Digital ICE and Kodachrome?

[ZoneV]

Is it really necessary to turn digital ICE off when scanning Kodachrome? Or maybe only on certain scanners? Or just a myth? Just curious.

[hujev]

Works for me on Nikon's 'normal' setting 90% of the time on a 5000 - just keep an eye on fine detail (most often linear, 'thready' details - see if ice squishes it out [for lack of more precise terminology]). Most of the time I can't see a real difference (esp. when considering the tedious work of of post-process) and I scan with it on 96% of the time, but sometimes, maybe 5% of the time, it's unacceptable. The nikon scan controls (turn it on and then off and compare the view before scanning) is a guide, but 10% of the time the scan looks entirely different from the preview... So try a few scans every now & then with ice on and then off and compare! Remember - nobody'll notice (unless they're way too into detail) except you! I hope the percentages here help, too, at least 50% of the time.

[aluk]

I find that without Digital ICE the amount of dust etc is too distracting, even when I blow/wipe off the slides before scanning. That being said, there is no doubt that the software produces some odd distortions. In the example posted below, you can see that in the photo with ICE applied, there are some splotchy areas. I find that this is especially noticable when there are large areas of uniform colour (e.g. skies, sides of buildings etc.); this aberration is not present in the one without manipulation, though the dust is. Obviously, the software is trying to "fill in" the areas left blank by the dust removal. Done on an epson scanner that is a few years old.

[chris00nj]

Usually digital ice works well. It ice does sometimes distort, if there's a lot of information in the picture, and enough dust on the negative.

For example, a church tower view of a city, and there is a building with windows that has somoe dust on it. Digital ice may incorrectly replace the dust, making the windows seem smaller or wider.

It seems to work better when a slide isn't so busy, like a scenic landscape.

[boosmith]

I've only got a Epson RX500 flatbed. With other films I've used the dust removal with no problem. However, I've just scanned some newly developed Kodachrome 64 with dust removal on and it looked awful - so much so that I thought my "new" Zuiko 50mm f1.4 lens was soft! However, I turned off dust removal and it looks much sharper now. Closer inspection of the errant scans revealed some hideous artifacts that must have been the result of dust removal.

As others report no problems, I guess the only response is to try it with your scanner and see what happens!:)

[lxdude]

What about the Silverfast software method of dust removal vs. Digital ICE? It seems like it might be better for Kodachrome. Anyone have any comparative experience?

[ailardi]

Digital ICE4, bundled with NikonScan 4.0 (ED500) works well with Kodachrome. B&W film (other than cC-41) does not; you learn to spot. The Silverfast dust removal software works very poorly compared to Digital ICE. I used it on my old Kodak scanner and now with my Microtek M1 (for 4x5). Instead, I remove dust spots in Photoshop.

[kevinkar]

I'm using VueScan with its dirt removal routine and it produces good results for the most part but now and then I get a slide that's got several areas of splotchy distortions. They are unacceptable so I have to redo the slide after cleaning it off and turning the cleaning function off. Generally the results are ok but require post processing to clone out the dirt.

Otherwise, the routine built in to VueScan actually works with Kodachrome.

I have also tried NikonScan 3.x and SilverFast 5.x which don't work with Kodachrome (can not calibrate to Kodachrome) but, using a raw/native scan mode and turning on Digital ICE does remove the dirt adequately.

Unfortunately, the colors and lighting are so wrong that it takes longer to correct that than if I had just used VueScan with "cleaning" turned off!

End result is that I have always heard that you could not reliably use cleaning routines like Digital ICE with Kodachrome but that's simply not true.

[matt8314]

Digital ICE? Why bother? I find that an air bulb works wonders. And I can just clone away the rest in Photoshop. This is especially the case with new Kodachrome slides, which are not terribly dirty.

[kevinkar]

Digital ICE? Why bother? I find that an air bulb works wonders. And I can just clone away the rest in Photoshop. This is especially the case with new Kodachrome slides, which are not terribly dirty.
No matter how hard I try to clean a slide before placing it in the scanner, I almost always have some silly speck of dirt that makes its way into the scan. So I almost always have at least the lowest amount of "cleaning" turned on as a backup.

Unfortunately, Kodachrome appears to be a lot more finicky with digital cleaning solutions. I guess the UV (I believe it's UV) light passes through the emulsion layers differently than normal light which wreaks havoc with the cleaning algorithm.

For me, it appears better to try it first with a clean slide and lowest amount of digital cleaning. If the results are bad, I can try cleaning the slide manually again. If good, I can go on my merry way.