Scanning Kodak Ektachrome Slides - Your Recommendations Please
Peter D
1000+ Kodak Ektachrome slides (25-30 years old and still looking great!). I
had read a lot when I was looking last year and kept getting feedback that
most scanners cannot properly scan Kodak Ektachrome slides.
Because technology is constantly evolving, I thought I'd check back and get
updated info. Can you please recommend the best scanner/software package for
scanning Kodak Ektachrome slides. If it matters, I'll be using a PC. Price
(unless it goes into the thousands of dollars) is not an issue. I will also
need to scan non-Ektachrome slides, negatives (Kodak, Fuji, other), and
prints. For the prints, something with a hopper/feeder is probably a good
idea (1000+ prints).
Jim
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:FHEne.1539268$Xk.371031@pd7tw3no...
> I am trying to pick the right scanner for scanning photos and slides. I
have
> 1000+ Kodak Ektachrome slides (25-30 years old and still looking great!).
I
> had read a lot when I was looking last year and kept getting feedback that
> most scanners cannot properly scan Kodak Ektachrome slides.
(some now 50 years old) before I found out that it is impossible.
What you need in the way of a scanner depends on which version of Ektachrome
that you have. The early E2 and E4 used dies that faded rather
significantly. The current E6, especially films made in the last 15 years
or so, do not fade nearly as much.
By the way, current Fuji films are also compatible with E6.
I did my scanning on a Nikon Coolscan IV which provides Digital ROC (that is
Restoration of Color), and I was able to recover all of those slides that I
so foolishly shot with e2 or E4 Ektachrome.
The scanner was also able to recover color negatives made with 70s and 80s
technology Kodacolor. As luck would have it, though, most of shots from
that era were made on Ektar which seems to fade far less than the Kodacolor.
As for scanning prints, good luck finding something.
Jim
Roy
news:FHEne.1539268$Xk.371031@pd7tw3no...
Hi there.
There is no problem in scanning Ektachrome or any other E6 process slides.
The only problems seem to be with Kodachrome, but lots of people will tell
you that they can scan them without any problem.
Some people would advise a Flatbed, with a Transparency hood, but my
experience is that a dedicated Film Scanner will do a much better job. So I
would advise one of each.
For film, the scanning resolution you need depends on what you intend to use
the files for. 2800Dpi will provide just enough detail for A3 prints, and
the price is mostly related to the Dpi. I happen to prefer Minolta to
Nikon, even though I use Nikon Cameras.
Flatbed scanners are pretty cheap, and almost any will do a good job of
prints, and you should not need much more than about 1200 Dpi output unless
you are planning to make large prints. Remember, the original prints will
not contain vast amounts of information, (unlike film), because of the paper
emulsion grain size. Have a look at the Canon range.
Not very specific, but I hope it helps,
Roy G
UrbanVoyeur
The Nikon LS-5000 with the SF-210 slide feeder will give you great
results with slides and negatives AND it has a slide feeder attachment
that can be loaded with up to 70 slides. It can be continuously refilled
for non-stop scanning.
The older model, LS-4000 with SF-200 feeder has all the same
capabilities but is slower, and has slightly more image noise. However,
it is fairly inexpensive used.
Both have ROC for color restoration of faded slides.
If you scan and the colors look wrong, try using a calibration slide
from www.colorade.de. It won't help if the slide is significantly faded.
--
J
Kennedy McEwen
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>I am trying to pick the right scanner for scanning photos and slides. I have
>1000+ Kodak Ektachrome slides (25-30 years old and still looking great!). I
>had read a lot when I was looking last year and kept getting feedback that
>most scanners cannot properly scan Kodak Ektachrome slides.
>
>Because technology is constantly evolving, I thought I'd check back and get
>updated info.
Either you or the people advising you are probably confused. Few
scanners will have any problems scanning Ektachrome and those which have
will struggle with any film.
There is a problem scanning Kodachrome, which is a different Kodak film
of course, but this is related to an added feature in high end scanners
rather than the scanning itself.
Most good film scanners these days have a feature which detects and
conceals dirt and defects on the film, usually a version of Kodak's ICE
or a similar technology. This uses a 4th channel in the scanner, in
addition to the normal 3 colour channels, which operates in the
infrared. The dyes of Ektachrome, colour negative and some black and
white (the chromogenic type) films are fairly transparent in the
infrared, so the image in that channel is mainly dirt, scratches and
defects on the film surface itself. By comparing the infrared channel
with the other 3 channels, the ICE algorithm can detect where each of
these defects in the scan is and mask it by cloning information from the
surrounding area, effectively repairing the damage automatically. The
process is entirely transparent to the user, who only needs to select
the function on the scanner driver and wait the additional few seconds
for the result to be processed.
The problem with ICE is that it doesn't work with traditional black and
white film because the developed image on such film is formed from
silver oxide suspended in the emulsion and silver oxide, unlike the
colour dyes, is opaque to the infrared wavelengths used in ICE. In
fact, silver oxide is pretty opaque to most wavelengths up to at least
30um, so there really isn't any possibility of a future development of
the ICE technique coming along to work with traditional black and white
film - there is every possibility that an alternative technique could be
developed, but it won't use the process we know of as ICE today.
So why is ICE a problem with Kodachrome? In common with most other
colour films, Kodachrome starts life as three layers of black and white
emulsion separated by colour filter layers. However, the development of
most other colour films includes a bleach bath which completely removes
all of the developed silver oxide leaving only the colour dyes to form
the image. Kodachrome development does not *always* bleach all of
silver oxide away and some of the darkest and deepest colours *can* have
residual silver oxide in the emulsion - which makes those parts of the
image opaque to the infrared channel of an ICE equipped scanner.
Consequently the ICE algorithm finds large areas of the image which are
apparently defective and attempts to conceal them using the parts of the
image that it finds clean - the result is usually and unacceptable mess
and the only solution is to disable ICE and scan Kodachrome
conventionally.
The reason that I have deliberately emphasised certain words in the
previous paragraph like *always* and *can* is because not all Kodachrome
does have residual silver oxide in the developed emulsion. Although it
has always been called Kodachrome, Kodak have had many versions of the
film and the process. Someone posted the numbers here a while ago, and
whilst I don't recall all of the details I think there have been about
15 or so different versions of the Kodachrome process since 1960. Some
of those processes seem to have left none, or very little, silver oxide
in the developed emulsion, and ICE copes perfectly well with films
developed in those processes. That is why some people report that they
have no problem scanning Kodachrome with ICE, whilst others just despair
every time they try.
One thing that I haven't tried (because I have precious few Kodachrome
slides and none that can be sacrificed) is what would happen if
developed Kodachrome slides were dropped into an E6 bleach-fix bath. It
doesn't do Ektachrome any harm to get additional bleaching since it is a
self limiting process - and it can even be returned to this after the
film has been washed and dried if something has gone wrong with the
process. So there is a chance that Kodachrome would be OK too and it
would remove the silver oxide, making the slide scan-able - obviously
after washing, drying and remounting! Somebody with some scrap
Kodachrome slides might want to try that at the end of an E6 kit life -
but keep the temperature down - I doubt that Kodachrome emulsion will
tolerate E6 process temperatures.
> Can you please recommend the best scanner/software package for
>scanning Kodak Ektachrome slides. If it matters, I'll be using a PC. Price
>(unless it goes into the thousands of dollars) is not an issue. I will also
>need to scan non-Ektachrome slides, negatives (Kodak, Fuji, other), and
>prints. For the prints, something with a hopper/feeder is probably a good
>idea (1000+ prints).
>
There are a couple of flatbed scanners around these days that will do
both reflective (prints) and transmissive (slides and negatives) with
reasonable quality, but the best results for slides and negatives for
the consumer grade still come from a dedicated film scanner. All of the
dedicated film scanners will scan negatives as well as slides. Unless
you intend to spend the rest of your life using Photoshop to spot out
defects on your film scans then a scanner with ICE is essential for
anyone scanning even small numbers of slides or negatives - it is a pity
it doesn't work for traditional B&W and is uncertain on Kodachrome, but
for all other films it is well worth it.
For prints, almost any of the scanners on the market will do a
reasonable job in terms of image quality. There are a couple of the top
end consumer Epson Perfection flatbed scanners that have a version of
ICE that remove defects from prints as well, using a different approach.
Some of the top end consumer grade Epson's also have optional 30-sheet
automatic document feeders for bulk use, such as the 4180 or 3170 - I
expect the 4990 does too, but haven't seen one to check yet. They also
have lower performance (perfectly adequate for prints) but much more
expensive Expression office range which support 100-page feeders
For dedicated film scanners, the models currently at the top of the tree
are the Minolta SE-5400-II and the Nikon LS-5000. The Minolta has
slightly higher resolution and scans at double the sample density of the
Nikon, with 5400ppi as opposed to the Nikon's 4000ppi. The achieved
resolution is actually much closer than the sampling density numbers
suggest, but the Minolta does have a measurable edge - if your images
are sharp enough to exploit it. To justify almost double t cost of the
Minolta, the Nikon is better supported for volume throughput though,
with bulk adapters for slide batches and uncut roll film. It is also
easier, and quicker, to feed cut film into the Nikon's motorised slot
than it is to mount into the Minolta holder - and the Nikon has a
similar manual holder for "difficult" strips, such as single unmounted
frames. If you search the archives of this group you will find details
on turning the default motorised film feed on the LS-5000 into a bulk
uncut film feed, saving the additional cost. If you don't need the bulk
film facilities of the Nikon LS-5000 the next lowest model, the LS-50,
is about half the price - similar to the Minolta. However, you also
lose the multiscanning facility (noise reduction) and get a lower
resolution ADC - so the selection is a little clearer in Minolta's
favour than it is with the top range Nikon model. To be honest, for the
price of the Minolta 5400, I am surprised that Nikon bother to ship the
LS-50 at all!
Best choice for under $1000?
I'd pick up an Epson Perfection 2480 at under $100, add a 30 sheet
B813142 document feeder for $80 to get a scanner for prints and large
format film, then add a separate Minolta SE-5400 for abut $550 for 35mm
and smaller film formats. Spend the remaining $250 to bring you up to
$1000 on a huge, fast, hard disk and more memory! ;-)
Going over the $1000?
Upgrade to the Epson 4990 (just to get ICE on prints) for about $450 and
replace the Minolta film scanner with a Nikon LS-5000 at about $1000
with an SF-210 50 slide automatic feeder for about $450. A simple
modification to the SA-21 film strip feeder included with the LS-5000
saves buying an SA-30 uncut roll film adapter, but if you aren't
comfortable opening and modifying a new unit, the SA-30 will set you
back another $450. All up, about $2000 - $2500 depending on your skill
with a crosshead screwdriver and/or a pair of wire cutters. ;-)
If you have film than larger 35mm and find the Epson doesn't give enough
performance (and it will probably be more than adequate unless you
intend printing murals!) then add a Nikon LS-9000 and a couple of
adapters for about $3000.
The next level up is to spend some money on a yacht, a crate of G&T and
relax in the sun while someone else scans them for you! ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
SuperPop
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:FHEne.1539268$Xk.371031@pd7tw3no...
Just a few observations of my experience with my Minolta SE 5400 film
scanner.
I have not had any problems with scanning Kodachrome (vintage 1943 thru
1965), some Ektachrome (small number) and Agfa color (vintage 1943 thru
1946) slides using ICE for dust removal from the resulting images of the
scans.
I too have about 2000 slides and have found that the Minolta software
produces what I consider a good image although it took me some time to learn
the ins and outs of the Minolta software I have tried other scanning
software and have been disappointed with some of the results.
Since I am scanning for archiving purposes, the final file size I am saving
is large so that it can be altered to suit later usage decisions.
So far my 120 Gb hard drive is standing up to the strain. Now to get the
images on a DVD disk.
Matt D.
PS Kennedy's treatise has much in it to guide you.
Robert Feinman
digitally or to make prints or to display on a computer screen?
If it is primarily to archive them then what makes you think the digital
format will hold up better than the film?
If you slides are in good shape and not fading then store them in a
cool, dry, dark place and they will continue to hold up. You could
restrict your scanning to just those which appear to be fading so as
to preserve the images before they get worse.
Personally, I like the Minolta 5400 for slides. Any moderate priced
flatbed is fine for prints.
--
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail: robert....@gmail.com
Don
<robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>If it is primarily to archive them then what makes you think the digital
>format will hold up better than the film?
Because digital can be copied losslessly ad infinitum. Analog film can
not.
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So why is ICE a problem with Kodachrome? In common with most other
>colour films, Kodachrome starts life as three layers of black and white
>emulsion separated by colour filter layers. However, the development of
>most other colour films includes a bleach bath which completely removes
>all of the developed silver oxide leaving only the colour dyes to form
>the image. Kodachrome development does not *always* bleach all of
>silver oxide away and some of the darkest and deepest colours *can* have
>residual silver oxide in the emulsion - which makes those parts of the
>image opaque to the infrared channel of an ICE equipped scanner.
>Consequently the ICE algorithm finds large areas of the image which are
>apparently defective and attempts to conceal them using the parts of the
>image that it finds clean - the result is usually and unacceptable mess
>and the only solution is to disable ICE and scan Kodachrome
>conventionally.
As good as ICE is, there are still quite a few things I for one would
like to see in ICE and I wonder why at least some of them haven't been
done already, especially since ICE is now in its 4th incarnation.
For example, regarding the above problem (impenetrable areas) if only
there were a user setting to set ICE threshold it would be a major
improvement. In other words, instead of global settings such as: lots
of ICE, some ICE or "hold the ICE" ;o) if there were a setting to
apply ICE only above a certain luminance value it would work wonders!
Since dark KC areas are usually, well... dark, the fact that ICE was
not applied there would not normally be noticed (unless these areas
were boosted radically - and even then it would probably be hard to
see). Right now, ICE is "all or nothing".
Also, it would be nice to be able to control the radius around the
defect, and so on...
With judicious use of feathering, all that could be incorporated
seamlessly, or so it seems... ;o)
>The reason that I have deliberately emphasised certain words in the
>previous paragraph like *always* and *can* is because not all Kodachrome
>does have residual silver oxide in the developed emulsion. Although it
>has always been called Kodachrome, Kodak have had many versions of the
>film and the process. Someone posted the numbers here a while ago, and
>whilst I don't recall all of the details I think there have been about
>15 or so different versions of the Kodachrome process since 1960.
When I was (unsuccessfully) trying to date some of my negatives by
using the identification along the film edge, I came across these
links which make for very interesting reading:
http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/index.html
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/identificationP.shtml
The top one is really fascinating as the guy decoded all those weird
icons (triangles, squares, semi-circles and whatnot) as well as slit
markings, in some cases down to a quarter of the year when they were
used by Kodak for all of their film.
Don.
Hecate
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>One thing that I haven't tried (because I have precious few Kodachrome
>slides and none that can be sacrificed) is what would happen if
>developed Kodachrome slides were dropped into an E6 bleach-fix bath. It
>doesn't do Ektachrome any harm to get additional bleaching since it is a
>self limiting process - and it can even be returned to this after the
>film has been washed and dried if something has gone wrong with the
>process. So there is a chance that Kodachrome would be OK too and it
>would remove the silver oxide, making the slide scan-able - obviously
>after washing, drying and remounting! Somebody with some scrap
>Kodachrome slides might want to try that at the end of an E6 kit life -
>but keep the temperature down - I doubt that Kodachrome emulsion will
>tolerate E6 process temperatures.
>
I'll have to try that next time I feel lucky.. ;-)
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Hecate
wrote:
Let's rephrase that: because digital can, at least a lot of the time,
be copied losslessly, as long as the file hasn't been corrupted, saved
to a medium which has become corrupted, and is copied with reasonable
frequency to allow for disk substrate failure, disk failure and
radiation (cosmic). ;-)
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>As good as ICE is, there are still quite a few things I for one would
>like to see in ICE and I wonder why at least some of them haven't been
>done already, especially since ICE is now in its 4th incarnation.
>
ASF, ICE is not in its 4th generation - the "4" in "ICE4" refers to the
bundling of 4 different functions, only one of which is the original ICE
with minimum modification from when it was first introduced on the Nikon
LS-2000. The remaining three parts are ROC, GEM and DEE - it is only
ICE4 if these are included. ICE3, as licensed for the LS-4000 & LS40,
only had ROC and GEM included and consequently DEE is greyed out in
NS4.02 when used with these scanners, despite being built into the
software and clearly not a hardware function.
>For example, regarding the above problem (impenetrable areas) if only
>there were a user setting to set ICE threshold it would be a major
>improvement. In other words, instead of global settings such as: lots
>of ICE, some ICE or "hold the ICE" ;o) if there were a setting to
>apply ICE only above a certain luminance value it would work wonders!
>Since dark KC areas are usually, well... dark, the fact that ICE was
>not applied there would not normally be noticed (unless these areas
>were boosted radically - and even then it would probably be hard to
>see). Right now, ICE is "all or nothing".
>
You can always access the IR channel directly using, for example,
Vuescan and implement your own version of ICE. Should you try that, you
will find that reducing the number of variables in the algorithm to the
two available is somewhat of an achievement! ;-)
>Also, it would be nice to be able to control the radius around the
>defect, and so on...
That is, as I understand it, exactly what the "fine" and "normal"
setting of ICE is. "Fine" responds to smaller defects and applies a
smaller radius - but that brings with it additional problems.
>
>With judicious use of feathering, all that could be incorporated
>seamlessly, or so it seems... ;o)
>
Things always seam simpler than they are, though.
>>The reason that I have deliberately emphasised certain words in the
>>previous paragraph like *always* and *can* is because not all Kodachrome
>>does have residual silver oxide in the developed emulsion. Although it
>>has always been called Kodachrome, Kodak have had many versions of the
>>film and the process. Someone posted the numbers here a while ago, and
>>whilst I don't recall all of the details I think there have been about
>>15 or so different versions of the Kodachrome process since 1960.
>
>When I was (unsuccessfully) trying to date some of my negatives by
>using the identification along the film edge, I came across these
>links which make for very interesting reading:
>
>http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/index.html
>http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/identificationP.shtml
>
>The top one is really fascinating as the guy decoded all those weird
>icons (triangles, squares, semi-circles and whatnot) as well as slit
>markings, in some cases down to a quarter of the year when they were
>used by Kodak for all of their film.
>
He makes an interesting comment which, although common misconception,
has been proven to be completely false:
"The processing was changed in early 1939, and images processed after
then enjoy the best permanence of any color film made."
Actually, it isn't - and never was, although the latest incarnation of
the K-14 process is, apparently, one of the worst Kodachrome emulsions
and processes since that original 1936 process.
That's right, contrary to popular belief, Kodachrome is *NOT* a
particularly stable emulsion, a disclosure which made Henry Wilhelm
world famous and seriously knocked Kodak's image in professional
circles. Quoting Wilhelm's book on image permanence: "(In projector
fading tests) Kodachrome ranks as the worst of all current slide
films."!
When kept in the dark, Kodachrome is stable - but that kind of defeats
the object of an image. When projected for as little as 10 to 15
minutes per year, Kodachrome is less stable than Ektachrome, despite the
fact that Kodak recommended Kodachrome over its own Ektachrome for image
stability for many years. Properly developed Ektachrome, on the other
hand, fades at the same temperature dependent rate almost irrespective
of its use.
Wilhelm recommends, following extensive testing, the following slide
films in order of image permanence in normal use:
Fujichrome "Professional" Films
Fuji Velvia 50
Fujichrome "Amateur" Films
Fujichrom CDU Duplicating Films
Only if projection can be avoided can Kodachrome be considered as a long
lasting emulsion.
However, none of these emulsions are anything like as stable as the
original three strip Technicolor dye imbibation process used in the
movie industry. Soon after the Technicolor labs in Hollywood, Rome and
London were closed in 1978 several well known Hollywood names mounted a
protest against the switch from true Technicolor to less permanent
chromogenic films. The Technicolor name was kept, the but process has
all but gone - last supported by a facility in China. The original
prints of many classic films made on Kodak emulsions before and after
the ending of Technicolor have faded beyond use. In Wilhelm's book on
image permanence, he describes how the 1990 restoration of the 1960
Stanley Kubrick classic "Spartacus" had to resort to YCM separations on
black and white film copied from the original print in 1960. The
original "Eastman Colour Negative" print itself had faded beyond use. He
quotes the chief restorer's comments on the original: "Universal took
very, very good care of it, but it was 30 years old. The yellow layer
was gone; we made some tests with the camera negative and ended up with
blue shadows and yellow facial highlights."
Thing have improved at Kodak since the 80's, but not by much. If a
major Hollywood studio cannot keep its treasured images on Kodak
emulsions using the best archiving film techniques, I would not
recommend any average user trusting their images to film from the same
company - despite its misplaced reputation!
For anyone interested in the problems of image permanence (film, print
or digital) for archiving etc. Wilhelm's book is certainly worth looking
through, and a regular check on his website for the latest measurements
of digital media is also worthwhile.
Roy
"Hecate" <hec...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:0kd1a19gv6clth4de...@4ax.com...
Yes, that is all true.
But little mices, like to eat paper and probably cellulose based film as
well. There are also dangers from mould and damp, etc.
Plus all the usual domestic accidents, with cups of coffee etc. and children
and grandchildren with sticky fingers, getting into places they are not
meant to.
The original Prints, especially big ones, do get scratched and marked just
by taking out and putting away.
So surely the more different forms of Archival Storage used the better,
especially since none of them are guaranteed.
Roy G
tell...@att.net
projector, getting prints from a drug store, or making your own 16x20
prints? What do you intend to do with the scans? The purpose(s) would
make a huge difference not only in choosing a scanner, but also in the
learning curve.
If you hang around for a bit, you will find that learning to use any
scanner well is not simple. While the price of a scanner is not an issue
for you, how about time and effort? Depending on your purpose, something
like PhotoCD may be a cost/time/effort effective solution.
UrbanVoyeur
> You can always access the IR channel directly using, for example,
> Vuescan and implement your own version of ICE. Should you try that, you
> will find that reducing the number of variables in the algorithm to the
> two available is somewhat of an achievement! ;-)
>
>> Also, it would be nice to be able to control the radius around the
>> defect, and so on...
>
>
> That is, as I understand it, exactly what the "fine" and "normal"
> setting of ICE is. "Fine" responds to smaller defects and applies a
> smaller radius - but that brings with it additional problems.
>
>>
>> With judicious use of feathering, all that could be incorporated
>> seamlessly, or so it seems... ;o)
>>
> Things always seam simpler than they are, though.
>
Thanks for the informative post Kennedy!
Question:
How could you go about dust/scratch removal on film that retains silver
in the emulsion?
Since silver is opaque to the wavelengths we're likely to have in our
scanners, IR and UV transmission difference won't work.
What about dealing with the surface?
I wonder if UV light on a scratch or dust would appear differently when
just looking at the surface of the film?
Do the layers of film below the surface respond differently to UV light?
Could you shine two beams of single wave length collimated light at the
surface at right angles and look at the diffraction pattern to
distinguish dust (above the surface) and scratches (below the surface)
from the actual top of the emulsion?
--
J
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Actually, despite the nomenclature used by Kodak and their predecessors
>ASF, ICE is not in its 4th generation - the "4" in "ICE4" refers to the
>bundling of 4 different functions, only one of which is the original ICE
>with minimum modification from when it was first introduced on the Nikon
>LS-2000. The remaining three parts are ROC, GEM and DEE - it is only
>ICE4 if these are included. ICE3, as licensed for the LS-4000 & LS40,
>only had ROC and GEM included and consequently DEE is greyed out in
>NS4.02 when used with these scanners, despite being built into the
>software and clearly not a hardware function.
That's very interesting! I didn't know that and always thought it was
the version number.
>You can always access the IR channel directly using, for example,
>Vuescan and implement your own version of ICE. Should you try that, you
>will find that reducing the number of variables in the algorithm to the
>two available is somewhat of an achievement! ;-)
Exactly! ;o) As VueScan has proven with its inferior results, when
compared to ICE, a mere civilian should not attempt this! ;o)
Seriously though, I wish I had more time to delve into ICEDLL.DLL! To
paraphrase that song about New York, "The DLL so nice, they named it
twice"! ;o)
Seriously though, looking at it with "Depends" reveals an intriguing
list of functions. A bit of trivia... internally it's known as "DICE".
>>Also, it would be nice to be able to control the radius around the
>>defect, and so on...
>
>That is, as I understand it, exactly what the "fine" and "normal"
>setting of ICE is. "Fine" responds to smaller defects and applies a
>smaller radius - but that brings with it additional problems.
Yes, but it's a bit of a blunt instrument. Ideally, I'd like to be
able to vary it across the image. There are areas where ICE can be let
lose, while there are other areas where I would turn ICE off
completely, and then there are areas where a varying degrees of "some"
ICE would be beneficial.
But that would make its use much more complicated and, I suppose, they
were more concerned with ease of use - at least within NikonScan. And
that's understandable, too.
However, I believe Kodak also sells the other 3 as stand-alone PS
plug-ins where a much finer and more complex control is possible. I
wonder why they didn't do the same for ICE?
>>With judicious use of feathering, all that could be incorporated
>>seamlessly, or so it seems... ;o)
>>
>Things always seam simpler than they are, though.
No, I just meant since ICE softens the image somewhat, having a hard
border between "ICEd" and "non-ICEd" areas may appear unnatural and a
small amount of feathering to blend them seamlessly would help that.
>>http://www.historicphotoarchive.com/index.html
>>http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h1/identificationP.shtml
>>
>>The top one is really fascinating as the guy decoded all those weird
>>icons (triangles, squares, semi-circles and whatnot) as well as slit
>>markings, in some cases down to a quarter of the year when they were
>>used by Kodak for all of their film.
>>
>He makes an interesting comment which, although common misconception,
>has been proven to be completely false:
>"The processing was changed in early 1939, and images processed after
>then enjoy the best permanence of any color film made."
>
>Actually, it isn't - and never was, although the latest incarnation of
>the K-14 process is, apparently, one of the worst Kodachrome emulsions
>and processes since that original 1936 process.
Built-in obsolescence? ;o)
>That's right, contrary to popular belief, Kodachrome is *NOT* a
>particularly stable emulsion, a disclosure which made Henry Wilhelm
>world famous and seriously knocked Kodak's image in professional
>circles. Quoting Wilhelm's book on image permanence: "(In projector
>fading tests) Kodachrome ranks as the worst of all current slide
>films."!
Actually, this takes me laterally to another thought I've had at the
back of my mind for some time now...
I'm using the same set of "dark" KCs for my tests. And by now I must
have scanned them 100s of times - at least! I always wondered if this
repeated exposure to the bright LEDs had any effect on the slides.
My instinct told me it should and above paragraphs suggests that is
does. Presumably, exposing slides to scanner's LED light is no
different to slides being projected. Or is it?
I mean, LED don't generate the heat regular slide projectors do, and
the amount of time the slide is exposed to passing LED light is a
fraction of permanent and indiscriminate blast of projector lights...
>Only if projection can be avoided can Kodachrome be considered as a long
>lasting emulsion.
That explains why my KCs are in such a good state. I've had them in
storage for the last 20 years and didn't take them out until I started
the
"let's-digitize-my-life-and-put-it-on-a-key-chain-USB-memory-stick"
project! Well, not quite... It needs a bit more capacity than
that...;o)
Don.
Don
>On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:35:27 +0200, Don <phoney...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 09:04:17 -0400, Robert Feinman
>><robertd...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If it is primarily to archive them then what makes you think the digital
>>>format will hold up better than the film?
>>
>>Because digital can be copied losslessly ad infinitum. Analog film can
>>not.
>>
>Let's rephrase that: because digital can, at least a lot of the time,
>be copied losslessly, as long as the file hasn't been corrupted, saved
>to a medium which has become corrupted, and is copied with reasonable
>frequency to allow for disk substrate failure, disk failure and
>radiation (cosmic). ;-)
Or eaten by a dog, or put in a toaster inadvertently, etc... ;o)
However, if - because of all of the above - one is as paranoid as
yours truly, one makes multiple backups in odd-numbered batches so
even in case of corruption one can still do "best of 3" (which is
usually enough), or "best of 5" (like NASA does).
Of course, all of the above disasters apply to film, too. The
difference is, each analog copy one makes, degrade the data every time
while a digital copy does not.
Don.
Hecate
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>When kept in the dark, Kodachrome is stable - but that kind of defeats
>the object of an image.
Actually, that was the reason I used to use Kodachrome. I never shot
slide film to use as actual slides <g>
Hecate
<royp...@iona-guesthouse.co.uk> wrote:
>So surely the more different forms of Archival Storage used the better,
>especially since none of them are guaranteed.
>
Absolutely. Ideally, you should have images on (more than one) hard
disk, DVD, film and paper.
Hecate
wrote:
>>Actually, it isn't - and never was, although the latest incarnation of
>>the K-14 process is, apparently, one of the worst Kodachrome emulsions
>>and processes since that original 1936 process.
>
>Built-in obsolescence? ;o)
>
I've
been of the opinion for dome time that Kodak want Kodachrome to die as
it's far too much trouble. If it weren't for the fact that a fair
number of high profile supporters are around I suspect they would've
killed it years ago. Maybe the current formulation is deliberate ;-)
Kennedy McEwen
writes
>
>Thanks for the informative post Kennedy!
>
>Question:
>
>How could you go about dust/scratch removal on film that retains silver
>in the emulsion?
>
(and moderate skill with the clone and healing tools.)
>Since silver is opaque to the wavelengths we're likely to have in our
>scanners, IR and UV transmission difference won't work.
>
>What about dealing with the surface?
>
Ah, now you are asking about how we *could* deal with it. ;-)
>I wonder if UV light on a scratch or dust would appear differently when
>just looking at the surface of the film?
>
No different to visible light, in essence.
>Do the layers of film below the surface respond differently to UV light?
>
Not that I am aware of.
>Could you shine two beams of single wave length collimated light at the
>surface at right angles and look at the diffraction pattern to
>distinguish dust (above the surface) and scratches (below the surface)
>from the actual top of the emulsion?
>
In theory, you could do something like that - which is essentially how
ICE on reflective media in flatbeds works, although it isn't diffraction
that identifies defects, just different shadows. In film, of course,
you have two surfaces, and neither is usually pressed against an
optically flat surface for other reasons. So it needs to be a bit more
complex than the solution used on flatbeds.
Kennedy McEwen
<phoney...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>I'm using the same set of "dark" KCs for my tests. And by now I must
>have scanned them 100s of times - at least! I always wondered if this
>repeated exposure to the bright LEDs had any effect on the slides.
>
>My instinct told me it should and above paragraphs suggests that is
>does. Presumably, exposing slides to scanner's LED light is no
>different to slides being projected. Or is it?
>
projection.
Think about it this way, a projector has to pass enough light through
the slide (of approximately 1.5sq.in) to illuminate a screen that is
perhaps 15sq.ft in area with enough brightness for you to see all of the
detail. That is about 225x as much light as necessary to view the slide
directly without any magnification. The scanner has to illuminate the
slide with enough light to cover the detector length, about the same
size as the short edge of the slide. So, ignoring the sensitivity
differences between the scanner sensor and your eye, and any reflection
efficiencies from the screen, the projector exposes the entire slide to
about 225 as much light as the scanner does during the scan time of a
single line. And I bet you project you slides for more than a couple of
milliseconds each...
Scanning exposure is negligible compared to projection.
BTW. Wilhelm's work makes it quite clear that it is the light of the
projection lamp, not the heat, that is the damage mechanism with
Kodachrome.
Kennedy McEwen
<hec...@newsguy.com> writes
>>
>I've
>been of the opinion for dome time that Kodak want Kodachrome to die as
>it's far too much trouble. If it weren't for the fact that a fair
>number of high profile supporters are around I suspect they would've
>killed it years ago. Maybe the current formulation is deliberate ;-)
>
long time to kill it off. ;-)
Peter D
>>>format will hold up better than the film?
>>
>>Because digital can be copied losslessly ad infinitum. Analog film can
>>not.
>>
> Let's rephrase that: because digital can, at least a lot of the time,
> be copied losslessly, as long as the file hasn't been corrupted, saved
> to a medium which has become corrupted, and is copied with reasonable
> frequency to allow for disk substrate failure, disk failure and
> radiation (cosmic). ;-)
Yes, digital is susceptible to damage/corruption/loss. But so is the actual
slide. Given the ease with which digital copies can be created (and
distributed) it seems to me that it is better than doing nothing.
My reasons for wanting to create digital copies are in case the originals
are ever lost or damages or degrade. If they don't, great. If they do, I
will have digital copies. If they are lost or degraded, then I am no worse
of than if the originals were and I have no digital copies. I dont' see the
downside other than the work.
I would recomend to anyone setting out on a project like this to make lots
of copies and then pass them on to family/others. Keep track of who has what
and if you lose yours you can go get another copy.
Hecate
>> Let's rephrase that: because digital can, at least a lot of the time,
>> be copied losslessly, as long as the file hasn't been corrupted, saved
>> to a medium which has become corrupted, and is copied with reasonable
>> frequency to allow for disk substrate failure, disk failure and
>> radiation (cosmic). ;-)
>
>Yes, digital is susceptible to damage/corruption/loss. But so is the actual
>slide. Given the ease with which digital copies can be created (and
>distributed) it seems to me that it is better than doing nothing.
>
>My reasons for wanting to create digital copies are in case the originals
>are ever lost or damages or degrade. If they don't, great. If they do, I
>will have digital copies. If they are lost or degraded, then I am no worse
>of than if the originals were and I have no digital copies. I dont' see the
>downside other than the work.
>
>I would recomend to anyone setting out on a project like this to make lots
>of copies and then pass them on to family/others. Keep track of who has what
>and if you lose yours you can go get another copy.
>
You are absolutely right. It was just that Don's answer gave the
impression that you made a digital file and it was alright for ever
whereas, as you rightly say, you need rather more than one copy (I
know Don didn't mean that either, but impressionable people may be
watching <g>).
Hecate
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <tve4a1lgl0poprp1n...@4ax.com>, Hecate
><hec...@newsguy.com> writes
>>>
>>I've
>>been of the opinion for dome time that Kodak want Kodachrome to die as
>>it's far too much trouble. If it weren't for the fact that a fair
>>number of high profile supporters are around I suspect they would've
>>killed it years ago. Maybe the current formulation is deliberate ;-)
>>
>K-14 was first introduced in March 1974, so it has taken them rather a
>long time to kill it off. ;-)
LOL!
Don
>(I
>know Don didn't mean that either, but impressionable people may be
>watching <g>).
LOL!
Don.
Don
<r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'm using the same set of "dark" KCs for my tests. And by now I must
>>have scanned them 100s of times - at least! I always wondered if this
>>repeated exposure to the bright LEDs had any effect on the slides.
>>
>>My instinct told me it should and above paragraphs suggests that is
>>does. Presumably, exposing slides to scanner's LED light is no
>>different to slides being projected. Or is it?
>>
>Scanning exposes the slide to *much* less light than conventional
>projection.
OK, so that means: Keep on testing, Don! ;o)
>Think about it this way, a projector has to pass enough light through
>the slide (of approximately 1.5sq.in) to illuminate a screen that is
>perhaps 15sq.ft in area with enough brightness for you to see all of the
>detail. That is about 225x as much light as necessary to view the slide
>directly without any magnification. The scanner has to illuminate the
>slide with enough light to cover the detector length, about the same
>size as the short edge of the slide. So, ignoring the sensitivity
>differences between the scanner sensor and your eye, and any reflection
>efficiencies from the screen, the projector exposes the entire slide to
>about 225 as much light as the scanner does during the scan time of a
>single line. And I bet you project you slides for more than a couple of
>milliseconds each...
>
>Scanning exposure is negligible compared to projection.
That's great news! Thanks as always for the explanation, Kennedy!
>BTW. Wilhelm's work makes it quite clear that it is the light of the
>projection lamp, not the heat, that is the damage mechanism with
>Kodachrome.
I'm sure the heat does all sorts of other damage such as causing
excessive curling etc.
Don.
Kap...@gmail.com
image stability, reinforced, alas, by other sources who should know
better.
Both contemporary Kodachrome and Ektachrome are very stable products,
but both emphasize dark stability over light stability. This is for the
simple reason that they spend over 99% of their time in the dark. There
are no "perfectly stable" dyes from anyone, and the balance of dark
(more properly "thermal"), light, humidity and pollutant stability has
to be chosen depending on the application.
The amount of light exposure, either in normal projection or scanning,
has a minimal effect on dye loss--period. Alas, there have been those
who have emphasized (or sometimes even limited testing to) light
stability, ignoring the other factors.
If your uses call for a transparency display material, then by all
means you should consider light stability first. But over 90% of
consumer prints are stored in the dark. Even most displayed pictures
are put away after 10 to 20 years and virtually all after 40 years.
Of course, many dye transfer products, not encumbered by having to form
dyes in situ, have exceptional stability, and if you're ready to spend
the time or money involved to produce them, they may be your answer.
Kennedy McEwen
Kap...@gmail.com writes
>Some of the notes in this thread reflect a basic misunderstanding of
>image stability, reinforced, alas, by other sources who should know
>better.
>
>Both contemporary Kodachrome and Ektachrome are very stable products,
>but both emphasize dark stability over light stability.
"Very stable" is a subjective term - objective measurements show that
both current Kodachrome and Ektachrome have significant deficiencies
compared to competitive products. Hence your use of such a subjective
term is highly questionable. The question may be "is Kodachrome or
Ektachrome good enough?" and, contrary to your claim, the independent
assessment indicates that the answer is a resounding "No!".
Current Ektachrome has nothing like the dark stability of Kodachrome,
which has "the worst of all current slide films" for light stability and
which is *very* significant under normal projection. Current Ektachrome
is indeed much improved over earlier Ektachrome in terms of dark
stability, but it is still grossly inferior to Fuji equivalent films.
The popularity of automated colour restoration features, such as ROC, on
film scanners is evidence in itself that popular film stability is
woefully inadequate even for amateur use.
> This is for the
>simple reason that they spend over 99% of their time in the dark. There
>are no "perfectly stable" dyes from anyone, and the balance of dark
>(more properly "thermal"), light, humidity and pollutant stability has
>to be chosen depending on the application.
>
>The amount of light exposure, either in normal projection or scanning,
>has a minimal effect on dye loss--period.
Again, the published measurement data from *independent* authorities
disputes this claim. Please provide referenced which support your
claims - the ANSI group responsible for such assessments, of which
Henry Wilhelm is a founder member, disputes your claim.
Furthermore, whilst Wilhelm has measured and reported the fading
characteristics of these films according to published methods, he
actually points out that the established ANSI measurement method is, if
anything, likely to overestimate the stability of the emulsion (ie.
underestimate just how bad the problem actually is) when compared to
"typical" use!
>Alas, there have been those
>who have emphasized (or sometimes even limited testing to) light
>stability, ignoring the other factors.
>
On the contrary - all factors should be considered, and many are by
Wilhelm, although he has emphasised light fading because it is much more
significant than you suggest. The whole point of an image is for it to
be viewed - and that cannot be achieved without light exposure. A
typical projector, such as a Kodak Carousel, exposes the slide to a
light intensity about 10x that of direct sunlight at the equator - and
some high intensity projectors used in large lecture theatres can exceed
100x! Needless to say, it doesn't take long *accumulated* exposure
through the life of the slide to cause fading - irrespective of whether
it spends most of its life stored in the dark at -18degC or not.
>If your uses call for a transparency display material, then by all
>means you should consider light stability first. But over 90% of
>consumer prints are stored in the dark. Even most displayed pictures
>are put away after 10 to 20 years and virtually all after 40 years.
>
The loss in Kodachrome K-14 density and consequential colour shift is
measurable and considered unacceptable for museum and colour critical
applications after only 20minutes of accumulated exposure in a typical
projector! It is considered unacceptable for the average commercial and
amateur use (considered to be at most 25%, 20% and 35% loss of red,
green and blue density respectively) in only one hour of accumulated
exposure. (Reference Table 6.1 of Wilhelm's book). And *most* of that
dye fading occurs within the first 10 to 15 minutes of accumulated
exposure!
One hour total projection isn't a lot, particularly for a well enjoyed
image, over even the limited period of use that you suggest, of 10 to 20
years! That is only one 1-minute display (the maximum recommended by
Kodak) every 4 months! The average slide might only see a few minutes
of projection exposure in its life, but your 'winners' can certainly
expect to get a lot more - and rapidly turn into faded losers!
Furthermore, this light induced fading also has a form of reciprocity
failure in that many short bursts of exposure induce the damage faster
than the same total exposure made on a continual basis. So those
Kodachrome favourites can really suffer.
Kap...@gmail.com
that one deems most important. For a product that will spend most of
its time in the dark, I'll put thermal stability first, and my own
collection of transparencies dating back to 1964, using materials from
multiple manufacturers, convinces me that I have made the right choice.
Further, I view "independent data" as that appearing in
peer-reviewed technical journals or from laboratories whose primary
funding comes from grants and institutions, not payments from
interested manufacturers. There is nothing inherently wrong with using
data from these other sources (including manufacturers) as long as you
know and acknowledge who is paying the bills and don't try to pretend
otherwise.
That said, let's be clear about a few things. It is absolutely
incorrect to say, referencing my earlier note, that "the ANSI group
responsible for such assessments...disputes your claim." As I'm
sure you must know from reading the ANSI standards, that group (along
with the ISO) writes test and/or reporting protocols for many things,
among them image stability testing. They do not evaluate products. They
do not do tests. They do not assess claims.
While in my opinion and that of others, these standards are in need of
updating (new media bring with them new or at least different
permanence problems, plus new research studies have provided further
insights), such revisions need to be based on real data, published in
the journals where others can evaluate the data's validity, not just
based on someone's opinion.
Having worked with numerous publications over the years that specified
or required the very products you denigrate, I would hardly say they
are "...considered unacceptable for the average commercial and
amateur use."
Further, despite your citation of ANSI standards, the endpoints you
quote are not the ANSI Illustrative Endpoints, nor are they based on
any psychophysical data published in a peer-reviewed journal. The only
such data that I know of (though it is for prints and not
transparencies) is by Oldfield, et. al., [Journal of Imaging Science
and Technology, 48, 495 (2004)].
You can, of course, choose any endpoint you want, and for some
archivists and curators a "Just Noticeable Difference" or JND (as
determined by a double stimulus response test) is the standard. But
there is no data to suggest that at 1 JND most users deem an image
"unacceptable." In fact, 1 JND is approximately within the
variability of processing or viewing illumination.
"Typical use" can cover a broad range of applications and, as I
indicated above, should play a major role is choosing which attributes
of a system one values over others. Again, however, data, not
speculation, is critical to making an informed decision. The largest,
best, and longest term studies I know of (though primarily focused on
negatives and prints) began in 1987 with the work of Anderson and his
colleagues [J. Imaging Technology, 13, 49 (1987); 17, 127 (1991)] and
were continued by Bugner and his colleagues into the present time.
As for "reciprocity failure" in accelerated testing, it can work
both ways, and it is not limited to light-induced changes only. The
only sure lifetime predictions are those based on natural aging, but
any serious accelerated test predictions must take into account the
most extended reciprocity data the tester can gather in the time
available and are always subject to revision.
Kennedy McEwen
Kap...@gmail.com writes
>Obviously one is free to choose a product based on whatever attributes
>that one deems most important. For a product that will spend most of
>its time in the dark, I'll put thermal stability first, and my own
>collection of transparencies dating back to 1964, using materials from
>multiple manufacturers, convinces me that I have made the right choice.
>
>
>Further, I view "independent data" as that appearing in
>peer-reviewed technical journals or from laboratories whose primary
>funding comes from grants and institutions, not payments from
>interested manufacturers.
>
reviewed but he has been the subject of failed litigation by Kodak whom
it found more wanting than almost any other photographic manufacturer.
Accepting payment from interested manufacturers, many of whom receive
less than satisfactory reports as a consequence of that work, does not
preclude an author from being independent.
>There is nothing inherently wrong with using
>data from these other sources (including manufacturers) as long as you
>know and acknowledge who is paying the bills
As for who is paying the bills:
"Kapecki is an imaging consultant who was a senior researcher for more
than 30 years with the Eastman Kodak Company".
Yes, we do need to keep an eye on who is paying the bills, especially
when they dispute facts without divulging their own interests!
>and don't try to pretend
>otherwise.
The terms pot, kettle and black come to mind - but black has probably
faded from yours!
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
for me.
>>>>> "KM" == Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
KM> In article <1118328522.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
KM> Kap...@gmail.com writes
>> Some of the notes in this thread reflect a basic misunderstanding of
>> image stability, reinforced, alas, by other sources who should know
>> better.
>>
>> Both contemporary Kodachrome and Ektachrome are very stable products,
>> but both emphasize dark stability over light stability.
KM> "Very stable" is a subjective term - objective measurements show that
KM> both current Kodachrome and Ektachrome have significant deficiencies
KM> compared to competitive products. Hence your use of such a subjective
KM> term is highly questionable. The question may be "is Kodachrome or
KM> Ektachrome good enough?" and, contrary to your claim, the independent
KM> assessment indicates that the answer is a resounding "No!".
KM> Current Ektachrome has nothing like the dark stability of Kodachrome,
KM> which has "the worst of all current slide films" for light stability
KM> and which is *very* significant under normal projection. Current
KM> Ektachrome is indeed much improved over earlier Ektachrome in terms of
KM> dark stability, but it is still grossly inferior to Fuji equivalent
KM> films.
--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.
Kennedy McEwen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>
>I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>for me.
>
Ektachrome process has all been in vain.
Cut the BS. 40 years ago Ektachrome wasn't anything like as good as it
is today. For one thing, Ektachrome of that era was renowned for its
excessively blue shadows which, thankfully, Kodak fixed around the
mid-80s . So even if 40 year old Ektachrome slides did survive unfaded,
which *is* possible if they were stored at low temperature in a dry
environment, they certainly would not be "indistinguishable from slides
taken yesterday" - simply because the emulsion was nowhere near as good
as it is today. If it was, Kodak would never have gone through however
many iterations of the E-x process in that time that they have.
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
And of course old Ektachrome has excessively blue shadows, but that
was not the point. I also have lots of slides which *were* taken last
year with nasty colors, which also give me the same problems when
scanning. I usually get better colors when scanning negative film,
btw.
>>>>> "KM" == Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
KM> In article <wvbr7jgy...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
KM> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>
>> I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>> products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>> indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>> for me.
>>
KM> Of course they are - and all those years developing and improving the
KM> Ektachrome process has all been in vain.
KM> Cut the BS. 40 years ago Ektachrome wasn't anything like as good as
KM> it is today. For one thing, Ektachrome of that era was renowned for
KM> its excessively blue shadows which, thankfully, Kodak fixed around the
KM> mid-80s . So even if 40 year old Ektachrome slides did survive
KM> unfaded, which *is* possible if they were stored at low temperature in
KM> a dry environment, they certainly would not be "indistinguishable from
KM> slides taken yesterday" - simply because the emulsion was nowhere near
KM> as good as it is today. If it was, Kodak would never have gone
KM> through however many iterations of the E-x process in that time that
KM> they have.
KM> --
KM> Kennedy
KM> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
KM> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
KM> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Kennedy McEwen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>
have no firm data to back your statement. You acknowledge the
limitations of the emulsion of the time, so how do you know it has not
degraded? The Ektachrome emulsion of that time is known to fade, even
in dark storage, so what makes you so confident that your slides
haven't? What special precautions have you taken, because unless you
stored them under archive conditions by accident (since the ideal
conditions were not even identified at the time your storage started)
then they certainly will have faded - even if you *think* they look OK.
Or do they just look like you recall they should? It is surprising how
many people believe that colours are so much more brilliant these days
than they were in the 50s and 60s - because that is the diet of images
from that period that they are fed on.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
KM> In article <wvbr3brl...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
KM> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>> The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>
KM> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
KM> have no firm data to back your statement. You acknowledge the
I *said* it was by eye, so I don't really need any firm data to back
it up, do I? Yes, it has probably degraded, but not so much as to make
much of a difference to my eye, and there is no problem at all
scanning it, and the histograms indicate there is plenty of
information in all three colors. I have negatives from the same period
which now are essentially monochrome, though, stored under identical
conditions in the dark. The color rendition is certainly not
completely accurate, but then it never was.
KM> limitations of the emulsion of the time, so how do you know it has not
KM> degraded? The Ektachrome emulsion of that time is known to fade, even
KM> in dark storage, so what makes you so confident that your slides
KM> haven't? What special precautions have you taken, because unless you
KM> stored them under archive conditions by accident (since the ideal
KM> conditions were not even identified at the time your storage started)
KM> then they certainly will have faded - even if you *think* they look
KM> OK.
I mainly take pictures to look at them, so if they *look* good, they
*are* good. As I said before, good enough for me :-)
KM> Or do they just look like you recall they should? It is surprising
KM> how many people believe that colours are so much more brilliant these
KM> days than they were in the 50s and 60s - because that is the diet of
KM> images from that period that they are fed on.
If I place these slides on the light table, side by side with other
slides taken within the last few years, lots of the newer slides have
more brilliant colors. I can also find quite a few examples of the
opposite. As you said yourself in a previous post, the Ektachrome
emulsion has been improved, so it is difficult to know which
differences can be attributed to aging, and which are just the
consequence of using another emulsion.
KM> --
KM> Kennedy
KM> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
KM> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
KM> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
--
The Sun also rises
Peter D
news:aI6IbTCb...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <wvbr3brl...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>
> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
> no firm data to back your statement.
Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
than yours.
Hecate
Actually, no it's not. Real data measurements will always beat "eye"
measurements because "eye" measurements are both subjective and, the
farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory. Can you
remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:
"I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
for me."
I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.
Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.
Besides, as I already have said in another post, the histograms of the
scanner does not show anything special.
>>>>> "H" == Hecate <hec...@newsguy.com> writes:
H> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:28:05 GMT, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
>> "Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aI6IbTCb...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <wvbr3brl...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>> The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>>
>>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
>>> no firm data to back your statement.
>>
>> Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>> the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>> witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>> consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>> properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>> than yours.
>>
H> Actually, no it's not. Real data measurements will always beat "eye"
H> measurements because "eye" measurements are both subjective and, the
H> farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory. Can you
H> remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?
H> --
H> Hecate - The Real One
H> Hec...@newsguy.com
H> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
H> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Kennedy McEwen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>>>> "KM" == Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> KM> In article <wvbr3brl...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> KM> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>
> >> The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
> >>
> KM> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
> KM> have no firm data to back your statement. You acknowledge the
>
>I *said* it was by eye, so I don't really need any firm data to back
>it up, do I?
That is the point I was making - you are relying on your eyes and memory
as the basis of an objective assessment. An image can *look* quite
acceptable even after substantial level of fading and it is only when
you do a side by side comparison of the original that the loss becomes
obvious. You only need to look at the Usenet records of the Epson/Canon
inkjet orange fade issues for examples of that - literally thousands of
owners making claims that these inks were perfectly stable, only to
rescind them a few days or weeks later after making proper comparative
tests.
>As you said yourself in a previous post, the Ektachrome
>emulsion has been improved, so it is difficult to know which
>differences can be attributed to aging, and which are just the
>consequence of using another emulsion.
>
Precisely, and since you can't tell, how can you be sure that your
images are "virtually indistinguishable" from recent slides? The fact
is you can't. Neither can you determine, by comparing an eye viewed
image with your memory, both modified by cultural expectations of the
images from that period, how much fading has actually occurred. And if
you cannot do that, how can you possibly determine how close to an
objectionable level of fading your examples actually are - or even if
they have actually crossed that level already? How much longer can you
be confident that your original images on Ektachrome slides will
actually last in an acceptable form? Viewing "by eye" against a the
reference of a filtered memory certainly will not yield any of those
answers.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Kennedy McEwen
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aI6IbTCb...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <wvbr3brl...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>
>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you have
>> no firm data to back your statement.
>
>Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>the slides.
And this impression formed on his own eyes is compared against what
reference exactly? His 40 year old memories? I doubt he can remember
every image taken after that time let alone how saturated the original
slide was. Added to that, he has 40 years of cultural education in the
popular media modifying not only his memories of the period but his
expectations of the images.
There is a vast difference between "still acceptable" and "not faded at
all", which is the issue I am trying to explain to him. His statement
that these 40 year old slides are indistinguishable from those taken
yesterday suggests the latter, when in actual fact he is only
demonstrating the former - with no indication whatsoever as to how close
to that critical level of acceptability that they actually are nor any
concept of how much longer they are likely to remain so.
>He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>than yours.
>
No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.
It is a fact that Ektachrome, particularly Ektachrome from the period
Ole is referring to, fades significantly unless stored at very low
temperatures. This has been confirmed by independent tests and, in the
case of these older films, by Kodak themselves. Claiming that you have
slides on that film from that period which have been stored
conventionally and are indistinguishable from new slides is merely a
statement that your level of acceptability and/or expectation is
unusually low, not an assessment of emulsion longevity.
Nevertheless, Ole's argument does dispute the reference that our Kodak
representative on this thread made - he certainly does still view his
images after 40 years, and he is not alone!
Hecate
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> wrote:
>You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper context.
>If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:
>
>"I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>for me."
>
>I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
>difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.
<insert joke about when you last had your eyes tested> ;-)
>Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
>how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
>the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
>the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
>need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.
The weasel phrase here (weasel phrases/words are what advertisers add
into their adverts so you can't challenge them) is "do not look
significantly different". That doesn't mean that they *aren't*
significantly different. No-one is saying that you aren't telling the
truth "as you see it" - just that your eyes aren't seeing the "whole
picture."
>Besides, as I already have said in another post, the histograms of the
>scanner does not show anything special.
>
Try importing the images into Photoshop and use the droppers to see
what co0lours you say are alike have as an RGB value.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
Peter D
news:1r71b19fd058if1id...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:28:05 GMT, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
>
>>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aI6IbTCb...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>> In article <wvbr3brl...@sun.com>, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
>>> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
>>>>
>>> How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
>>> have
>>> no firm data to back your statement.
>>
>>Of course he does. He has his own impressions form his own eyes looking at
>>the slides. He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>>than yours.
>>
> Actually, no it's not.
Actually, yes it is. :-)
He is the only one in a fully-qualified position to make the unequivocal
statement of what he saw with his own eyes and what impressions, if any, his
viewing created. You cannot possibly knwo more about the facts than him.
Unless you can know and demonstrate he is a liar, delusional, or incapable
of assessing the evidence of his own eyes, you cannot make a better claim to
what he saw that he does. That makes his claim stronger.
> Real data measurements will always beat "eye" measurements because "eye"
> measurements are both subjective and, the
> farther back you go, rely on more and more tenuous memory.
Immaterial. He didn't claim his impression was better than "real data
measurements". He simply stated the facts as best he knew them. You are the
one that asked ofr "firm data". Yet you have failed to provide any "firm
data". All you've done so far is produce repeats of your unqualified
opinion.
> Can you remember what a slide you took 50 years ago looked like then?
Immaterial. My memory is not the issue.
HAND :-)
Peter D
> On 16 Jun 2005 10:10:09 +0200, Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
> <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> wrote:
>
>>You have to look at the statement about not having faded in the proper
>>context.
>>If you look at the *original* post, I stated the following:
>>
>>"I do not doubt your claim about Ekatchrome being inferior to Fuji
>>products, but I have 40 year old Ektachrome slides which are virtually
>>indistinguishable (by eye) from slides taken yesterday. Good enough
>>for me."
>>
>>I clearly state that according to my eyes, there is not much of a
>>difference. I cannot see how anyone else can argue with that.
>
> <insert joke about when you last had your eyes tested> ;-)
>
>>Of course any instrument will beat the Mk. II eyeball in quantifying
>>how much the slides have faded, which they certainly must have. But
>>the slides do not look significantly different from *new* slides of
>>the same kind of scene. Ergo, the fading cannot be too bad. I do not
>>need to remember how the scene looked like 40 years ago.
>
> The weasel phrase here
Weasel phrase? What utter nonsense. It was an expression of his impressions,
stated truthfully.
> into their adverts so you can't challenge them) is "do not look
> significantly different". That doesn't mean that they *aren't*
> significantly different.
And it doesn't mean they _are_. Do you have any actual evidence, any
empirical data, to support your claim? If not, maybe you should go get some
or admit that you cannot possibly know better than him what he sees with his
own eyes.
Peter D
> In article <9OXre.1692957$Xk.546803@pd7tw3no>, Peter D
>>He may not have any empirical data -- other than that of a
>>witness --- but he certianly has sufficient data to make his opinion worth
>>consideraiton. Unless you know he is delusional, a liar, or incapable of
>>properly assessing the evidence of his own eyes, his statement is stronger
>>than yours.
>>
> No, that is just you jumping to conclusions.
Not at all. If you and the other chap would stop and actually _read_ what he
stated, you would see that the problem you're both having is you so want to
make your case you aren't actually reading what he said. You are busily
jumping to the conclusion that he's making a universal claim when in fact
he's not. He's expressed an _opinion_ of his own _personal_ impression and
he's been very exact in limiting that impression/opinion to the facts as he
knows them. The only way you or anyoen else can state he's wrong is to
produce evidence he's delusional, unqulaified, or a liar. You haven't.
Therefore, his claim stands. :-)
Kennedy McEwen
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
Ole writes:
>The main point was that it has survived unfaded.
No qualifications, no limitations, no caveats.
I don't *need* to establish that he is delusional, unqualified or a liar
to dispute that, merely refer him back to his own, original statement,
which is exactly what I did in my reply in the next article in the
thread:
Kennedy writes:
>How are you so sure? You have said your assessment is by eye, so you
>have no firm data to back your statement.
Ole may well have expressed his personal opinion as he sees the
comparison in his original statement. My point in commenting was that
his opinion is of little merit in the context of the thread up to that
point because it only addressed his "level of satisfaction" with the
images, not whether they had faded at all or not. He could not provide
evidence to support his subsequent unqualified statement above which,
unless the slides were stored in very unusual conditions (the exact
requirements of which were unkown at the time they were made) then
fading was inevitable and that such fading has been established by Kodak
themselves as well as independent testers.
On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
conclusions at that!
Hecate
No. He categorically stated that it was unfaded. You go and read his
post. He cannot state that if he is just using his eyes.
Peter D
> On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
> disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
> abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
> conclusions at that!
And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I "alleged" that if a
person states an opinion based on the impression of what they see with their
own eyes and you didn't see the same thing they saw, then you cannot
possibly have better knowledge unless you can demonstrate they are
delusional, a liar, or unqualified. You haven't. Therefore, his original
statement stands.
Really, don't they teach Logic 101 at universities any more? :-)
Kennedy McEwen
<please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>"Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:xAPCJmGS...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>
>> On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
>> disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
>> abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
>> conclusions at that!
>
>And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I "alleged" that if a
>person states an opinion
Here is where you are in error.
The statememt "The main point was that it has survived unfaded." is not
an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.
>based on the impression of what they see with their
>own eyes and you didn't see the same thing they saw, then you cannot
>possibly have better knowledge unless you can demonstrate they are
>delusional, a liar, or unqualified.
Not for the statement made.
>You haven't.
I don't have to, simply demonstrate that the absolute statement must be
false - something that Ole subsequently agreed when he admitted that he
couldn't even tell if the differences he saw between these old slides
and more recent ones were due to changed in colour balance or because
the older slides had faded.
>Therefore, his original
>statement stands.
>
That would be the original statement that he has subsequently corrected
and modified, would it?
>Really, don't they teach Logic 101 at universities any more? :-)
>
Obviously not, otherwise you would have noted through proof by
contradiction that your initial postulate must be wrong.
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
KM> In article <SWVse.1729621$6l.781006@pd7tw2no>, Peter D
KM> <please@?.sk.invalid> writes
>> "Kennedy McEwen" <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:xAPCJmGS...@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> On the other hand, your allegation that an absolute statement cannot be
>>> disputed without knowledge of the originator's mental state, visual
>>> abilities or moral standards *is* jumping to conclusions - and wrong
>>> conclusions at that!
>>
>> And you leap (once again)! I didn't allege the above. I "alleged" that if a
>> person states an opinion
KM> Here is where you are in error.
KM> The statememt "The main point was that it has survived unfaded." is
KM> not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.
Not if you read it in the proper context, namely the first post, where
I explicitly state that it was *by eye*. Hardly a claim to absolute
objectivity.
But I don't want to argue about this any more. You can belive what you
want.
Kennedy McEwen
<ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com> writes
>>>>>> "KM" == Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> KM> Here is where you are in error.
>
> KM> The statememt "The main point was that it has survived unfaded." is
> KM> not an opinion, it is a statement of absolute objectivity.
>
>Not if you read it in the proper context, namely the first post, where
>I explicitly state that it was *by eye*. Hardly a claim to absolute
>objectivity.
And, as already stated, the response to your original statement was to
the effect that you could not actually make such an assessment by eye
that was of any relevance to the previous discussions, due to the
changes in the emulsion over that time. Something you later agreed.