kodachromeproject.com Forums  

Go Back   kodachromeproject.com Forums > Kodachrome, Scanning and Output

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-10-2010, 07:33 AM
AndrewKirkby's Avatar
AndrewKirkby AndrewKirkby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 109
AndrewKirkby is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt8314 View Post
The problem is not the film or the scanner, but the calibration. Simply put, by the time scanners came into vogue, very little Kodachrome was being shot. So scanner manufacturers calibrated their scanner software for E6 films. And, for whatever reason (possibly because they figure few people would scan Kodachrome), even if the software DOES have a Kodachrome setting, it just doesn't seem to work all that well. More expensive versions of Silverfast seem to have better color correction. But this is certainly not a cheap option.

With all this said, it might seem like Kodachrome is a poor way to go. But I say that, if you want high-quality digital files, DIGITAL is a better way to go than ANY kind of film. Unless we are talking about at least medium format, scanned film just can't hold a candle to a file produced by a good DSLR. ESPECIALLY in the area of sharpness and grain.

The way I see it, film is something to shoot for the analog experience. And this includes viewing by analog means, such as a projector and/or light table. Viewed in this way, slides are simply unsurpassed by ANYTHING out there. But if you are looking for digital output, a DSLR will ALWAYS be a better way to go than scanning - at least if we are talking about 35mm.
I have quite amazing scans of Kodachrome and other 35mm films which, while they may not be technically as good as a digital camera, the look and character of the image on film, scanned using a high quality scanner far exceeds that of a digital file made from a camera comparable in resolution, even after post processing. - in my opinion, of course.
The reason i shoot film is to get that character, colour rendering and look without having to post process. I already sit in front of a computer for 12+ hours a day for my job. I've done the digital thing - i worked for Canon for a couple of years and looked after pro photographers and technical services.

I definitely agree with you, medium format film gives much better results than 35mm purely because the recording area is larger. From personal experience it is also easier to optically print. I don't shoot colour negs, so i am strictly referring to Ilfochrome printing with an enlarger. Kodachrome does print very well to Ilfochrome although it is somewhat difficult to mask a 35mm film.

As for scanning Kodachrome, yes, Silverfast Studio gives the best results purely because it gives the ability to completely calibrate the resulting image file based on an IT8 target. Most manufacturer-supplied software does not have the same ability. I guess you get what you pay for.

Also, just a little snippet of trivia for you:
National Geographic images shot [on Kodachrome] were enlarger printed on Cibachrome, then scanned using a flatbed for reproduction.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-11-2010, 04:33 AM
matt8314 matt8314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 249
matt8314 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewKirkby View Post
The reason i shoot film is to get that character, colour rendering and look without having to post process. I already sit in front of a computer for 12+ hours a day for my job. I've done the digital thing - i worked for Canon for a couple of years and looked after pro photographers and technical services.
But you see, that's just the problem: you actually DO need to do some fairly hefty post processing to get scanned files to look ANYTHING like the film that they originally came from. Any idiot can get a decent file from a good DSLR (or even a point and shoot). But to get a scan of (especially) a Kodachrome slide to have that same special quality that the original slide has takes LOTS of work. And that's assuming that you actually know how to do it. Without post processing, a raw scan of most slides just looks like garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-12-2010, 12:11 PM
dmr's Avatar
dmr dmr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 117
dmr is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcus View Post
hmmm.... Are we including drum scans in ALWAYS? I've seen 40x60's from 35mm that I just couldn't believe, from drum scanned 35mm. I saw a 40" Kodachrome 200... must have been interpolated, that completely broke me of my pining for R prints.
I've done some quite stunning 13x19 prints from Kodachrome slides which I would boast that rivals any similar size print from any typical digicam.

I've done a number of very nice 13x19s, both from slides and negatives, scanned on the K-M SD IV. This, of course, it set to max. res., 16 bit depth, multiple passes. The image file ends up being about 80mb!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-17-2010, 09:25 PM
matt8314 matt8314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 249
matt8314 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
I've done some quite stunning 13x19 prints from Kodachrome slides which I would boast that rivals any similar size print from any typical digicam.

I've done a number of very nice 13x19s, both from slides and negatives, scanned on the K-M SD IV. This, of course, it set to max. res., 16 bit depth, multiple passes. The image file ends up being about 80mb!
But is the file size REALLY justified? In other words, are the pixels sharp and distinct at sharp boundaries? My findings are that I can scan at an outrageously high resolution if I want. But I really can't get anything better than about 8MP.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.