Scanning Kodachrome
Posted 28/02/2011 - 20:38
Link
Vuescan works for me. It's infrared feature removes most muck and scratches off the film, leaving only a little to clone out.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 02/03/2011 - 22:01
Link
Vuescan crashes every few slides on my computer and the author has shown little inclination to try and solve the problem.
PEC-12 is pretty good stuff. Expensive but lasts for an age.
If you want really good scans take the slide out of its mount, clean it with PEC-12 and PEC pads and then mount it in a glass slide mount.
My biggest frustration with scanning slides is that they often look softer than the originals. I find editing the dust and spots easier in CS3 than Lightroom, but removing colour casts easier in Lightroom. I therefore treat the scans like all my images: import into Lightroom and do most things there, and only drop into CS3 for things Lightroom cannot do (or I cannot make Lightroom do!).
K.
PEC-12 is pretty good stuff. Expensive but lasts for an age.
If you want really good scans take the slide out of its mount, clean it with PEC-12 and PEC pads and then mount it in a glass slide mount.
My biggest frustration with scanning slides is that they often look softer than the originals. I find editing the dust and spots easier in CS3 than Lightroom, but removing colour casts easier in Lightroom. I therefore treat the scans like all my images: import into Lightroom and do most things there, and only drop into CS3 for things Lightroom cannot do (or I cannot make Lightroom do!).
K.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 02/03/2011 - 23:20
Link
womble wrote:
Vuescan crashes every few slides on my computer and the author has shown little inclination to try and solve the problem.
PEC-12 is pretty good stuff. Expensive but lasts for an age.
If you want really good scans take the slide out of its mount, clean it with PEC-12 and PEC pads and then mount it in a glass slide mount.
My biggest frustration with scanning slides is that they often look softer than the originals. I find editing the dust and spots easier in CS3 than Lightroom, but removing colour casts easier in Lightroom. I therefore treat the scans like all my images: import into Lightroom and do most things there, and only drop into CS3 for things Lightroom cannot do (or I cannot make Lightroom do!).
K.
Thank your for sharing your experience with slide scanning Kris!Vuescan crashes every few slides on my computer and the author has shown little inclination to try and solve the problem.
PEC-12 is pretty good stuff. Expensive but lasts for an age.
If you want really good scans take the slide out of its mount, clean it with PEC-12 and PEC pads and then mount it in a glass slide mount.
My biggest frustration with scanning slides is that they often look softer than the originals. I find editing the dust and spots easier in CS3 than Lightroom, but removing colour casts easier in Lightroom. I therefore treat the scans like all my images: import into Lightroom and do most things there, and only drop into CS3 for things Lightroom cannot do (or I cannot make Lightroom do!).
K.
In addition to the Kodachrome slides mentioned in this tread, I have also scanned some old Agfa slides, mounted in plain-glass Gepe mounts. I have taken these mounts apart, cleaned the glass, and scanned the slide. Would this be comparable to what you describe above? The Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, as you probably know, comes with a plastic slide mount holder without glass.
I scan to tiff files, which I import into Lightroom for further adjustments. Even with my limited knowledge about Lightroom, it is an intuitive and fun software to use.
Best regards
Bjørn
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
981 posts
16 years
Trondheim,
Norway
Kodachrome scans well on Minolta scanners, no need for a special setting. I agree with the suggestions of PEC-12, but a lot also depends on what you use to wipe with - you don't want to leave lint on the slides. Pec Pads are good, although not cheap and slightly clumsy to use. It's also quite hard to clean mounted slides - crud builds up along the edges, no matter how careful you are. Unmounting the slide is the recommended method, but it's a mighty pain!
My feeling is that, ultimately, blowing off excess dust and then using a spotting tool such as the one in Lightroom is the most reliable and versatile solution. The Polaroid plug-in mentioned earlier works well with low-contrast areas such as skies and out-of-focus parts of the image. Areas of detail require manual spotting - I use the Healing or Spot Healing tools in Photoshop, rarely the old-school Cloning tool.
Thank you all for your help!
PPG
Flickr