| Author |
Message |
Don
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 5:14 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:41:06 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | And for the online sellers who do not include the film carriers, closely
question the phone folks at B&H or Adorama about availibility BEFORE you
bid because the offerings on their web stores may not truly track
inventory - these two kept me optimistic with back order assurances for
more than four MONTHS!
|
The same goes for Nikons. LS-50 does not come with a film strip holder
(an absolutely essential item!) and I read they are very hard to come
by. Fortunately, my previous scanner was an LS-30 and back then they
did include a film strip holder as standard.
--- sarcasm on ---
Somebody at Nikon must have goofed big time because, to my surprise,
the LS-30 holder works in the LS-50 as well!
--- sarcasm off ---
| Quote: | Hence my tagline.
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often.
|
No such thing as pessimists. Just realists! ;o)
How does that corollary of Murphy's Law go:
Murphy was an optimist.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:23 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:14:23 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 00:41:06 GMT, theo <hazel_iz@earthlink.net> wrote:
And for the online sellers who do not include the film carriers, closely
question the phone folks at B&H or Adorama about availibility BEFORE you
bid because the offerings on their web stores may not truly track
inventory - these two kept me optimistic with back order assurances for
more than four MONTHS!
The same goes for Nikons. LS-50 does not come with a film strip holder
(an absolutely essential item!) and I read they are very hard to come
by. Fortunately, my previous scanner was an LS-30 and back then they
did include a film strip holder as standard.
|
LS5000 comes with all you need unless you want the SF210.
Don't back order. With B&H you can be put on a "notify me" list.
I think I purchased mine from B&H. I ordered before they were
generally available and did have to wait a couple of weeks. I'd had a
chance to use one earlier. I don't know where he got it as I couldn't
even find them listed as available, but liked it and ordered one.
I did make sure before ordering that it did contain the film strip and
slide feeder.
I did notice in the literature of many scanners they did not include
the film holder which made no sense. Of course it may have been how
those particular scanners claimed a lower price.
Check the stores on e-bay. Stick with established outlets and call to
make sure they have them in stock. Pay by credit card as you can
cancel. B&H didn't charge my card until the item was shipped.
| Quote: |
--- sarcasm on ---
Somebody at Nikon must have goofed big time because, to my surprise,
the LS-30 holder works in the LS-50 as well!
|
Much of their stuff is interchangeable. The new scanners that use the
SF210 will use the old SF200 and the old ones will work with the new
ones.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: |
--- sarcasm off ---
Hence my tagline.
Pessimists remain morose precisely because they are too right too often.
No such thing as pessimists. Just realists! ;o)
How does that corollary of Murphy's Law go:
Murphy was an optimist.
Don. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:35 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:14:20 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 03:58:54 GMT, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca
wrote:
Then after you've done, say, a couple of hundred you find out that a
slight change that had gone un-noticed makes a huge diffence for the
better, and have to start all over again. And again. And again!
Don't ask me how I know, eh? :)
LOL.
I lost track how many times I had to restart! Like I said before. I've
done quite a few things in my life but nothing has been so full of
"gotchas" (and so frustrating) like scanning.
Just yesterday I was blind sided by a new "out of left field"
Kodachrome/Nikon trap. I've been going on all cylinders scanning my
Kodachromes (blue cast and all...) when all of a sudden on the latest
film I get a massive red cast!?!? Huh?
Puzzled, I tried scanning as Positive - just in case - and that lookd
|
Kodachrome is a positive transparency, or it this a case of English Vs
English?<:-))
| Quote: | almost perfect. But the cardboard mounts clearly said Kodachrome!?
Totally confused I took apart one unexposed slide and, sure enough,
the film number is 5073 which is Kodachrome 25 daylight (see P.S.)
|
I've never seen a color shift in Kodachrome other than the fading to a
greenish cast.
Ektachrome slides will quite often shift to a deep blue, but that is
from the developing/wash cycle and not the scanner, or at least not
for me... so far.
| Quote: |
Visually, there is no visible red cast on the slides themselves, of
course, just like all other Kodachromes don't have any blue cast when
viewed. However, Nikons "see things" when it comes to Kodachromes. The
only explanation I have is that Kodak messed up the development in
|
I set in quite few rolls to Kodak rather than going through the local
discount store outlet as they were all from the big fly-in at Oshkosh
commendation of D-Day. Nearly all of them were ruined with specs all
over them. I was able to same some but it took me a half hour to hour
of editing to get rid of them. ICE didn't seem to be able to do any
thing about the spots.
| Quote: | some way. This is not perceptible to the human eye, but nothing
escapes the Nikons. I suppose I should be happy about that but,
somehow, I'm not! ;o)
Back to square one... Again... :-(
Don.
P.S. Speaking of which, a handy link:
http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml
|
Handy!
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:35:07 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Just yesterday I was blind sided by a new "out of left field"
Kodachrome/Nikon trap. I've been going on all cylinders scanning my
Kodachromes (blue cast and all...) when all of a sudden on the latest
film I get a massive red cast!?!? Huh?
Puzzled, I tried scanning as Positive - just in case - and that lookd
Kodachrome is a positive transparency, or it this a case of English Vs
English?<:-))
|
Reminds me of a comedian's routine: He reads the lyrics:
You say tomato, I say tomato
You say potato, I say potato
and then looks at the audience and goes:
I don't get it? :o)
Seriously though (for non-Nikon users) since Nikon has massive
problems with Kodachromes there are two separate settings: "Positive",
for all positive transparencies *except* Kodachromes, and
"Kodachrome", for Kodachrome transparencies *only*.
In terms of scanning both options scan the same way, i.e. they don't
reverse the image. However, the "Kodachrome" option then applies a
profile trying to correct for Nikon's notorious inability to scan
Kodachromes correctly. I say "try" because this profile is woefully
inadequate and the resulting scan has to be edited considerably just
so it looks anything even resembling the original transparency. And
that's before you even start editing in earnest!
| Quote: | almost perfect. But the cardboard mounts clearly said Kodachrome!?
Totally confused I took apart one unexposed slide and, sure enough,
the film number is 5073 which is Kodachrome 25 daylight (see P.S.)
I've never seen a color shift in Kodachrome other than the fading to a
greenish cast.
|
From that, I conclude you don't use a Nikon! ;o) I'm kidding...
Seriously, when scanning Kodachromes on a Nikon there is a disgusting
blue cast plus a severe lack of red. On a slightly underexposed slide
it's quite common to have blue clip like mad while red highlights
barely extend to the middle of the histogram. It's a function of
scanner exposure, but even at absolute exposure of 0, Nikon's
Kodachrome setting doesn't go far enough. The more one boosts exposure
the more disgusting the whole mess looks.
Again, some scans may look OK at first blush but comparing them to the
slide itself it becomes clear there is a definitive blue cast. This
becomes quite apparent when one inspects the histograms.
| Quote: | Visually, there is no visible red cast on the slides themselves, of
course, just like all other Kodachromes don't have any blue cast when
viewed. However, Nikons "see things" when it comes to Kodachromes. The
only explanation I have is that Kodak messed up the development in
I set in quite few rolls to Kodak rather than going through the local
discount store outlet as they were all from the big fly-in at Oshkosh
commendation of D-Day. Nearly all of them were ruined with specs all
over them. I was able to same some but it took me a half hour to hour
of editing to get rid of them. ICE didn't seem to be able to do any
thing about the spots.
|
I get those specs all the time! They're known as "pepper spots" (they
are actually microscopic bubbles in the film base) and are therefore a
function of the film itself. It wasn't until we started scanning that
these pepper spots became a problem. Actually, it wasn't until the
scanner resolution went up to 4000 dpi that they became a problem.
Modern film manufacturing has been modified to eliminate them.
As for ICE, as a rule it doesn't work with Kodachromes because -
unlike chromagenic film emulsions - Kodachromes contain small silver
particles in dark areas (the same thing found in B&W film). Since
infrared light can't penetrate these particles ICE considers them dust
and tries to "correct" them.
Therefore, ICE may work with overexposed Kodachromes where all the
silver has been washed out. Some people claim it works on all
Kodachromes, but that's because they haven't inspected the image
carefully. If one goes to ~300% magnification and compare an ICE scan
to a non-ICE scan (overlay and flip between the two) the artefacts
introduced by ICE are glaringly obvious.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 18, 2005 9:16 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:23:41 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
| Quote: | The same goes for Nikons. LS-50 does not come with a film strip holder
(an absolutely essential item!) and I read they are very hard to come
by. Fortunately, my previous scanner was an LS-30 and back then they
did include a film strip holder as standard.
LS5000 comes with all you need unless you want the SF210.
Don't back order. With B&H you can be put on a "notify me" list.
|
In my case the FH-2 (which came with my LS-30) works just fine in the
LS-50. The designated film strip holder for the LS-50, however, is
called FH-3 and it's an "optional extra" according to Nikon. :-/
| Quote: | --- sarcasm on ---
Somebody at Nikon must have goofed big time because, to my surprise,
the LS-30 holder works in the LS-50 as well!
Much of their stuff is interchangeable. The new scanners that use the
SF210 will use the old SF200 and the old ones will work with the new
ones.
|
Nikon do fool around with adapters which have an electrical
connection. I remember reading here about one such case where
connecting some points made an allegedly (according to Nikon)
"incompatible" adapter work just fine in a different scanner.
If Kennedy is reading he knows what I'm talking about and may offer
more details.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:25 am Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 18:16:01 +0200, Don <phoney.email@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:35:07 -0400, Roger
Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
Just yesterday I was blind sided by a new "out of left field"
Kodachrome/Nikon trap. I've been going on all cylinders scanning my
Kodachromes (blue cast and all...) when all of a sudden on the latest
film I get a massive red cast!?!? Huh?
Puzzled, I tried scanning as Positive - just in case - and that lookd
Kodachrome is a positive transparency, or it this a case of English Vs
English?<:-))
Reminds me of a comedian's routine: He reads the lyrics:
You say tomato, I say tomato
You say potato, I say potato
and then looks at the audience and goes:
I don't get it? :o)
Seriously though (for non-Nikon users) since Nikon has massive
problems with Kodachromes there are two separate settings: "Positive",
|
I just finished up quite a few thousand Kodachrome 25s through a Nikon
LS-5000 and didn't see any problem.
| Quote: | for all positive transparencies *except* Kodachromes, and
"Kodachrome", for Kodachrome transparencies *only*.
In terms of scanning both options scan the same way, i.e. they don't
reverse the image. However, the "Kodachrome" option then applies a
profile trying to correct for Nikon's notorious inability to scan
Kodachromes correctly. I say "try" because this profile is woefully
inadequate and the resulting scan has to be edited considerably just
so it looks anything even resembling the original transparency. And
that's before you even start editing in earnest!
almost perfect. But the cardboard mounts clearly said Kodachrome!?
Totally confused I took apart one unexposed slide and, sure enough,
the film number is 5073 which is Kodachrome 25 daylight (see P.S.)
I've never seen a color shift in Kodachrome other than the fading to a
greenish cast.
From that, I conclude you don't use a Nikon! ;o) I'm kidding...
|
Actually it's the only scanner I use on film. <:-)) LS5000-ED
| Quote: |
Seriously, when scanning Kodachromes on a Nikon there is a disgusting
blue cast plus a severe lack of red. On a slightly underexposed slide
|
Again, I've never seen it. Old or poorly processed Ektachromes will
get a deep blue, but I've never see it on scans of Kodachrome 25.
| Quote: | it's quite common to have blue clip like mad while red highlights
barely extend to the middle of the histogram. It's a function of
scanner exposure, but even at absolute exposure of 0, Nikon's
Kodachrome setting doesn't go far enough. The more one boosts exposure
the more disgusting the whole mess looks.
Again, some scans may look OK at first blush but comparing them to the
slide itself it becomes clear there is a definitive blue cast. This
|
Again, I've never seen this.
| Quote: | becomes quite apparent when one inspects the histograms.
Visually, there is no visible red cast on the slides themselves, of
course, just like all other Kodachromes don't have any blue cast when
viewed. However, Nikons "see things" when it comes to Kodachromes. The
only explanation I have is that Kodak messed up the development in
I set in quite few rolls to Kodak rather than going through the local
discount store outlet as they were all from the big fly-in at Oshkosh
commendation of D-Day. Nearly all of them were ruined with specs all
over them. I was able to same some but it took me a half hour to hour
of editing to get rid of them. ICE didn't seem to be able to do any
thing about the spots.
I get those specs all the time! They're known as "pepper spots" (they
are actually microscopic bubbles in the film base) and are therefore a
|
No, these are a contamination. They are not in the film base.
The only ones I've ever seen were in this particular bunch of rolls
all sent in at the same time. Rolls processed later did not have the
spots.
| Quote: | function of the film itself. It wasn't until we started scanning that
these pepper spots became a problem. Actually, it wasn't until the
scanner resolution went up to 4000 dpi that they became a problem.
Modern film manufacturing has been modified to eliminate them.
|
You can see these by just holding the slides up to the light, or
putting them in a hand held viewer.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
| Quote: |
As for ICE, as a rule it doesn't work with Kodachromes because -
unlike chromagenic film emulsions - Kodachromes contain small silver
particles in dark areas (the same thing found in B&W film). Since
infrared light can't penetrate these particles ICE considers them dust
and tries to "correct" them.
Therefore, ICE may work with overexposed Kodachromes where all the
silver has been washed out. Some people claim it works on all
Kodachromes, but that's because they haven't inspected the image
carefully. If one goes to ~300% magnification and compare an ICE scan
to a non-ICE scan (overlay and flip between the two) the artefacts
introduced by ICE are glaringly obvious.
Don. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Oct 21, 2005 7:25 pm Post subject:
Re: HP 6250C and scanning 35 mm slides - 2ND REQUEST |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:02:17 -0400, Roger
<Delete-Invallid.stuff.groups@tm.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Seriously though (for non-Nikon users) since Nikon has massive
problems with Kodachromes there are two separate settings: "Positive",
I just finished up quite a few thousand Kodachrome 25s through a Nikon
LS-5000 and didn't see any problem.
|
Well, there may be at least two reasons for that.
One, I only have an LS-50 here. Even though the two scanners are very
similar there are differences. I don't think those differences affect
the reaction to Kodachromes, but I can't say that for a fact. Oh,
wait! I can! When I was wrestling with the LS-30 (before I started
wrestling with the LS-50) I had a long exchange with Nikon and I even
sent in a slide. They scanned it with, the then, just released LS-5000
and the blue cast was still there!
Two, it depends on how "sensitive" you are to this blue cast. Mind you
this is largely a function of the original film. If the film was
perfectly exposed or slightly overexposed then the blue cast is
minimized. It's there all right, and I can spot it across a continent
but it may appear less objectionable. However, once you have to boost
the exposure (to compensate for dense Kodakchrome emulsion) the blue
cast skyrockets.
| Quote: | Seriously, when scanning Kodachromes on a Nikon there is a disgusting
blue cast plus a severe lack of red. On a slightly underexposed slide
Again, I've never seen it. Old or poorly processed Ektachromes will
get a deep blue, but I've never see it on scans of Kodachrome 25.
|
With the above preamble in mind, have you looked at the histograms?
Try flipping between the three channels in Photoshop, for example,
(Control 1, 2, 3 on a PC to toggle the channels). You should see the
peaks "move" increasingly to the right as you go from R to G to B
channels. That's the indication of a blue/green shift.
Also, look at an area you consider neutral and then move the mouse
over it. The color readouts should show the blue value consistently
higher than the other two. Or, if you really want to be exact, use a
cropping tool to select a small area and do a histogram on that.
| Quote: | I get those specs all the time! They're known as "pepper spots" (they
are actually microscopic bubbles in the film base) and are therefore a
No, these are a contamination. They are not in the film base.
The only ones I've ever seen were in this particular bunch of rolls
all sent in at the same time. Rolls processed later did not have the
spots.
|
Oh, I see! That's a different thing then.
| Quote: | function of the film itself. It wasn't until we started scanning that
these pepper spots became a problem. Actually, it wasn't until the
scanner resolution went up to 4000 dpi that they became a problem.
Modern film manufacturing has been modified to eliminate them.
You can see these by just holding the slides up to the light, or
putting them in a hand held viewer.
|
Yes, you can also see them with a magnifier if you look carefully, or
a microscope, but since slides were usually projected this did not
become as much of a problem until we started scanning.
To be fair, you only see the pepper spots on a scan if you magnify the
image to 100% or more. Even without editing, they usually disappear if
the image is reduced in size and converted to JPG which, I suppose,
would be the modern equivalent of a projection.
Don. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in