Thanks, Moose. Most of the Guatemalan people that I'm photographing do
have very coarse, sunburned skin from spending their lives outside in the
brutal Central American sun. The main problems we see in the clinics are
skin problems, eye problems - cataracts, also from the sun, respiratory
problems from the smoke in their houses, and indigestion from their diets.
Skin problems are probably #1.
You can see some of it here in another in-camera scan:
http://www.pbase.com/image/147221931
I'm still working on the Kodachrome and have upgraded to the latest
Silverfast, version 8. It's got a steep learning curve! I do have the KC
target and am working with that. I would much prefer to use the scanner
instead of the camera. For hundreds of thousands of slides, doing each one
in the camera is hard to think about!
Tina
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 10:55 AM, Tina Manley wrote:
> > PESO:
> >
> > A different approach. Instead of scanning with the Nikon LS5000, I used
> > the Beseler Slide Duplicator and took a macro photo of the Kodachrome
> > slide, using the DMR.
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/image/147219253
> >
> > Opinions, please!
>
> First, what is yours? When you view the slide on a daylight balanced light
> table or viewer, how does it compare to this
> scan on your monitor?
>
> My guess is that it's a lot closer than the scans you've been getting,
> simply because this is the first one I've seen
> that looks 'right'
>
> I've been wondering if the skin colors of the native peoples in Guatemala
> are really different, and the textures more
> blotchy, than those of central Mexico or Costa Rica. Since I've never seen
> or photographed these people of Guatemala, I
> didn't feel I could comment.
>
> Now I look at this image and something says, "Yes, that looks right."
> Identical, no, but like variations, not a mongrel
> mix with some sort of ETs.
>
> Robert suggests it may be over saturated. Hard to say, but it IS
> Guatemala, with their love of strong colors, and they
> ARE shot in Kodachrome. "You give us those nice bright colors "*
>
> More to the point, they look like colors that could exist in real dyed
> cotton and real vegetables, and if they are
> slightly over saturated, that's all that's wrong with them.
>
> As I keep saying, there's just something 'whack' in your scanning process.
> And it IS fixable. There are people who have
> and ARE making excellent scans of Kodachrome, some of them with Nikon
> scanners and Silverfast software.
>
> It appears to me that you have made the classic mistake I have made so
> often in my life of rushing to proceed with the
> job before the prep work is finished.
>
> Somewhere, I saw a program about a renaissance artist. His paint creation
> room was almost as big as his painting room,
> and had better light. It seemed he may have spent about as much time
> there, grinding and mixing, as he did painting.
>
> Ever watch a real expert house painter, plasterer, wallpaper hanger? Prep
> is the basis of everything that happens right
> later.
>
> I wish we lived closer to each other. I'd love to spend some time with
> your hardware and software. I know from personal
> experience that clean, properly exposed scans of Kodachrome can be easily
> made. I also think the color is good;
> certainly truer than what you've been showing up until now with a
> completely different process..
>
> I also know from experience that scanning with a color profile from a shot
> of an IT8 target directly skips lots of
> otherwise necessary post processing on the way to a true color image with
> correct contrast, as well. I've posted it
> before, over and over, but, EVERY difference between these images is a
> result of using a color profile vs. none in the
> scanning process. There is NO post processing, no bits were bent, so
> sliders slid, other than downsampling, in any of
> the images.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Scan/VuesProf/>
> It rained today and I just went out and looked at our little lemon tree.
> The lemons look like the color profiled image.
> (Unfortunately, the leaves are going a bit yellow, time to feed again. The
> cost of keeping it in a pot, so it won't get
> too big.)
>
> But that personal experience is with a Canon film scanner and VueScan. And
> my experience with scanning with a color
> profile doesn't include Kodachrome. So I know enough in general to know
> that you can get great scans, but not enough in
> particular to be able to say just how.
>
> I have, BTW, used a slide duplicator and Canon 5D to copy late 30s - early
> 40s Kodachrome slides, and compared them to
> film scans of the same slides with the FS4000, using VS's built-in
> Kodachrome setting. The colors were very, very
> similar, MUCH more so than this copy of yours is to your scans.
>
> True Color Moose
>
> * Paul knew"
>
> Kodachrome
> You give us those nice bright colors
> You give us the greens of summers
> Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!
> I got a [Leica] camera
> [And a Nikon scanner]
> I love to take a photograph
> So Mama, don't take my Kodachrome away
>
> >
> > Tina
> >
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|