan
> it, there are several E6 options that work much better.
>
> Nathan
>
> Nathan Wajsman
> Alicante, Spain
> http://www.frozenlight.eu
> http://www.greatpix.eu
> http://www.nathanfoto.com
>
> Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
>
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
>> Thanks for looking, Ling. Vuescan produces a scan that is quite low
>> in contrast, which is better than the opposite, so I could probably
>> still improve the images and work with several images to improve
>> contrast. The profile just gives me a limited starting point, so I
>> don't follow it slavishly other than that. Kodachrome is notoriously
>> difficulty to scan with the Sprintscan, for some reason. I'm just
>> trying to get the scans into the ballpark, so to speak.
>>
>> I don't have a color histogram once leaving Vuescan, but I did notice
>> that I have needed to pull back blue in a number of scans. I have to
>> do some increase of saturation to get the correct impression of light
>> intensity in many cases, including 123. I agree that one is not quite
>> right. I also did some perspective correction on that one as well.
>>
>> I work up the images in AdobeRGB and convert only for web images.
>> Perhaps there is some issue with that as well. Thanks for the
>> feedback.
>>
>> Joel W.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:13 AM, C.H.Ling<ch_photo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>> Joel, there are some nice shots, I especially like 129, thanks for
>>> sharing.
>>>
>>> On a few of them I found the contrast a little low, they seem not
>>> reproducing the actual scenes like 110 and 114. The shadow tone of
>>> some are
>>> shifted like 123 (with blue clipping). I don't know if this is a
>>> profile
>>> issue, I never trust one profile can suit all even on the same roll
>>> of film,
>>> I just trust my eyes, histrogram and RGB values.
>>>
>>> C.H.Ling
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Joel Wilcox"
>>>
>>>> When Kodak announced the end of Kodachrome, I went to my film
>>>> freezer
>>>> to find 15 remaining rolls, 11 of which was KM25. This film has
>>>> been
>>>> frozen, thawed, and refrozen several times. Last summer when I
>>>> turned
>>>> off the electricity before evacuating our home during the flood, I
>>>> forgot about my film freezer. Basically, the film sat in a
>>>> defrosted
>>>> refrigerator for a month. Fortunately, all the film was in ziplock
>>>> bags within their plastic canisters. Still. This film doesn't
>>>> owe me
>>>> anything at this point.
>>>>
>>>> I decided, mostly in light of Dwayne's announcement about
>>>> discontinuing processing after 2010, to shoot the Kodachrome until
>>>> it
>>>> is gone, concentrating on normal scenes around my home and environs.
>>>> I am documenting places and things I pass everyday, or often, as a
>>>> time capsule on film. Within that stricture, I am also trying to
>>>> follow the best light to get the best results for this magic-hour
>>>> film.
>>>>
>>>> To my eyes, the film looks no worse for the wear. I am pleased in
>>>> that I think that I am the weak link in this project. Judge for
>>>> yourself.
>>>>
>>>> For this first roll, I shot every frame with my OM-4 using fast
>>>> Zuikos
>>>> (28/2, 50/1.2, and 85/2) as all were handheld shots with KM25. A
>>>> lot
>>>> of f4 in the mix. Multispot metering for each frame and no
>>>> bracketing. I metered very carefully with apparent success, if I
>>>> may
>>>> say so. The OM-4 is really made for shooting slide film
>>>> economically!
>>>>
>>>> Scanning via Polaroid Sprintscan 4000. Vuescan software. I boosted
>>>> color brightness for red and decreased it for blue to get color
>>>> balance matching the film, plus a basic curves adjustment that seems
>>>> to work well for all scans, so these settings have been saved as a
>>>> profile (.ini file) in Vuescan. In Photoshop, the highlight-shadow
>>>> tool has been invaluable, not so much to pull up shadows but to
>>>> match
>>>> the dynamic range of the film more closely, particularly important
>>>> for
>>>> the highlights.
>>>>
>>>> The scans are mostly full-frame renditions of the actual slide,
>>>> without serious cropping or adjustments, but there are exceptions
>>>> where, for example, persepctive adjustment at the moment of shooting
>>>> may have left a large vacant area at the bottom of the frame, etc.
>>>> Here and there I have done a bit of perspective correction in
>>>> software
>>>> as well, particularly if my in-camera correction was not quite
>>>> perfect. Sharpening was done using two light passes to get the
>>>> original scan into some kind of basic shape and once with a very
>>>> light
>>>> pass of the web image through Intellisharpen.
>>>>
>>>> Warning: Flickr link:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/99378213@N00/sets/72157621744074263/
>>>>
>>>> I suggest finding the "slideshow" link on the page to view these.
>>>> Once the slideshow is underway, click "Options" to make certain
>>>> "embiggen" is NOT clicked. Then you'll be able to see the film
>>>> scans
>>>> at the size intended (around 800 pixels on the long side).
>>>>
>>>> Kodachrome forever ... (sniff)
>>>>
>>>> Joel W.
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
