Kodachrome scanning

[PhilBurton]

Silverfast claims to have a special Kodachome scanning mode. Are the results with Silverfast so much better than with VueScan, to make me want to spend more for Silverfast than for VueScan? I have at least twenty thousand (or more) 35 mm Kodachrome slides (before culling) to scan so Kodachrome scanning is a key issue for me.

If I managed to get an IT8 target for Kodachrome, would I get better results for Kodachrome scans using either scanning software? Or is the built-in support in Silverfast for Kodachrome good enough.

Phil Burton

 

[peter k.]

Never have used VueScan so cannot compare. Had to scan over 200 Kodachrome using Silverfast for an artist friends book, and the scans were excellent, and they met his high levels of criteria. .

 

[Arklatexian]

Silverfast claims to have a special Kodachome scanning mode. Are the results with Silverfast so much better than with VueScan, to make me want to spend more for Silverfast than for VueScan? I have at least twenty thousand (or more) 35 mm Kodachrome slides (before culling) to scan so Kodachrome scanning is a key issue for me.

If I managed to get an IT8 target for Kodachrome, would I get better results for Kodachrome scans using either scanning software? Or is the built-in support in Silverfast for Kodachrome good enough.

Phil Burton

For what it's worth, I had over a thousand plus Kodachrome and Agfachrome slides that I wanted to make 4x6 color prints from so I bought an Epson scanner and Epson Photo printer in order to save money. They did an excellent job and I did save money. I also figured the prints would last far longer than trusting any computer "archived" endeavor. The quality of the prints were excellent. Better than most of the prints that I had ever had made from any slides. Had to quit after a thousand or so prints. Wife said we had run out of space for 4x6 prints. She was correct, as usual.......Regards!

 

[MattKing]

The biggest challenge with scanning Kodachrome is that the very thin nature of the emulsion layers results in the Kodachrome slides having a distinct physical relief. Many of the IR based dust removal systems have problems with that relief.

 

[PhilBurton]

Never have used VueScan so cannot compare. Had to scan over 200 Kodachrome using Silverfast for an artist friends book, and the scans were excellent, and they met his high levels of criteria. .

Thanks for the reply.

Do you remember if you used the Kodachrome settings with Silverfast?

 

[PhilBurton]

For what it's worth, I had over a thousand plus Kodachrome and Agfachrome slides that I wanted to make 4x6 color prints from so I bought an Epson scanner and Epson Photo printer in order to save money. They did an excellent job and I did save money. I also figured the prints would last far longer than trusting any computer "archived" endeavor. The quality of the prints were excellent. Better than most of the prints that I had ever had made from any slides. Had to quit after a thousand or so prints. Wife said we had run out of space for 4x6 prints. She was correct, as usual.......Regards!

Arklatexian,

Thanks for the reply.

Did you use the software that came with the Epson scanner? Which model scanner?

I'm also planning to get an Epson photo printer, but I haven't decided yet on which model. Big issue is getting approval from my Chief Financial Officer (a/k/a wife.)

Phil

 

[PhilBurton]

The biggest challenge with scanning Kodachrome is that the very thin nature of the emulsion layers results in the Kodachrome slides having a distinct physical relief. Many of the IR based dust removal systems have problems with that relief.

Matt,

Goooooood point. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Do you have any specific experience with Kodachrome dust removal with either Silverfast or Vuescan?

Phil

 

[dabsond]

I have never scanned Kodachrome slides but I have scanned plenty of fujichrome stuff. Dust is not that hard to keep under control if you are diligent. There may be a loss of perceived sharpness due to using the dust/scratch correction in software. I scan all my slides and c41 into flat tiffs then correct in Lightroom. If there is any dust it is just a few clicks with the brush tool. The tiffs are then converted to DNGs to safe hard drive space. I am using a standard Epson V600 with Epson software.

 

[peter k.]

Do you remember if you used the Kodachrome settings with Silverfast?

Oh yes defenitly!! It also worked very well on his ektachrome sides also that had faded, had a trick we learned on how to do that, would have to look up my work on those on how we overcame that. ;-)

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have scanned many slides, Kodachrome and others. For me the two major challenges of scanning Kodachrome are:

1. Silver content. It is the silver in Kodachrome that foils the infra-red dust removal systems used by most scanners. I don't see how software can solve the physical reality of this problem.

2. Greater D-max. Many of my somewhat underexposed Kodachrome slides have faint details in the deep, dark shadows; details which can be seen when the slide is projected, but which my scanner cannot resolve. VueScan offers the option to run a second scan - not sure if it boosts the light, or just adds additional time - which is supposed to help with dark slides but it's not much help, really. I believe some high end film scanners may be better at scanning dense slides than my old Minolta Dimage Scan Elite F-2900, which is perfectly capable of scanning all negatives and most slides - just not dark Kodachromes. To be clear, I'm pretty sure the problem is a physical limitation of my scanner, and not the VueScan software.

As a work around, I am going to try photographing some of the dark Kodachromes rather than scanning them. My plan is to take two exposures, one with a bright light source, and then combine them HDR-style.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I scanned these with the v600 and it's Epson scan software. You can't use ice with Kodachrome.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157626911395064

 

[MattKing]

1. Silver content. It is the silver in Kodachrome that foils the infra-red dust removal systems used by most scanners. I don't see how software can solve the physical reality of this problem.

Just as in E6 processes, the Kodachrome development process involves a bleach step which converts any silver in the film to a water soluble silver salt which is subsequently washed away. Developing Kodachrome removes all metallic silver. There is no silver remaining in a developed slide.
In contrast, the process for traditional black and white negatives do not use a bleach step, and as a result elemental silver remains in the negative.

 

[MattKing]

Matt,

Goooooood point. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Do you have any specific experience with Kodachrome dust removal with either Silverfast or Vuescan?

Phil

With Vuescan, and the two different scanners I have used, dust removal doesn't work for Kodachrome slides - the resulting file is a mess.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Just as in E6 processes, the Kodachrome development process involves a bleach step which converts any silver in the film to a water soluble silver salt which is subsequently washed away. Developing Kodachrome removes all metallic silver. There is no silver remaining in a developed slide.
In contrast, the process for traditional black and white negatives do not use a bleach step, and as a result elemental silver remains in the negative.

Perhaps I mispoke when I said "silver" when I should have said "silver halides"? But Kodachrome and b&w negatives neither one allows me to use the infra red dust removal tool of my film scanner, and the reason often given by various sites is that the problem is due to their silver based emulsions.

Like this from a <SilverFast website> "Kodachrome slides are very challenging to scan due to the silver halides this film material is containing. Most scanner software produce blue casts and infrared dust and scratch removal always fails with Kodachromes. The Nikon CoolScan 9000ED, featuring an advanced version of Digital ICE®, was the only device capable of removing dust and scratches from Kodachromes … "

Or this from <ScanTips> "The Infrared channel does not work with B&W film because the silver content blocks all light equally (and infrared will want to remove anything it sees). Kodachrome slides are silver-based too, and processing sometimes leaves some of the silver in it, so it can become partially visible in infrared too."

And <this one> "Kodachrome film contains similar substances (for example silver) that are also contained in black and white films and are impermeable to an infrared ray. The ICE proceeding fails with such kinds of particles."

This may be another example of something that "everybody knows" not being factual? I don't understand the chemistries well enough to say if these statements are true or false. I will defer to your greater knowledge on this subject. I was only repeating something I had often read on the internet.

But I think we can agree that, for whatever reason, the infra-red dust removal tools provided by some scanners often does not work with black & white negatives or Kodachrome slides. Yes? No?

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps I mispoke when I said "silver" when I should have said "silver halides"? But Kodachrome and b&w negatives neither one allows me to use the infra red dust removal tool of my film scanner, and the reason often given by various sites is that the problem is due to their silver based emulsions.

Like this from a <SilverFast website> "Kodachrome slides are very challenging to scan due to the silver halides this film material is containing. Most scanner software produce blue casts and infrared dust and scratch removal always fails with Kodachromes. The Nikon CoolScan 9000ED, featuring an advanced version of Digital ICE®, was the only device capable of removing dust and scratches from Kodachromes … "

Or this from <ScanTips> "The Infrared channel does not work with B&W film because the silver content blocks all light equally (and infrared will want to remove anything it sees). Kodachrome slides are silver-based too, and processing sometimes leaves some of the silver in it, so it can become partially visible in infrared too."

And <this one> "Kodachrome film contains similar substances (for example silver) that are also contained in black and white films and are impermeable to an infrared ray. The ICE proceeding fails with such kinds of particles."

This may be another example of something that "everybody knows" not being factual? I don't understand the chemistries well enough to say if these statements are true or false. I will defer to your greater knowledge on this subject. I was only repeating something I had often read on the internet.

But I think we can agree that, for whatever reason, the infra-red dust removal tools provided by some scanners often does not work with black & white negatives or Kodachrome slides. Yes? No?

Subject to one qualification, we can agree that infra-red dust removal tools don't work with black & white negatives or Kodachrome slides.
One of the people who posts regularly on Photrio believes that his version of Nikon (IIRC) scanning software does permit use of infra-red dust removal with Kodachrome, but I've never heard that from any other source.
I'm afraid those sources you have quoted misunderstand the reasons why ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome.
It is true that Infra-red dust removal doesn't work with traditional black and white negatives because of the silver retained in them.
However Infra-red dust removal doesn't work with Kodachrome slides for another reason - the thinness of the emulsion and the resulting physical relief of the surface of the slides. If you have never looked at a Kodachrome slide's surface carefully, you should. It isn't flat - the surface goes up and down in relation to the relative presence of the image forming colour dies. It is like one of those globes where the mountains and oceans are shown in both colour and in differing amounts of raised relief.

By the way, there are no silver halides left in a properly processed Kodachrome slide - if there were silver halides remaining in the Kodachrome slides after development, Kodachrome would have terrible keeping properties.

And that qualification I mentioned? Infra-red dust removal software does work with the chromogenic black and white films like Ilford XP-2 Super - the ones designed to be developed in colour chemistry. That is because the C41 process includes a bleach step that eventually results in all the silver being removed, leaving just dies.

 

[PhilBurton]

As the OP, I want to thank everyone who has replied to this question. My B&W negatives have been stored in sleeves, and inserted into those sleeves right after developing and drying. The Kodachome slides have been stored in a variety of ways, and I know that dust removal will be an issue. Seems like I will have to learn about dust removal prior to scanning. Any suggestions?

 

[Les Sarile]

I posted in your other thread that I have the Coolscan 5000 and 9000 using Nikonscan and ICE works with all films I've tried going back to the 50's including Kodachrome but does not work for true b&w film.
Same image I posted in your other thread showing the artifacts left behind by Epson V500+Epsonscan, Coolscan 5000+Nikonscan & Coolscan 9000+Nikonscan. Most noticeable in areas where there are adjacent dark and bright areas such as the exhaust or where the tires and rims meet.

 

[foveon_m]

....Greater D-max. Many of my somewhat underexposed Kodachrome slides have faint details in the deep, dark shadows; details which can be seen when the slide is projected, but which my scanner cannot resolve......
....To be clear, I'm pretty sure the problem is a physical limitation of my scanner, and not the VueScan software....

the magic word: D-max, the hardwares ability to see through dark areas, flatbeds claim D-max just by multiplying the bits of their sensor cells, eg. 12-bit cells show up as D-max 3.6 and 14-bit as 4.2. This values are far from reality and so flatbeds suck at slides. I didnt shoot Kodakchromes but a lot of Velvia 50 in 135 and 120 Format and scanned 135 with a dedicated Minolta film scanner, Scan Elite 5400 II and 120 with a flatbed, Canon 9950F, under Vuescan the Canon did multi-pass and long-pass, but, as mentioned above, it didnt help much, I lost a lot of information in the dark areas.

So my 2cents: Buy the best dedicated film scanner you can afford and sell when the job is done, or calculate all the time you need for this job, maybe 5 years working 2 h daily, and just outsource it.

 

[jtk]

Subject to one qualification, we can agree that infra-red dust removal tools don't work with black & white negatives or Kodachrome slides.
One of the people who posts regularly on Photrio believes that his version of Nikon (IIRC) scanning software does permit use of infra-red dust removal with Kodachrome, but I've never heard that from any other source.
I'm afraid those sources you have quoted misunderstand the reasons why ICE doesn't work with Kodachrome.
It is true that Infra-red dust removal doesn't work with traditional black and white negatives because of the silver retained in them.
However Infra-red dust removal doesn't work with Kodachrome slides for another reason - the thinness of the emulsion and the resulting physical relief of the surface of the slides. If you have never looked at a Kodachrome slide's surface carefully, you should. It isn't flat - the surface goes up and down in relation to the relative presence of the image forming colour dies. It is like one of those globes where the mountains and oceans are shown in both colour and in differing amounts of raised relief.

By the way, there are no silver halides left in a properly processed Kodachrome slide - if there were silver halides remaining in the Kodachrome slides after development, Kodachrome would have terrible keeping properties.

And that qualification I mentioned? Infra-red dust removal software does work with the chromogenic black and white films like Ilford XP-2 Super - the ones designed to be developed in colour chemistry. That is because the C41 process includes a bleach step that eventually results in all the silver being removed, leaving just dies.

FYI, Digital Ice works beautifully with traditional silver B&W film...with Nikon scanner. As you can see in one of my Media. Epson 600 reportedly has issues, but that's their cheapest...the more expensive models may suffer less from the junk factor.

 

[PhilBurton]

FYI, Digital Ice works beautifully with traditional silver B&W film...with Nikon scanner. As you can see in one of my Media. Epson 600 reportedly has issues, but that's their cheapest...the more expensive models may suffer less from the junk factor.

JTK, Does your statement apply to all software used with the Nikon (5000 ?) scanner, or just to NikonScan?

Phil Burton

 

[PhilBurton]

If I managed to get an IT8 target for Kodachrome, would I get better results for Kodachrome scans using either scanning software? Or is the built-in support in Silverfast for Kodachrome good enough.

Phil Burton

This was part of the post that started this thread. Can anyone comment on this question.

If you have an IT-8 target for Kodachrome (Kodak Q60), and you don't need it, I will be very happy to buy it from you.

I'm not yet committed to Silverfast. If I end up using NikonScan or Vuescan, then I think I will want this scanner target.

Thanks,

Phil Burton

 

[old_tv_nut]

The reason for ICE not working properly with monochrome (silver) emulsions is that the silver image absorbs infrared as well as visible light. Is the Coolscan fine ice really a difference in the infrared process, or just a very successful software patch? Maybe someone who really knows can comment.
Also, I believe the failure with Kodachrome is not due to the emulsion relief, but due to the Kodachrome image color dyes having significant infrared absorption, while all the other chromes have less. As far as I know, properly processed Kodachrome has neither residual silver halide nor silver.

Edit: I found a reference that says both the infrared absorption of the Kodachrome cyan dye and the emulsion relief affect the ICE infrared scan.

 

[jtk]

JTK, Does your statement apply to all software used with the Nikon (5000 ?) scanner, or just to NikonScan?

Phil Burton

Phil, Vuescan seems to work as well as Nikonscan with Nikon's unique infared system. Nikonscan is an infared-based system, not just an application.

I'm currently using a fairly fast Win10 machine with Vuescan because there's no easy way to load Nikonscan with Win10. I'm in the process of firing up a fairly fast Win7 machine that I kept specifically to use with Nikonscan...but I don't expect any advantage...I'm as happy with Vuescan's front end as I was with Nikonscan, and I did try both of them when they both ran on Win 7 machines.

The only test that I'm aware of that distinguishes proper Digital Ice (which may not be properly implemented in the cheapest current Epson) can be seen with dust, scratches, and the way the scanner distinguishes between Kodachrome 12 and Kodachrome 14...12 and 14 were different emulsions...nothing like E6 films.

 

[PhilBurton]

Phil, Vuescan seems to work as well as Nikonscan with Nikon's unique infared system. Nikonscan is an infared-based system, not just an application.

I'm currently using a fairly fast Win10 machine with Vuescan because there's no easy way to load Nikonscan with Win10. I'm in the process of firing up a fairly fast Win7 machine that I kept specifically to use with Nikonscan...but I don't expect any advantage...I'm as happy with Vuescan's front end as I was with Nikonscan, and I did try both of them when they both ran on Win 7 machines.

The only test that I'm aware of that distinguishes proper Digital Ice (which may not be properly implemented in the cheapest current Epson) can be seen with dust, scratches, and the way the scanner distinguishes between Kodachrome 12 and Kodachrome 14...12 and 14 were different emulsions...nothing like E6 films.

JTK,

Thanks for this reply. Since Kodachrome will be my main scanning application, this information about Vuescan is very important to me.

My oldest Kodachrome slides go back to around 1970, and K-14 was introduced in 1974.

Phil

 

[jtk]

JTK,

Thanks for this reply. Since Kodachrome will be my main scanning application, this information about Vuescan is very important to me.

My oldest Kodachrome slides go back to around 1970, and K-14 was introduced in 1974.

Phil

Phil, With intention of printing as B&W I recently selected and scanned a handful of Kodachrome slides, all slide-mount-dated 1974. Some of them scanned interesting/OK to make B&W files and some became bizarre. Neither E4 not E6 are as remarkably sharp.

I do recall Kodak's 1974 switch from 12 to 14 as I was shooting professionally and doing a tremendous amount of slide graphics/slide duplication for commercial slide shows.

Both Kodachromes were harder to duplicate accurately than was Ektachrome. Fuji's Velvia, was a unique nightmare, both for duplication and for internegs...professionals avoided it because the shadows lost detail in any easy sort of reproduction.

Most professionals relied on E4 or E6.

For perhaps a year many disliked the early 14, which appeared to be Kodak's effort at a film as accurate as Ektachrome (when well processed). Eventually K14 did become as accurate as Ektachrome. Accuracy was crucial for many pros, but perhaps not for photojournalists.

When duplicating mixed batches of Ektachrome (and other Ektachrome-like films) and Kodachrome, we found it necessary with Kodachrome to use a color gel filter (was it Magenta?) for accuracy. The Ektachrome-like films didn't demand correction in our heavily standardized Sickles/Zeiss or Forox/Nikon duplication systems.