Can we talk about film?

[bunnspecial]

I guess I never "got" the love for Kodachrome, although maybe I just never shot subjects where it would really shine. In fact, I have a Nikon camera. I love to take photographs, but I never begged momma to not take my Kodachrome away.

My main criticisms back in the day were that the colors tended to block up really badly, and I never could get the tonal graduations that I was able to get even with more "boring" consumer ektachrome films like Elite Chrome 100(which I shot the snot out of). Kodachrome did have two strengths-caucasian skin tones and reds-but that was where it ended for me.

I still have times where I think "this would look great on Kodachrome" but they're few and far between.

Velvia is a temperamental beast with the amount of contrast it has, but used on the right subjects(and caucasian skin shouldn't get anywhere near it!) and exposed correctly it is a thing of beauty. @mollyc It's one of the most beautiful flower films I've ever used.

I hauled some binders of slides back from my parents house this weekend and think that I have some Kodachromes in there, so I'll see what I can show including some Kodachromes I took that I think look decent.

 

[mollyc]

I guess I never "got" the love for Kodachrome, although maybe I just never shot subjects where it would really shine. In fact, I have a Nikon camera. I love to take photographs, but I never begged momma to not take my Kodachrome away.

My main criticisms back in the day were that the colors tended to block up really badly, and I never could get the tonal graduations that I was able to get even with more "boring" consumer ektachrome films like Elite Chrome 100(which I shot the snot out of). Kodachrome did have two strengths-caucasian skin tones and reds-but that was where it ended for me.

I still have times where I think "this would look great on Kodachrome" but they're few and far between.

Velvia is a temperamental beast with the amount of contrast it has, but used on the right subjects(and caucasian skin shouldn't get anywhere near it!) and exposed correctly it is a thing of beauty. @mollyc It's one of the most beautiful flower films I've ever used.

I hauled some binders of slides back from my parents house this weekend and think that I have some Kodachromes in there, so I'll see what I can show including some Kodachromes I took that I think look decent.

how different is velvia 100 vs 50? i think 50 is still being made.

 

[tizeye]

how different is velvia 100 vs 50? i think 50 is still being made.

I think I will stick with B&W or Color Neg film and make the transition to positive in the scan...

Just looked at B&H E-6 process color slide film...single roll 36 exposure, and doesn't include developing!
Kodak Professional Ektachrome E-100 $19.99
Fujifilm Velvia 50 $22.95
Fujifilm Provia 100 $24.95

A bit rich for "experiment/hobby" use.

 

[mollyc]

ektar and portra are around $16/roll now. 😞

 

[mollyc]

i actually really like my kodak gold roll and it’s a “cheap” film so maybe i’ll get more of those.

 

[mollyc]

ohh. this is a fun explanation and visual

Tim Ryugo on Instagram: "With this Post, I hope that I can illustrate visually, the color negative structure and some of the basics of how film photography works. Maybe I should simply say that “it’s magic “ , but in reality manufacturing color film

485 likes, 18 comments - timryugo_kodakprofessional on May 15, 2022: "With this Post, I hope that I can illustrate visually, the color negative structure and some of the basics of how film photography works. Maybe I should simply say that “it’s magic “ , but in reality manufacturing color film...

www.instagram.com

 

[bunnspecial]

how different is velvia 100 vs 50? i think 50 is still being made.

The difference is VERY subtle. The best I can describe it is that the exposure response of 100 is more like the original Velvia.

Also, one of the things that made the original "special" was that it tended to red shift yellows subtly. It's a lot of the reason why all the Velvia variants(outside 100F) tend to make white people look like they spent a week on the beach without sunscreen, but also gives landscapes and other subjects a certain characteristic touch. The new Velvia 50 tames this a bit compared to the original, while Velvia 100 has nearly the same response as the original. All of them are still crummy white people film(except, again, 100F, which was passable in that respect but terrible at everything else) but really shine when you have colorful subjects.

 

[kenoh]

I thought you were a gnome, not a gremlin....

Someone fed me after midnight....

 

[mollyc]

so i guess i need to try velvia 50 and some slide film soon.

 

[bunnspecial]

A couple of slide scans just because I finally pulled some slides out and got my scanner hooked up. BTW, I'm running it-now-off a late 2011 13" MacBook Pro running 10.6.8 so that I can use Nikon Scan.

First is a Kodachrome scan, maybe not technically a great photo, but a valued one of my late grandfather holding my oldest nephew. This would have been taken either late July or early August 2007. The mount is stamped August 07 as a processing date. This was on fresh Kodachrome 64 that was processed within a few days of being shot.

This was taken without ICE, as short of the Coolscan 9000, Digital ICE doesn't work on Kodachrome(universal rule, not Nikon specific-the Coolscan 9000 is the only scanner I know of with some "magic" to make ICE work).

Now, a Velvia slide. I'm not happy with this scan and I think it looks a bit plasticy. I have another from this same sequence that's a bit better exposed, but unfortunately is motion blurred. This uses ICE and some other post-processing Nikon scan tricks that depend on the IR scan.

This was taken down in Eastern KY in October 2006. I went on a mission trip with my college's Baptist Campus Ministry and we were helping to get a lady settled into a new home that another crew had built for her. This was here then 100-year-old log cabin(apparently with dirt floors) that she'd been living in up to a few months prior. At the time we were there, she still didn't have indoor plumbing(quite a side story on that too) so hauled water from a well that was to the right of and behind the house and used an outhouse that was to the left of where I was standing when I took the photo. This is all in a holler at a bend in a dirt road in Owsley County, KY.

The film was ordered from B&H photo and received quite literally an hour before I left on the trip. I had it processed by Dwayne's Photo via Wal-Mart within a week or so of return, and somehow or another this got misplaced and I think was sent down to a Wal-Mart store in Tennessee. I was afraid it had been lost completely, but it finally showed up in the summer of 2007(at the time slide film reliably came back in ~2 weeks).

I'd hoped to show some flower photos on Velvia, but apparently managed to not get all my binders of slides and don't have flowers on Velvia.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Probably the biggest selling point for Kodachrome was image stability. I have slides my mom shot in the 1940s that still look every bit as good as they did 75 years ago. Some of her E-4 and E-6 slides shot somewhat later show signs of deterioration.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Probably the biggest selling point for Kodachrome was image stability. I have slides my mom shot in the 1940s that still look every bit as good as they did 75 years ago. Some of her E-4 and E-6 slides shot somewhat later show signs of deterioration.

And that can be important. My introduction to film photography was through archaeological site recording - we needed film stock that produced negatives or slides with better long-term stability for archival purposes.

 

[bunnspecial]

Probably the biggest selling point for Kodachrome was image stability. I have slides my mom shot in the 1940s that still look every bit as good as they did 75 years ago. Some of her E-4 and E-6 slides shot somewhat later show signs of deterioration.

E-4 was bad.

Check the data sheets on current E-6 emulsions and you'll find that they have decent storage lives.

Also, E6 tends to hold up better under projection. The crazy life of Kodachrome is dark storage, and it falls HARD if projected.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

The crazy life of Kodachrome is dark storage, and it falls HARD if projected.

Probably a dumb question for those in the know, but, for those who used slide projectors - what was the process if you didn't want to carry your precious original slides around and project them? Make a copy of the slide using some kind of duplicator rig and shoot it on to another roll of slide film?

 

[bunnspecial]

Probably a dumb question for those in the know, but, for those who used slide projectors - what was the process if you didn't want to carry your precious original slides around and project them? Make a copy of the slide using some kind of duplicator rig and shoot it on to another roll of slide film?

Exactly that.

Slide duplicator rigs are around. I’ve actually played around with them for DSLR scanning, and the current attachments meant for scanning are really just a current take on slide duplicators.

I have one to fit my Nikon PB4 bellows, which is kind of a Cadillac set up…

Duplication films also existed. They were lower contrast than regular slide film.

I actually have a 100 foot roll kicking around of Kodak negative film meant for turning color negatives into slides. It’s color balanced to compensate for the orange mask of the contemporary Kodak pro negative films, but lacks a mask itself. That means when when processed, photographs of negatives turn out as a mask less positive for direct viewing or projection.

 

[mollyc]

Exactly that.

Slide duplicator rigs are around. I’ve actually played around with them for DSLR scanning, and the current attachments meant for scanning are really just a current take on slide duplicators.

I have one to fit my Nikon PB4 bellows, which is kind of a Cadillac set up…

Duplication films also existed. They were lower contrast than regular slide film.

I actually have a 100 foot roll kicking around of Kodak negative film meant for turning color negatives into slides. It’s color balanced to compensate for the orange mask of the contemporary Kodak pro negative films, but lacks a mask itself. That means when when processed, photographs of negatives turn out as a mask less positive for direct viewing or projection.

how on earth do you know all this stuff??? and you're so young!

 

[dwig]

E-4 was bad.

Check the data sheets on current E-6 emulsions and you'll find that they have decent storage lives.

Also, E6 tends to hold up better under projection. The crazy life of Kodachrome is dark storage, and it falls HARD if projected.

E-4 was actually rather good, for the day, though not a long life as the better E-6 materials. The old E-2/E-3 materials are more appropriate wearers of the badge "bad". Some of my old E-2 slide my dad took are now so faded that I can only get decent images by converting to B&W.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I've looked into buying a film scanner and keep holding off because the ones with decent reviews (like the PlusTek models) are pretty spendy for the casual film shooter. But I know I'm going to inherit a huge collection of family photos at some point. Digitizing all those prints and negatives will be a fearsome task - let's face it, impossible, considering how slow most film scanners are.

 

[tizeye]

I've looked into buying a film scanner and keep holding off because the ones with decent reviews (like the PlusTek models) are pretty spendy for the casual film shooter. But I know I'm going to inherit a huge collection of family photos at some point. Digitizing all those prints and negatives will be a fearsome task - let's face it, impossible, considering how slow most film scanners are.

While PlusTek, depending on model, can be pricey, but can be very dedicated to film/prints only. By contrast, a flatbed scanner with photo/film/slide capability can be functional for other uses. Also, while 300/600 dpi is OK with photo scans, with film negative and slides you want at least 2400 dpi or will be a very small thumbnail to at 300 dpi. While I personally use an Epson V550, the current model is the V600. I used it to digitize my parent's entire slide collection. In fact, I enquired with a local shop the cost to digitized and when I did the math realized could upgrade to the then current V550 cheaper. It basically bought me a new scanner "for free with change to spare" and I gave a friend my older V330??? Will do 4 negatives or slides at a time on a single "scan", then load the next 4. For photos, load the patten with maximum to fit, about 4 or 5, and while have to scan individually, from the preview screen just move (adjust if necessary) the scan area and scan the next. If using a Mac, the Epson can be finnicky as the software and drivers are little changed and originally developed for Windows. Even Epson recommends one of two third party software for final processing with a Mac.

The third option that intrigues me, and notably quicker, is the digital camera setup. There are many YouTube videos that compare high end scanners vs camera. If you have a digital camera that takes interchangable lens you may have the beginning of a system. Most systems are with basic camera so don't need to upgrade - but it is a good excuse. The other thing you would need is a macro lens and a lightbox for film/slides or a couple LED light panels to light photos. Two other things would be a film/slide transport mechanism to efficiently move the next frame under the camera, and a stand for the camera. Most videos look like an old enlarger base the camera mounts to, but a tripod where the center converts from vertical to horizonal would work great. Something to look into.

 

[lcubed]

I've looked into buying a film scanner and keep holding off because the ones with decent reviews (like the PlusTek models) are pretty spendy for the casual film shooter. But I know I'm going to inherit a huge collection of family photos at some point. Digitizing all those prints and negatives will be a fearsome task - let's face it, impossible, considering how slow most film scanners are.

the last couple of weeks i've scanning lots of negatives and slides.

for slides, i've had the good fortune to have access to a pacific image electronics (PIE) PowerSlide X. in conjunction with the VueScan software, that one just churns threw 50 slides in a batch. very effective dust and scratch removal (even on the kodachrome slides) when used with vuescan. didn't have a single jam (which appears to be the major complaint in the reviews) in about 1000 scans.

for negatives, the PIE powerfilm does a great job when processing strips of 3 to 6 images. i usually set up my batch jobs to process 4 strips at a time (4x6=24 images). unfortunately, PIE tech support determined that one of the feed rollers wasn't working properly when grabbing the second strip in a four strip job and it's being exchanged.

the cyberview PF software that comes with it actually works pretty well. (you will need to contact PIE tech support for the less buggy updated version). very effective dust and scratch removal. the software requires very little intervention for detecting frame boundaries.

both of the PIE units seem to work pretty well unattended for big batches.

i've also been testing a plastek 8300. since that one requires manual advancement of the image holder, it requires the most user intervention. for virtually every negative, i would have to adjust the frame limits in the silverfast software. it's also scans fast enough that you need to stay nearby.

initially, i was convinced the ISRD cleaning on the 8300 wasn't working. during the troubleshooting process, we determined that the IR defect scan was not aligned with the RBG scan, so the removal algorithms didn't work properly. both silverfish and vuescan are now aware and have solutions.

(silverfast requires going into the ISRD expert settings and manually tweaking the XY offset, while vuescan was updated to find the correctly align the IR defect scan with the RGB scan).

the ISRD on the 8300 seems much more sensitive to dust and scratches than the PIE PowerFilm. i scanned a couple of scratched negatives back to back and output of the 8300 was showing scratches and dust that were totally corrected on the PowerFilm.

all units were tested at maximum optical resolution to produce 48 bit TIFFs for maximum post processing flexibility.
the powerslide ==> 5000 dpi, powerfilm & 8300AI==> 3600 dpi

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Good posts, and they illustrate my hesitation - I'll be in for somewhere between $600 - $1500 on scanning hardware and software. Not to mention the time spent calibrating the gear and post-processing the scans. I am not yet able to make that commitment, though eventually I may.

Film scanning is a niche industry now so I think there will always be a steep price/learning curve unless you are willing to accept a very basic, compromised final product.

 

[lcubed]

Good posts, and they illustrate my hesitation - I'll be in for somewhere between $600 - $1500 on scanning hardware and software. Not to mention the time spent calibrating the gear and post-processing the scans. I am not yet able to make that commitment, though eventually I may.

Film scanning is a niche industry now so I think there will always be a steep price/learning curve unless you are willing to accept a very basic, compromised final product.

you obviously have not priced out the nikon coolscan or noritsu scanners.

that's the definition of steep.

i do like that the 8300 AI comes with IT8 calibration slides and the included software does the calibration (with those slides) with 1 button push in two minutes.

that said, if i were scanning lots of slides or negatives, i'd opt for one of the PIE scanners with batch capabilities. at 1 to 2$/scan at my local lab, the break even point isn't that high.

 

[bunnspecial]

One of the other things too with scanners is that they became a relatively mature technology even on "consumer" grade models around 2005, and honestly have not really improved since then. Provided that the film is flat and the scanner is properly focused, nearly all emulsions can be grain resolved by a 4000dpi scanner, so there's no need to improve the resolution. If you have bunches of Kodachromes, the "magic" that made ICE work on the Coolscan 9000 with them was a big deal, but unless something crazy happens, the number of Kodachrome images in the world to scan will not increase(yes I realize there's been some work to develop at home, but at best I'd call it experimental even though I consider any results at all to be an amazing accomplishment).

The old high end consumer scanners like the Nikons and Minoltas do have their following still, although the Nikons I'd say much more so than Minoltas. That keeps prices up. If you really want to see nutty prices, look at the going rate for a glass carrier for a Coolscan 8000/9000 or an uncut roll adapter for a Coolscan 4000/5000.

The Plusteks look good from what I've seen, and I'm biased, but at least for a medium format consumer grade scanner I still consider the Coolscan 8000 and 9000 a high water mark(I'm not actually sure what the difference in the two is-I keep wondering if an 8000 could gain Kodachrome ICE if the firmware were flashed to a 9000, but that's a different topic and I'm not sure if I want to experiment with mine...).

 

[Lord Blackadder]

you obviously have not priced out the nikon coolscan or noritsu scanners

Oh I went down a deep rabbit hole researching those one evening, looking at them on eBay and reading various articles and blogs about how people were keeping them running. Orphan technology sounds like a nightmare and only justifiable for the wealthy/totally committed amateur, or professional who is actually making money using the scanner.

The conclusions from my research were that the PlusTek scanners were the best balance of price and performance - but the price is still pretty high, especially when you factor software costs in.

 

[lcubed]

The conclusions from my research were that the PlusTek scanners were the best balance of price and performance - but the price is still pretty high, especially when you factor software costs in.

what additional software did you think was required for the plustek?

if you get the 8200 or 8300 AI, they already come with the silverfast software. at least silverfast 9, (in the workflow pilot mode) is dead easy to use.

(the manual mode for some reason doesn't have provisions for automatic files with incremental numbers (scan001 through scan00X))

or, since i have access to multiple scanners, i've been using vuescan pro which supports lots of different scanners using a single interface. the developer has been great in updating and answering my (often dumb) tech questions. but this software is totally optional.