Can anyone please help me identify the color problem in these these scanned TIFFs?

Death's Shadow

A
Death's Shadow

  • 1
  • 2
  • 39
Friends in the Vondelpark

A
Friends in the Vondelpark

  • 1
  • 0
  • 68
S/S 2025

A
S/S 2025

  • 0
  • 0
  • 67
Street art

A
Street art

  • 1
  • 0
  • 61
20250427_154237.jpg

D
20250427_154237.jpg

  • 2
  • 0
  • 84

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,452
Messages
2,759,326
Members
99,374
Latest member
llorcaa
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,279
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
The light source is IR infrared and requires a second scan (doubling scan time) with it to compare images. Those marks that only appear on the IR scan are removed. The problem with Kodachrome and BW films is that they are thicker and have grains in the layers that appear as marks. That's why you can;t use ICE with them. You have to use ICE only with Chromes like Ektachrome or chromogenic BW films. I;m not sure about Tmax and other similar films. or color negative film. Others will have to chime in.
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,415
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
The light source is IR infrared and requires a second scan (doubling scan time) with it to compare images. Those marks that only appear on the IR scan are removed. The problem with Kodachrome and BW films is that they are thicker and have grains in the layers that appear as marks. That's why you can;t use ICE with them. You have to use ICE only with Chromes like Ektachrome or chromogenic BW films. I;m not sure about Tmax and other similar films. or color negative film. Others will have to chime in.

You can scan Kodachrome with ICE using Coolscans (V, 5000 and 9000) + Nikonscan compared to the Epson V500. The aberrations are most prominent around the high contrast transitions - dark and light overlaps, as you can see below.

Effectiveness of ICE on Kodachrome by Les DMess, on Flickr

Notice this on the exhaust and shadow area. Very visible on the Epson scan, only visible with high magnifications on the 5000 and perfect with the 9000.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,279
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
You can scan Kodachrome with ICE using Coolscans (V, 5000 and 9000) + Nikonscan compared to the Epson V500. The aberrations are most prominent around the high contrast transitions - dark and light overlaps, as you can see below.

Effectiveness of ICE on Kodachrome by Les DMess, on Flickr

Notice this on the exhaust and shadow area. Very visible on the Epson scan, only visible with high magnifications on the 5000 and perfect with the 9000.

Why can't Epson scanners do it?
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,415
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
Why can't Epson scanners do it?

I didn't say you can't just that the results may not be ideal. I am assuming that when you said "That's why you can;t use ICE with them." that you've tried it yourself on your Epson flatbeds since I believe you have two of them?

The Canoscan FS4000 dedicated film scanner - and other models, uses FARE instead of ICE and the results are completely incoherent according to samples posted by the user.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,279
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I didn't say you can't just that the results may not be ideal. I am assuming that when you said "That's why you can;t use ICE with them." that you've tried it yourself on your Epson flatbeds since I believe you have two of them?

The Canoscan FS4000 dedicated film scanner - and other models, uses FARE instead of ICE and the results are completely incoherent according to samples posted by the user.

No, I haven't tried ICE on film not recommended by Epson to use it on. Frankly, I don't use ICE on film I can use it on. I find it's not perfect. So I have to go back in editing afterward to clone out the remaining dust and other spots. So I keep ICE off and I just do it all the spotting myself. Maybe I should try using ICE again. With my V850, I notice I have a lot more dust than on my older V600.

In any case, why would Epson tell us not to use it on certain films if it works? What's the point scanning with ICE and getting weird results?
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,415
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
No, I haven't tried ICE on film not recommended by Epson to use it on. Frankly, I don't use ICE on film I can use it on. I find it's not perfect. So I have to go back in editing afterward to clone out the remaining dust and other spots. So I keep ICE off and I just do it all the spotting myself. Maybe I should try using ICE again. With my V850, I notice I have a lot more dust than on my older V600.

In any case, why would Epson tell us not to use it on certain films if it works? What's the point scanning with ICE and getting weird results?

You could say I'm from the Show Me State. For entertainment purposes just to see just how good or bad it is . . . 😉

I owned a few Epsons and never saw it specifically stated not to use ICE on Kodachrome until just now.

I knew someone on another forum who shot nothing but Kodachrome and scanned tens of thousands of frames with the FS4000. Even after he eventually acquired the Coolscan 9000, he still continued to not use ICE. He said spotting the scans was good for the soul.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,279
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
You could say I'm from the Show Me State. For entertainment purposes just to see just how good or bad it is . . . 😉

I owned a few Epsons and never saw it specifically stated not to use ICE on Kodachrome until just now.

I knew someone on another forum who shot nothing but Kodachrome and scanned tens of thousands of frames with the FS4000. Even after he eventually acquired the Coolscan 9000, he still continued to not use ICE. He said spotting the scans was good for the soul.
It's how you feel after you finally clean your house. 😏
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
For the Coolscan (V, 5000 and 9000) Nikonscan ICE was licensed from ASF (Applied Science Fiction) which was acquired by Kodak shortly after. I recall that Ed Hamrick (Vuescan) didn't have the license and therefore couldn't use this in the software back then. I don't know if that has since changed.

My excellent Coolscan V seems to continue to use ICE without mentioning that is what's going on. It remains far faster than the Minolta thang ever did.

It has never made any sense to try to turn off ICE and Vuescan doesn't offer that as an option.

Coolscan V has always done a good job with all sorts of B&W film despite the folklore.

It also scans Kodachrome nicely though has trouble with some paint colors.

Kodachrome Nikonscans are great for B&W via NIK using standard dropdowns.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
You could say I'm from the Show Me State. For entertainment purposes just to see just how good or bad it is . . . 😉

I owned a few Epsons and never saw it specifically stated not to use ICE on Kodachrome until just now.

I knew someone on another forum who shot nothing but Kodachrome and scanned tens of thousands of frames with the FS4000. Even after he eventually acquired the Coolscan 9000, he still continued to not use ICE. He said spotting the scans was good for the soul.

FS4000 wasn't the peak of Nikon scanning. It was a great scanner but wasn't nearly as good as V or 5000.

Epson never said "to not use ICE on Kodachrome." Fake news.

Few are aware that Kodachrome went through big changes around the time E6 was being introduced and that was not noticed by anybody who merely used it for slide shows.
 

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,045
Location
Gainesville, FL
Format
Multi Format
The light source is IR infrared and requires a second scan (doubling scan time) with it to compare images. Those marks that only appear on the IR scan are removed. The problem with Kodachrome and BW films is that they are thicker and have grains in the layers that appear as marks. That's why you can;t use ICE with them. You have to use ICE only with Chromes like Ektachrome or chromogenic BW films. I;m not sure about Tmax and other similar films. or color negative film. Others will have to chime in.

The problem with Kodachrome and B&W film is they still have the silver on the substrate, and that reflects the IR in whacky ways, and confuses the heck out of the scanner.

With C41 film, the silver is completely removed during the developing process, so ICE/iSRD works just fine.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,279
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
The problem with Kodachrome and B&W film is they still have the silver on the substrate, and that reflects the IR in whacky ways, and confuses the heck out of the scanner.

With C41 film, the silver is completely removed during the developing process, so ICE/iSRD works just fine.

So why does it work with Nikon scanners?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,937
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
The problem with Kodachrome and B&W film is they still have the silver on the substrate, and that reflects the IR in whacky ways, and confuses the heck out of the scanner.

Correct for B&W, but I don't think this is true for Kodachrome.
The problem with Kodachrome is that its emulsion layers are so thin and, due to the way that they are populated with colour information, they actually create a physical relief - you can even see it with the naked eye. ICE and the other dust removal technologies are designed to detect and remove the effect of physical abnormalities in or on the surface of the film. The physical relief on the Kodachrome transparencies doesn't work well with that.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,279
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
FS4000 wasn't the peak of Nikon scanning. It was a great scanner but wasn't nearly as good as V or 5000.

Epson never said "to not use ICE on Kodachrome." Fake news.

Few are aware that Kodachrome went through big changes around the time E6 was being introduced and that was not noticed by anybody who merely used it for slide shows.

The Epson V600 scanner manual says the following: See the picture for the exceptions and which films are covered.

* Kodachrome film is not supported.
** Only chromogenic monochrome negative film is supported.
 

Attachments

  • Clipboard01.jpg
    Clipboard01.jpg
    111 KB · Views: 78

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,415
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
FS4000 wasn't the peak of Nikon scanning. It was a great scanner but wasn't nearly as good as V or 5000.

Epson never said "to not use ICE on Kodachrome." Fake news.

Few are aware that Kodachrome went through big changes around the time E6 was being introduced and that was not noticed by anybody who merely used it for slide shows.

Just to clarify, the Canoscan FS4000 was a Canon film scanner. The Coolscan LS4000 is of course the Nikon product and looking at pictures of it, it does have a ASF Digital ICE 3 label on it while the V, 5000 & 9000 has ASF Digital ICE 4.

I didn't shoot much Kodachrome myself but I did scan some from other folks collection that were from the 50's, 60's, 90's and 2000 as I also heard of these changes.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
The light source is IR infrared and requires a second scan (doubling scan time) with it to compare images. Those marks that only appear on the IR scan are removed. The problem with Kodachrome and BW films is that they are thicker and have grains in the layers that appear as marks. That's why you can;t use ICE with them. You have to use ICE only with Chromes like Ektachrome or chromogenic BW films. I;m not sure about Tmax and other similar films. or color negative film. Others will have to chime in.

Not correct for Nikon V
 
  • jtk
  • jtk
  • Deleted

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
Wonder why Epson never (until recently?) made a good 35mm film scanner? I bought several nice iterations of BetterScanning.com 35mm film holders.

I did some great photo restoration work with a (?) 3200 ...excellent with antique roll film negatives.
 

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,045
Location
Gainesville, FL
Format
Multi Format
Correct for B&W, but I don't think this is true for Kodachrome.

Taken from SilverFast's site:

A special case regarding dust and scratch removal are black and white film and Kodachrome film. Unlike color slides or color negatives, the scanner’s infrared rays can not permeate through the film emulsion, due to the silver halide layer contained in the film. This means that infrared based tools like iSRD, ICE, FARE or MagicTouch can not be used here.

SRDx, our software-based dust and scratch removal, has been developed especially for these cases. SRDx ensures an effective removal of dust and scratches even for B/W film and Kodachromes.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,937
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
SilverFast has the reason wrong.
The Wikipedia article on Kodachrome has it correct about the problems with scanning Kodachrome and the nature of developed Kodachrome:

"Many scanners use an additional infrared channel to detect defects, as the long wave infrared radiation passes through the film but not through dust particles. Dust, scratches, and fingerprints on the slide are typically detected and removed by a scanner's software. Kodachrome interacts with this infrared channel in two ways. The absorption of the cyan dye extends into the near infrared region, making this layer opaque to infrared radiation.[41] Kodachrome also has a pronounced relief image that can affect the infrared channel. These effects can sometimes cause a slight loss of sharpness in the scanned image when Digital ICE or a similar infrared channel dust removal function is used.[42]

Processing of Kodachrome films

Kodachrome, and other non-substantive films, unlike most color films, required complex processing that could not practicably be carried out by amateurs.[43] The process underwent four significant alterations since its inception.[44] The final version of the process, designated K-14, was introduced in 1974. The process was complex and exacting, requiring technicians with extensive chemistry training and large, complex machinery. This is because most color films contain dye couplers in the film itself; during development the couplers react with the developer to form the dyes that form the final image. Kodachrome film has no such couplers; instead the dyes are formed on the film by a complex processing sequence that required four different developers; one black and white developer, and three color developers. Normal color film requires just one developer. Also, processing Kodachrome film requires 8 or more tanks of processing chemicals, each of which must be precisely controlled for concentration, temperature and agitation, resulting in very complex processing equipment with precise chemical control, no small feat for small processing companies.[45]

The first step in the process was the removal of the antihalation backing with an alkaline solution and wash. The film was then developed using a developer containing phenidone and hydroquinone, which formed three superimposed negative images, one for each primary color.[44] After the first developer was washed out, the film underwent re-exposure and redevelopment. Re-exposure fogged the silver halides that were not developed in the first developer, limiting development to one layer at a time. A color developer then developed the fogged image, and its exhaustion products reacted with a color coupler to form a dye in the color complementary to the layer's sensitivity. The red-sensitive layer was re-exposed through the base of the film with red light, then redeveloped forming cyan dye. The blue-sensitive layer was re-exposed through the emulsion side of the film with blue light, then redeveloped forming yellow dye. The green-sensitive layer was redeveloped with a developer that chemically fogged it and formed magenta dye.[44] After color development, the metallic silver was converted to silver halide using a bleach solution. The film was then fixed, making these silver halides soluble and leaving only the final dye image. The final steps were to wash the film to remove residual chemicals which might cause deterioration of the dye image, then to dry, cut, and mount the film in slide frames.[44]
"

I've highlighted the part that references the fact that the metallic silver is/was converted to silver halide and then the silver halide is/was fixed away, leaving only the dye image.

If silver halides were left in the film after development, then Kodachrome would offer very limited longevity because silver halides are relatively unstable.
If metallic silver was left in the film after development that would be problematic with respect to projection.

As far as the IR absorption of the cyan dye in Kodachrome affecting ICE is concerned, I'm not sure that there is unanimous agreement about how important that is to how well ICE works for a film that has other problems with ICE.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
Thank you Matt for that exhaustive Wiki entry.

I don't find (my experience) that ICE makes Nikon scanners unusable with "Kodachrome" (there were at least 3 different Kodachrome iterations, one of which began well after 1974) AND they're exceptionally good with the various B&W films I've scanned, in particular Ilford HP4 and Kodak 2475 recording film (lovely grain).

It's absurd for the Wiki to even hint that heat "might cause deterioration" because as we all must know, Kodachrome is/was all about heat-mounted slides in hot Kodak projectors and its longevity in careless storage is phenomenally good.

I mentioned that ICE caused a scanning issue with some paint colors, but I've never seen that problem in "natural" images, such as flowers, rocks etc. Can't comment on skin tones.
 

jtk

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
4,943
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Format
35mm
Sadly, Epson seems never to have put their brains into film holders: using several versions of BetterScanning film holders even my long discarded Epson 3200 scanner could make almost-good scans from 35mm and that was decades ago.


fwiw I think Epson's shortcoming, even today, has to do with its dedication to combo-style machinery and cheap construction rather than to film-dedicated design.
 

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,045
Location
Gainesville, FL
Format
Multi Format
SilverFast has the reason wrong.

I get what you're saying, and I read the same wikipedia article. On the other hand, SilverFast is supposed to be experts on their own software, so I'll let you take it up with them.

Personally, I have no kodachrome to scan, so it's a moot issue for me. But, in simplest terms, neither Kodachrome nor B&W will work with infrared dust removal, because both block infrared wavelengths.

It's absurd for the Wiki to even hint that heat "might cause deterioration" because as we all must know, Kodachrome is/was all about heat-mounted slides in hot Kodak projectors and its longevity in careless storage is phenomenally good.

Where did it say that?
 

Les Sarile

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
3,415
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Format
35mm
I get what you're saying, and I read the same wikipedia article. On the other hand, SilverFast is supposed to be experts on their own software, so I'll let you take it up with them.

Personally, I have no kodachrome to scan, so it's a moot issue for me. But, in simplest terms, neither Kodachrome nor B&W will work with infrared dust removal, because both block infrared wavelengths.

Where did it say that?
Apparently, only the Nikon Coolscans have an implementation of ICE that works with Kodachrome - with the Coolscan 9000 being perfect. Here's another Kodachrome from the early 60's and I compare DSLR scanning (no ICE at all) with the Coolscan 9000.

Kodachrome D800-Coolscan by Les DMess, on Flickr
 

grat

Member
Joined
May 8, 2020
Messages
2,045
Location
Gainesville, FL
Format
Multi Format
I wonder if it has to do with the wavelength of the ir emitter? Perhaps 850nm or 940nm would work, but not 720nm.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom