Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Ernst Dinkla on January 21, 2011, 06:21:37 am
-
Is it correct that Kodachrome's colors after development are balanced for projection lamps with a 3200K color and by that produce neutral white and greys to our eyes when we see Kodachrome slides projected in that condition?
Is it correct that Ektachrome's colors after development are balanced for projection lamps with a 5000K color and by that produce neutral white and greys to our eyes when we see Ektachrome slides projected in that condition?
Any mix of both types of slides projected with one projector would be a challenge to the adaption of our eyes? A set containing both slide types on a 5000K viewing box can easily be sorted in two groups based on their overall color cast? Kodachrome slides having the blue cast.
We shouldn't make the mistake to interprete a color film description "daylight, tungsten balanced" as describing the above features, that description is for the exposure of said films.
If so the summary of Guyburns in the opther thread could be reduced to the following lines:
1. Kodachrome color, whatever film version, is balanced for viewing with 3200K projection light. Ektachrome film is (in general) balanced for 5000K light. "For the average human eye color receptors" is the other condition.
2 Desktop scanners, film and flatbed models, have an illumination that approaches 5000K with CCFL, FL or LED lamps. More or less continuous spectrum. The RGB filter dyes of (linear) CCD sensors will have slight differences in between but are very different to the human eye receptor.
3 Depending on the conditions described in 1 and 2, Kodachrome slides will show more color cast than Ektachrome slides when scanned as the light source suits Ektachrome better. Color inconstancy in changing light. Blue cast for Kodachrome slides the dominant effect. The difference between the human eye/brain and scanner sensor filtering producing color casts as well. Color inconstancy due to different observers. Differences between scanner lighting and sensor filtering per model and per scanner creating another color inconstancy.
4 Fading of Kodachrome slide due to projection time creating substantial loss of magenta in the slide and a shift to green. Dark fading of Kodachrome should so far be negligable but would create a yellow loss in time and a shift to blue. Fujichrome showing the best projection fade properties, Ektachrome better than Kodachrome, ratio 5: 2.5:1 in hours. All will fade with magenta loss on projection so a shift to green. Ektachrome and Fujichrome dark fading is faster and creates a cyan loss so a shift to red. Yellow staining of archived Ektachrome and Fujichrome slides, it doesn't happen with Kodachrome. A shift to yellow as a result of that. All types of aging will have an influence on scanning results.
5. A scanner can be profiled with an IT8 target + its reference data file (to counter any scanning inaccuracies) using software such as VueScan or Silverfast to correct for inaccuracies in scanning later on. Two Kodachrome IT8-7 slide types exist but they differ, Kodak's original made in 1999 is based on Kodachrome 25, the Lasersoft Kodachrome made in2009 is based on Kodachrome 64. Ektachrome target slides exist in many variations and shouldn't be used for Kodachrome scanning. More color management software exists for creating scanner/film profiles. Profiling is doing an average job in scanning, it can not correct color for slides that deviate from the average like due to exposure to other K values than tungsten or daylight, reciprocity color shifts, fading, etc. Each IT8 target also needs a IT8/CGATS file that contains the colormetric measurements for that target. This text file is required as part of the calibration process. The CGATS file for Kodachrome can be downloaded from FTP.Kodak.com/GASTDS/Q60DATA and is contained in a folder called K3-Data. Info about the colour coding of the IT8 targets is in the document TECHINFO.pdf.
7. In optimal conditions, fresh slide, correctly exposed, a profiled scanning workflow, will in the first place deliver a representation of the (Kodachrome) slide as it is, not of the original scene. With Kodachrome the results will have a mainly blue color cast due to the illumination change from the 3200K KCh is balanced for to the 5000K lighting of the average desktop scanner and differences between the RGB filter dyes/human eye-brain. Contrast in the tone range of Kodachrome film will be affected by the changes too, slide films have in general a wider dynamic range and desktop (film) scanners can not always cope with that, flatbeds even less. Correction for color, tone range, should be available in the Kodachrome settings of for example Vuescan and Silverfast and should be correct per scanner model. More or less as for example an insufficient dynamic range of a scanner can not be compensated that way. Any other experience? White, grey, balance on neutrals in the scanner and/or additional editing on 16 bit scans in editing software may still be needed or will be needed if the scan software doesn't know a Kodachrome setting. Similar RAW editing is another route. Whether one can avoid the per slide editing with Kodachrome batch scanning is open to debate.
I have some questions:
Is there information on how pro drumscan operators coped with Kodachrome slides? The use of 3200K lamps and altered, more Kodachrome friendly, filters on the PMTs? Must have been the solution in the infancy of drum scanner technology and not a bad approach. Later on solved with similar Kodachrome adaptions in software + profiling which may have been less effective but better adapted to demand. I checked some books on reprography here but couldn't find a clue.
I originally thought that there were Imacon models with a halogen tungsten lamp but I must have been wrong. There is a reference to replacing a 5000K fluorescent lamp with a 5400K lamp (repair) due to lamp production issues though. I wonder whether there have been DIY attempts to replace scanner lamps with 3200K lamps to suit Kodachrome scanning. In slide copying with a digital camera/slide copier that route should be easier. Did some searches but nothing substantial surfaced.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
...
If so the summary of Guyburns in the opther thread could be reduced to the following lines:
Your summary leaves out any mention of Kodachrome's non-coincident characteristic curves, which are at the heart of the matter, as extensively discussed in the other threads.
I wonder whether there have been DIY attempts to replace scanner lamps with 3200K lamps to suit Kodachrome scanning.
Kodachrome is balanced not only for the tungsten projection lamp, but also for the eye's response to dark projection viewing conditions, and to the way the eye only partially adapts to the projection light. These perceptual tweaks are non-linear and can't be removed by only changing the type of lamp in the scanner.
-
Your summary leaves out any mention of Kodachrome's non-coincident characteristic curves, which are at the heart of the matter, as extensively discussed in the other threads.
Kodachrome is balanced not only for the tungsten projection lamp, but also for the eye's response to dark projection viewing conditions, and to the way the eye only partially adapts to the projection light. These perceptual tweaks are non-linear and can't be removed by only changing the type of lamp in the scanner.
I mentioned a change of the lamp and possible filter changes in a drum scanner to create better conditions for scanning. I do not have the illusion that the human eye can be recreated that way either but wonder if it could have made things easier in drum scanning then.
What has been left out extensively in my opinion has been the balance to 5000K for Ektachrome. Point is that if you describe the way Kodachrome was adapted to 3200K/the human eye you should also mention what has been done for Ektachrome.
Whatever film, Kodak - Fuji - Agfa, has to adjust dyes etc to get a balance for a given Kelvin grade illumination. Whatever change in Kelvin grade of illumination the color balance will be off. The eye will adapt to a degree to light levels, changed white point with no other white reference around, etc. The better if the light level/Kelvin grade change follows the Kruithof curve. Some dyes will however not play nicely and show more color inconstancy in changing light. That's the lighting side of the issue. There is the observer side too as explained in the summary. A similar thing happens there. If you have two conditions changed it gets pretty complex and referring the whole issue to the Kodachrome 3200K dye curves too simple, not telling all.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
What has been left out extensively in my opinion has been the balance to 5000K for Ektachrome. Point is that if you describe the way Kodachrome was adapted to 3200K/the human eye you should also mention what has been done for Ektachrome.
Whatever film, Kodak - Fuji - Agfa, has to adjust dyes etc to get a balance for a given Kelvin grade illumination. Whatever change in Kelvin grade of illumination the color balance will be off. The eye will adapt to a degree to light levels, changed white point with no other white reference around, etc. The better if the light level/Kelvin grade change follows the Kruithof curve. Some dyes will however not play nicely and show more color inconstancy in changing light. That's the lighting side of the issue. There is the observer side too as explained in the summary. A similar thing happens there. If you have two conditions changed it gets pretty complex and referring the whole issue to the Kodachrome 3200K dye curves too simple, not telling all.
So which of these effects are persisting after the scanner profile is applied? It seems to me that the effects you continue to emphasize are not significant in a profiled work flow because they are minimized or eliminated by the ICC profile.
Can you show that after a profile is applied there is a contribution to the blue cast by any of those effects - light source, observer metamerism, etc.?
What specific corrections do you think the special Kodachrome modes of SilverFast, NikonScan, etc., are doing, or what is it that you do when scanning to correct the blue cast, if it's not correcting for fact that the curves have different gammas?
-
Sorry all, I don't I any way mean to belittle all the combined knowledge presented here but...
We have now entered a third phase of 'Kodachrome' threads and all I have been able to deduce so far is...
as with every other digital discussion the extremely technical aspects go way over my not so technically minded noggen!
From my standpoint it appears that there is no easy one suit fits all solution since there are just too many variables involved to generalize the final result from any given selection of original slides. Dependant on original capture , quality of processing, aging changes ,light source, actual kelvin temp of aged lamps etc, we could go on ad infinitum with all the variables with just how subjectively precise one expects the final result to be.
JMHO
-
We have now entered a third phase of 'Kodachrome' threads and all I have been able to deduce so far is...
as with every other digital discussion the extremely technical aspects go way over my not so technically minded noggen!
So, do you have experience scanning Kodachrome? I ask because unlike scanning E-6, Kodachrome presents some extra challenges...that's the reason that there have been multiple threads (that and the last one kinda fouled a bit).
As with many threads here on LuLa, things tend to get technical pretty quick in large part because there are a lot of very technical and knowledgeable people here who post. Which is a good thing IMHO. Nobody is forcing you to read and post if you don't want to...
-
Is there information on how pro drumscan operators coped with Kodachrome slides? The use of 3200K lamps and altered, more Kodachrome friendly, filters on the PMTs?
Don't know if there is any info about Kodachrome and drum scanners, I DO remember that back when I started shooting Kodachrome 120mm medium format film, there was a lot of problems getting good drum scans of the 120mm film (late 1980's). I remember several prepress houses here in Chicago telling their ad agency clients, "don't shoot Kodachrome, shoot Ektachrome for best results". Several shooters here in town got into a drop down drag out fights about this...as I remember, even Kodak got involved in the discussions (since Kodak also had a strong graphic arts presence). At some point the "Don't shoot Kodachrome" went away...
I originally thought that there were Imacon models with a halogen tungsten lamp but I must have been wrong.
I'm pretty sure that Imacon Flextight scanners have ALWAYS used a tube that was either D50 or D55 never tungsten 3200Kº based...
-
I have never seen a difference in projection between Ektachrome and Kodachrome except for the difference in colour palette. So I would suggest that both Ektachrome and Kodachrome would be balanced for viewing under the same light. Carousel projectors generally ran at 3200K. The real difference boils down to the difference in processing. Ektachrome is a dye coupled film. Kodachrome had no dyes in the emulsion, dyes were added during processing. The emulsion side of a Kodachrome slide is much more evident than that from an E-6 process and I think the structure has more to do with the difficulties with scanning than anything. That relief also creates issues with digital ice, at least the earlier versions.
-
Don't know if there is any info about Kodachrome and drum scanners, I DO remember that back when I started shooting Kodachrome 120mm medium format film, there was a lot of problems getting good drum scans of the 120mm film (late 1980's). I remember several prepress houses here in Chicago telling their ad agency clients, "don't shoot Kodachrome, shoot Ektachrome for best results". Several shooters here in town got into a drop down drag out fights about this...as I remember, even Kodak got involved in the discussions (since Kodak also had a strong graphic arts presence). At some point the "Don't shoot Kodachrome" went away...
There is an interesting article on Hutchcolor that describes the creation of a Kodachrome profile based on an Ektachrome HCT profile. They see the blue, blue magenta cast "because the yellow dye used in Kodachrome film emulsions appears weaker through typical scanner filters than it does to the human eye".
http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Kodachrome_profiles.pdf
http://www.hutchcolor.com/HCT_overview.htm
In the last link is a description of the HCT Precision Scanner Target and what can be expected of the results in practice. The quote here seems to suggest differences between scanner RGB filters
>>> Choosing an emulsion:
Either Fujichrome or Ektachrome HCT targets reproduce Agfachrome™, Ektachrome and Kodachrome originals quite accurately on Heidelberg (Hell) 3000-series and Fuji (Crosfield) Drum scanners, but other scanners like the ICG drum scanner and most CCD desktop scanners require custom Ektachrome or Fujichrome profiles for precise color matching. If only one emulsion is chosen for general use, pick the one on the film type you scan most often. <<<
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
There have been posts on photo.net over the years talking about Kodachrome and scanning. Ron Andrews in particular mentions some interesting stuff - he worked at Kodak. I'm not sure if Ron Mowrey has posted anything about scanning specifically, but he's another ex-Kodak guy who posts on photo.net and APUG. He was involved in Kodachrome and has related several interesting tidbits.
photo.net 1 (http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00S7ZR)
photo.net 2 (http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Ibns)
-
photo.net 1 (http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00S7ZR)
photo.net 2 (http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Ibns)
Good links, thank you.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
There is an interesting article on Hutchcolor that describes the creation of a Kodachrome profile based on an Ektachrome HCT profile. They see the blue, blue magenta cast "because the yellow dye used in Kodachrome film emulsions appears weaker through typical scanner filters than it does to the human eye".
http://www.hutchcolor.com/PDF/Kodachrome_profiles.pdf
Ok, Ernst, I guess you just want to continue to throw stuff out there, and ignore any questions.
Hutcheson is describing a procedure (that "relies on visual judgment and is somewhat un-scientific..") to make a pseudo-Kodachrome profile from a non-Kodachrome target. Not the same as using Real Kodachrome profiles made from Real Kodachrome targets, but let's see what it adds to the discussion.
Hutcheson recommends the following adjustment to neutralize the Kodachrome gray scale.:
7. Edit the Red, Green and/or Blue curves of the Curves 1 layer with simple midtone
moves until the screen grays match the originals. Typically a single midpoint
move should eliminate most of the error, but more than one adjustment
point may be necessary.
If you read the other Kodachrome threads you might remember that I suggested adjusting the middle gray in Levels. Hutcheson is suggesting something similar - he describes moving the midpoint of the tone curves. That would be a contrast change and is consistent with Hunt's explanation that the blue cast is due to the different gammas (slopes or contrast) of the curves.
The cause of the blue cast that Hutcheson suggests is not consistent with the adjustment that he proposes for getting rid of it. If as he suggests the blue cast were due to the yellow channel appearing weaker through the scanner filters. a different kind of adjustment would be needed (linear scaling, white point adjustment, or 3x3 matrix). And for the nth time, if a real Kodachrome profile is used, the whole scanner-filter-light-source-dye-interaction issue is rendered moot.
This is really getting tedious. It seems that all of the "conventional wisdom" on the subject that can be found on the web is offered as explanation, again and again, yet without any evidence to back it up.
A final question for you, Ernst, (but I don't really expect you will answer). How do you reconcile all your conjectures with the following quote from Hunt:
When the viewing conditions consist of projection by tungsten light in a darkened room, the light from the projector appears yellowish (Hunt, 1965), and therefore to obtain results that appear grey the picture has to be slightly bluish (see Section 5.7 [quoted previously]); this is why the curves of Fig. 14.9(a), which relate to materials for tungsten-light projection, are not even approximately coincident, the blue densities being lower than, and the red densities higher than, the green densities, in order to produce the bluish result required...
-
What specific corrections do you think the special Kodachrome modes of SilverFast, NikonScan, etc., are doing, or what is it that you do when scanning to correct the blue cast, if it's not correcting for fact that the curves have different gammas?
Cliff,
Some of this stuff is proprietary, so the software developers will not get too specific about it. What I have been told however (LaserSoft Imaging) is that apart from the Kodachrome profile, there are scanner-model specific adjustments made in the software which get triggered with the choice of the Kodachrome media setting. This seems totally consistent with your previous remarks that the profile alone won't be a sufficient correction solution.
-
Some of this stuff is proprietary, so the software developers will not get too specific about it. What I have been told however (LaserSoft Imaging) is that apart from the Kodachrome profile, there are scanner-model specific adjustments made in the software which get triggered with the choice of the Kodachrome media setting. This seems totally consistent with your previous remarks that the profile alone won't be a sufficient correction solution.
Hi Mark,
It should be easy to get at least a rough idea about what is being done. Scanning an image with a gray scale twice, once with the Kodachrome media setting on and once with it off, and comparing the RGB values (or the density values) should reveal something about how the tone curves are being manipulated.
I happen to have a couple of rolls from the last batch of K64 on the way back from Dwayne's, including a few frames of a Color Checker, so will try looking into it a bit more when I can.
Cliff
-
I've read all the Kodachrome threads. Nothing was finalized or proven. Didn't learn any knew information that would tell me what everyone was trying to achieve scanning kodachrome. Out of frustration I had to ask myself just what the heck is Kodachrome suppose to look like since everyone here seems to know from examining kodachrome images, from where I haven't a clue.
So I did an image google search with two search entries, one "Kodachrome iT8 scans" and the other "Kodachrome Scans". What I found is quite a few pages and images of folks who claim they all got correct looking Kodachrome scans and THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT! I wanted to spit nails!
Having an image restoration and painting background I even offered over at Photo.net to do a color treatment to emulate the look of Kodachrome according to what I found over at Dan Bayer's Kodachrome project. I thought I nailed it applying my Adobe Camera Raw saved presets I came up with that I applied to regular DSLR captured images.
"No I didn't nail it" was the answer I got back, or I got another answer from seasoned film photogs along the lines of "kinda close, but not quite there".
No one would show me a sample of what they thought Kodachrome is suppose to look like and what I found online of all the different appearances told me everyone is full of sh*t!
Here! Look at what this guy came up with...
http://members.klosterneuburg.net/handerle/kodachrome.html
Butt ugly junk! There's so much more like this.
Here's another:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/photography/183390-digital-archiving-vintage-kodachrome-slides.html
And another:
http://forums.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=280349
They're all different!
-
Well call me "bud" ::)
The entire topic is completely subjective and case sensative depending on the variables involved .
Thank you for saying it a little more eloquently than I, with examples
That's just about what I was trying to say in my earlier post which Mr Schewe so proptly put me down for.
I was trying to learn I, I still am.
I have a few thousand Kodachromes I'd like to cull and scan. Contrary to what the real "Bud" said about the "shills" I had reasearched the Silverfast "solution" and it was available more than 6 months ago, not simply since January 2011.
I am yet to be convinced it is the answer either.
As I said earlier there are just too many variables for a difinintive 'One Shoe Fits All' answer .
-
I've read all the Kodachrome threads.
Cool...so how many scans have you actually done from Kodachrome? Ever try to scan 25? Kodachrome 64 in 120mm?
What sort of scanner? A drum scanner? A flatbed scanner? My experience has been scanning Kodachrome 25 & 64 in 35mm and Kodachrome 64 & 200 in 120mm. And I'm here to tell ya, scanning Kodachrome is much different and more difficult than scanning Ektachrome. Which, I think, is the reason for these recent threads? Do you have something useful to contribute? Again have you actually scanned Kodachrome? What were YOUR results?
-
Well call me "bud" ::)
Hi bud...
So, what are your experiences scanning Kodachrome? What scanners? What software?
-
Do I have something useful to contribute?
I thought I was contributing by pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a one size fits all method to scanning Kodachrome seeing...
1. No one has yet told anyone what that "size" looks like...
2. From the examples I've posted, no one really knows what that "Kodachrome" look is anyway, so I'm trying to figure out what problem all these threads were trying to solve.
Jeff, as you've indicated, Kodachrome often doesn't look right scanned and requires a lot of work to get it to look 'right' while no one posts what the 'right' look is and how to maintain it on a consistent basis. So was anything resolved that I might have missed?
I can never understand how you can have a discussion on color without showing color. It's all talk, spectral curve graphs and mathematics with no connection to their results.
No, Jeff. I don't own one Kodachrome slide. I don't scan film anymore. I try to get that "film look" in post shooting with my DSLR, but I never get takers because everyone is so subjective on what that "film look" (pick your brand) should look like.
-
No, Jeff. I don't own one Kodachrome slide.
So, exactly what were you hoping to contribute to this thread? Zero experience scanning Kodachrome film? Hum, ok...
This and the other threads were directed toward people trying to actually do something rather than talk about something of which they have zero experience with.
Unless (and until) you can actually contribute something towards the topic of scanning Kodachrome film, you might want to stand on the sidelines...(instead of trying to interject suboptimal and less than useful comments).
-
Well, I've scanned hundreds of my own Kodachrome 25, 64 and 200 images on a Howtek drum scanner, which can actually "see" the color of the base of the film. My scanner is profiled with a Hutchcolor Velvia target and here's what I see:
When I scan Kodachrome, or any film, I always include all of the film including the rebate edges. When scanning Ektachromes, that rebate edge will come in somewhere around 6 Red, 5 Green and maybe 3 Blue. The scanner actually sees the color of what we perceive as infinite black but really isn't. When scanning Kodachrome of any variety, the RGB numbers for the film base come in more like 8 Red, 6 Green and 25 Blue. The scanner is seeing the bluish color of the film base and reporting back as such.
My solution, whether scientific or not, is to manually push the black point of blue channel down to where it would be when scanning E-6. Trident - the software that runs the Howtek - has a very easy way to click down those values independent of each other, and dropping that blue channel down in the shadow end also affects the entire image, but on a gradated basis. It's almost magical when you see the color come right to where it's supposed to be with each click.
As I said, I've scanned many hundreds of my own images and this has worked every time. As for people who complain about whether a particular method is scientifically accurate or not, it really doesn't matter. I have yet to see an image of mine or anybody else's that could not be improved upon either in the scanning software or in Photoshop later on. I'm going for the best possible image and can't wait the last sixteen rolls of Kodachrome I sent in after Christmas to arrive in the mail.
As for the drum scanner operators who claimed they couldn't scan Kodachrome, that does not surprise me. So many were just scanning bots who never really understood the why of what they were doing. They were the same people who thought drum scanners sucked for scanning color negs as well. I imagine most of those folks have been retrained for other jobs by now anyway.
-
As for the drum scanner operators who claimed they couldn't scan Kodachrome, that does not surprise me. So many were just scanning bots who never really understood the why of what they were doing. They were the same people who thought drum scanners sucked for scanning color negs as well. I imagine most of those folks have been retrained for other jobs by now anyway.
Those people have been long gone for a decade...(and yes, I heard worse actually about scanning negs than Kodachrome).
-
Ok, Ernst, I guess you just want to continue to throw stuff out there, and ignore any questions.
Cliff,
I come back to this issue when I have more time but there is one thing that I object to: Your cyan dye plot isn't the 1:1 explanation for all that happens here. And it if was and solved all the issues in one clear way I wouldn't object at all. What seems to me a key is that Kodachrome unlike all the other slide films has been balanced for 3200K viewing and that it got other dyes in its chemistry for that reason and/or the different process used. Your cyan plot falls within that scheme. The next question is whether the dyes and the cyan especially show more metameric issues brought to 5000K (not-continuous) scanner light than for example Ektachrome brought to 3200K projection light. If so that would explain the acceptance of mixed slide projections in 3200K. Another example is the IR aspect of the cyan dye has been discussed for ICE but not in relation to sensor RGB filters and the sensor itself.
I think these threads should be seen as brainstorming, to get once and for all the factors on the table that really matter. There has been a lot of confusing information available, we have seen that so far. On one hand I think that it is because it is approached in an unscientific way (be careful with Hutcheson though) on the other I think there are that many variables that can lead to different results and by that to other conclusions, right or wrong.
To the others who want to have an instant solution: there are many out there, all with the same claim to be the sole and right solution. Pick one that suits you. This thread may not lead to a simple solution or to a solution at all.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
I've read all the Kodachrome threads. Nothing was finalized or proven. Didn't learn any knew information that would tell me what everyone was trying to achieve scanning kodachrome. Out of frustration I had to ask myself just what the heck is Kodachrome suppose to look like since everyone here seems to know from examining kodachrome images, from where I haven't a clue.
Did you miss the first thread in the series? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50262.msg415125#msg415125
Kodachrome was designed for projection viewing (at least the more recent versions), so I think the gold standard would be the way it looks when projected.
A problem with Kodachrome scans is that the color can be ruined by a blue cast and excessive contrast. The scans have to be adjusted somehow to make them look more like the projected slide. It seems that a lot of Kodachrome scans you see on the web haven't been adjusted very well, or at all, and therefore look crappy.
Some more recent versions of scanning software such as SilverFast and NikonScan have special Kodachrome settings that give very good results.
I can never understand how you can have a discussion on color without showing color. It's all talk, spectral curve graphs and mathematics with no connection to their results.
Along with graphs, which tell a lot if you know how to read them, there were in fact some example images posted. You know you have to be logged-in to LuLa to see them?
I suggested a very simple method using levels to improve Kodachrome scans. Why don't you try it on some of the crappy ones you find on the web?
-
Trident - the software that runs the Howtek - has a very easy way to click down those values independent of each other, and dropping that blue channel down in the shadow end also affects the entire image, but on a gradated basis. It's almost magical when you see the color come right to where it's supposed to be with each click.
Yeah, Peter, that looks like it does something similar to ACR's Split Tone slider. I guess from what I've gathered from these threads an ICC profile derived from an iT8 target can't do that.
Crames, I read that thread and saw the image samples and visited the links. All I got from it was either Kodachrome isn't suppose to look blue or it is but for projection viewing, or it depends on what version of Kodachrome you're scanning. It was just too confusing.
However from what I gathered from those image samples and comparing them to the first four beach scenes in that last Getdpi.com forum link I posted, Kodachrome sees light beige colors in caleche roads, sand and other warmish pastels as having a light ashen putty hue and shadows having a blue to blue green cast which isn't accurate, but quite pleasing from a color design sense.
But then I notice how all four of those beach shots changed hue in sky blue and the color of the sand. They're the same beach and same time of day. Don't know if that's user error or the inconsistent nature of Kodachrome.
-
Hi Mark,
It should be easy to get at least a rough idea about what is being done. Scanning an image with a gray scale twice, once with the Kodachrome media setting on and once with it off, and comparing the RGB values (or the density values) should reveal something about how the tone curves are being manipulated.
I happen to have a couple of rolls from the last batch of K64 on the way back from Dwayne's, including a few frames of a Color Checker, so will try looking into it a bit more when I can.
Cliff
Hi Cliff, yes I agree - there isn't all that much in the scan software which one couldn't reverse engineer with enough logic, trial and error. Your question about what the applications are doing when you select Kodachrome as the media had the word SPECIFIC in it, so that's where it got hard to answer because the developers won't get too specific. But just because it's their secret sauce doesn't meant others can't devise the necessary workarounds - such as shifting the blue curve and/or other such tweaks with several tools to similar effect. The one thing I have gleaned from my inquiries and experience on this matter is that each scanner model reacts differently to the same images/same media, so the recipe should be scanner model specific for best results. With the extra effort, decent scans can be made from Kodachrome systematically, but Jeff is correct that it does take more work than scanning E-6 type films.
-
Truth is I haven't yet Jeff, and I never did say, I knew better !
Though intelligent and mechanically inclined, I am rather technophobic and I have repeatedly put it off for fear of failure. I was so eager to try again until I started reading all the tech stuff. I had done a lot of research a few years ago and just could not afford a top end film scanner so I purchased a Microtek I900 that I thought would be a compromise.It came bundeled with Silverfast but needed to upgrade to their pricier program with their Kodachrome "solution"nearly 8 months ago.I also
questioned the merits of their scanner profiling "solution" on this forum a few months ago. After Mark Segal replied that scanner profiling is basically for the birds I gave up on that, and have yet to decide what course of action I should take.I don't want to invest $400 -600 on software that really wont do the job as they say it will.
It just seems that no matter what topic comes up there are always differences of opinions and very different takes on what works and what doesn't.
That was all I was trying to express in my post. It seems that unless one can carry on a very technical conversation on this site we are intimidated and brushed aside as totally ignorant by you.After reading the threads now I am as confused as ever.
This site has had such good recommendations and I came to learn but.....
-
Truth is I haven't yet Jeff, and I never did say, I knew better !
Though intelligent and mechanically inclined, I am rather technophobic and I have repeatedly put it off for fear of failure. I was so eager to try again until I started reading all the tech stuff. I had done a lot of research a few years ago and just could not afford a top end film scanner so I purchased a Microtek I900 that I thought would be a compromise.It came bundeled with Silverfast but needed to upgrade to their pricier program with their Kodachrome "solution"nearly 8 months ago.I also
questioned the merits of their scanner profiling "solution" on this forum a few months ago. After Mark Segal replied that scanner profiling is basically for the birds I gave up on that, and have yet to decide what course of action I should take.I don't want to invest $400 -600 on software that really wont do the job as they say it will.
It just seems that no matter what topic comes up there are always differences of opinions and very different takes on what works and what doesn't.
That was all I was trying to express in my post. It seems that unless one can carry on a very technical conversation on this site we are intimidated and brushed aside as totally ignorant by you.After reading the treads now I am as confused as ever.
This site has had such good recommendations and I came to learn but.....
I think you have sadly misunderstood my position on scanner profiling. I've written two articles published on this website explaining the merits and limitations of scanner profiling and reported results in some depth. You do need to use an appropriate scanner profile for your scanner. The only question is whether you can get away with using a canned profile (for example SilverFast comes with a large number of them customized for the scanner MODEL), or whether it is better to make custom profiles for your specific scanner. That depends on the consistency/quality of the scanner manufacturing from one unit to the next. So to be clear: use an appropriate scanner profile and make it a custom profile if the canned profile isn't good enough! Oh - and I should add in case this is the source of the confusion: one cannot profile a scanner for negatives - only for positive.
-
My solution, whether scientific or not, is to manually push the black point of blue channel down to where it would be when scanning E-6. Trident - the software that runs the Howtek - has a very easy way to click down those values independent of each other, and dropping that blue channel down in the shadow end also affects the entire image, but on a gradated basis. It's almost magical when you see the color come right to where it's supposed to be with each click.
Your approach makes sense. As you say, pushing the black level down in the blue channel will subtract blue on a graduated basis - proportionately more blue is subtracted in the shadows, as you go higher in the tone curve proportionately less is subtracted. This is a reasonable adjustment since the excess blue is highest in the shadows and drops to nothing gradually as you go up to the white point. Do you make any adjustment to the red channel?
The Trident software has a density curve control in the Tone & Cast window. I'm wondering if you could just steepen the blue density curve a little and lower the red density curve to get a neutral gray scale? It seems to me that working with densities in scanner software is a natural way of manipulating the dye densities in scans; too bad it's only available at the high end.
-
My bad Mark,I didn't splain myself correctly ::)
My question in that thread ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47258.msg393601#msg393601) was about using scanner software to create custom paper profiles as Silverfast says you can, not a scanner profile,
And it was Andrew Rodney that had replied, not you :-[
-
All I got from it was either Kodachrome isn't suppose to look blue or it is but for projection viewing, or it depends on what version of Kodachrome you're scanning. It was just too confusing.
No, it's not supposed to look blue, any version, when it's viewed the way it's supposed to be viewed.
However from what I gathered from those image samples and comparing them to the first four beach scenes in that last Getdpi.com forum link I posted, Kodachrome sees light beige colors in caleche roads, sand and other warmish pastels as having a light ashen putty hue and shadows having a blue to blue green cast which isn't accurate, but quite pleasing from a color design sense.
It looks to me that most of those images at the GetDPI link have the blue curse.
In Levels, try a Red mid-tone (gamma) slider setting of 1.2 and a Blue mid-tone setting of .9, especially on the beach, vegetables, air show, and dog. Adjust to taste.
Removing the blue cast can really make the color pop, don't you think?
Cliff
-
"Your approach makes sense. As you say, pushing the black level down in the blue channel will subtract blue on a graduated basis - proportionately more blue is subtracted in the shadows, as you go higher in the tone curve proportionately less is subtracted. This is a reasonable adjustment since the excess blue is highest in the shadows and drops to nothing gradually as you go up to the white point. Do you make any adjustment to the red channel?"
That's exactly how it works. There is virtually no effect in the highlights, although you could easily put one in if you needed to. I usually don't need to touch the other channels, but it all depends on the particular piece of film. You do whatever it takes to make it right.
"The Trident software has a density curve control in the Tone & Cast window. I'm wondering if you could just steepen the blue density curve a little and lower the red density curve to get a neutral gray scale? It seems to me that working with densities in scanner software is a natural way of manipulating the dye densities in scans; too bad it's only available at the high end."
You could do that as well, but the curve controls are a bit weird - not at all like Photoshop's. There are three or four ways to accomplish the same result that are basically user choices in interface that all affect the same thing. Sometimes it's faster to use the approach that causes the least amount of trouble. I also think that when you have a scanner that can actually see the color in the base density, that changes the way you deal with the software.
-
Crames,
I thought those Kodachrome scans of the beach scene were quite pleasing and thought that was the color characteristic of Kodachrome everyone raves about. So that color palette I described isn't as intended? If so then that's disappointing to hear from a graphic design point of view. I mean if you ran those beach images through a color palette generator like at this site:
http://www.pics2colors.com/
I'ld guarantee it'ld make a color designer drool. Dan Bayer's Kodachrome Project practically emphases that hue of blue in most of the shots on his site especially images with reds like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/3616350590/in/set-72157619583742644/ That really pops!
Wonder why those beach scenes aren't as blue as other Kodachrome shots? What's the variable that makes one bluer over another? Looks like it might have something to do with actual color temperature of the scene, but then I saw a beach scene at Photo.net Kodachrome thread that was all blue and quite dark.
-
Here's what I consider a pretty good example of a Kodachrome 64 scan. This was shot in West Rawlins, Wyoming somewhere around 1990 or '91. It's an advertising sign for The Bucking Horse Lodge, which, according to online reviews, completely sucks.
-
When I scan Kodachrome, or any film, I always include all of the film including the rebate edges. When scanning Ektachromes, that rebate edge will come in somewhere around 6 Red, 5 Green and maybe 3 Blue. The scanner actually sees the color of what we perceive as infinite black but really isn't. When scanning Kodachrome of any variety, the RGB numbers for the film base come in more like 8 Red, 6 Green and 25 Blue. The scanner is seeing the bluish color of the film base and reporting back as such.
The lamps of the Howtek are halogen tungsten ones with an integrated mirror I gather. Any idea what their K value is and the spectral plot? I would expect a continuous spectral plot and 4000-5000K. Osram seems to have replacement lamps for Howteks, I could check that.
There is a page on Coloraid where extended color patches film targets are shown, a bit in the sense of Hutchcolor targets but unique test sets to improve profile creating software. I have not yet explored that but I see several scanners (a Howtek too) mentioned that were used with the targets. Wonder if that could shed a light on the lighting and RGB filter difference between scanners. More drivers are used too.
http://www.testdata.coloraid.de/
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Here's what I consider a pretty good example of a Kodachrome 64 scan. This was shot in West Rawlins, Wyoming somewhere around 1990 or '91. It's an advertising sign for The Bucking Horse Lodge, which, according to online reviews, completely sucks.
That's a great looking scan!
-
pfigen: I agree with Cliff - it is a great-looking scan!
Ernst: I just went to the link you provided to Wolf Faust. Interesting stuff, but seems to be an abandoned exercise dating to 2006/07, and as he said "a work in progress". I don't know how important that is - sometimes dated material remains just as valid today as it ever was for shedding light on certain issues - I'd need to study it further to see what it informs us about the current thread topic. However, to use the materials he shows for doing one's own tests, (a) we need to obtain the slide set from him (still possible?) and (b) we need to have our own profile creation software. So those two conditions will determine who can experiment further with Kodachrome materials using this particular approach.
-
I didn't read it properly but I thought if one started first with copying the most saturated CMYRGB patches from the images files there it should give a rough idea on how selective each scanner lamp + filter combination is. There are driver variations too but one would assume that a true RAW scan should be the same. Wolf did take some slack on the results though, small deviations between sets and different scan operators.
Pity it wasn't done with Kodachrome targets.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
-
I thought those Kodachrome scans of the beach scene were quite pleasing and thought that was the color characteristic of Kodachrome everyone raves about. So that color palette I described isn't as intended?
I don't know what the photographer intended other than what was posted, but I suspect that the actual slides on a light box or projected are warmer, more vivid and colorful.
Dan Bayer's Kodachrome Project practically emphases that hue of blue in most of the shots on his site especially images with reds like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23585735@N06/3616350590/in/set-72157619583742644/ That really pops!
It pops, but if you get rid of some of the blue, it pops even more and has an increased illusion of depth. (Some of the blue is due to the sky light that lit the shot)
Kodachrome, as a general-purpose color film, is certainly designed to have, if not accurate color, then pleasing color. Some of the most important colors are skin tones. The skin in a lot of the shots at http://www.kodachromeproject.com are drab, bluish, not so pleasing - not what Kodachrome can really look like on a light box or projected. So I think the scans have not been prepared well to show what Kodachrome can really do. Speaking only of the color and not the artistic merit of the images, I would guess that a lot of people hoping to see "what's the big deal about Kodachrome," will be saying "so what?"
Wonder why those beach scenes aren't as blue as other Kodachrome shots? What's the variable that makes one bluer over another? Looks like it might have something to do with actual color temperature of the scene, but then I saw a beach scene at Photo.net Kodachrome thread that was all blue and quite dark.
The color temperature of the scene will have a large effect if it's not filtered to match photographic daylight (D54 or D55). As you underexpose Kodachrome, the colors are increasingly shifted to blue.
-
Ernst - The Howtek does indeed use an Osram 8v20w tungsten halogen lamp. That lightsource is centered on a flexible fiber optics tube that is in turn focused through drum, film and into the lens, after which it passes through the scanner's aperture device, through a beam splitter and through three dichroic filter on its way to the respective side window 931B photomultiplier tubes. I don't know but I have to think that the characteristic of those dichroic filters have to have a part in the equation as well, as they define the actual color gamut of the scanner.
I believe that Heidelberg drums also used an inexpensive halogen as well, but the Optronics Colorgetters used a $600 high intensity lamp that was much bluer in comparison. I'm sure you have to take the entire system into account and not just the color temperature of the light.
-
...if not accurate color, then pleasing color.
And there is the rub in all of these discussions and what is causing the confusion. Accurate to how Kodachrome sees it or accurate to the original scene? Pleasing? What's that? Can you define it spectrally?
Who and how is the "Pleasing" color of Kodachrome defined and are their Lab/XYZ (pick a connection space) color coordinates associated with a color target IF there is no existing Kodachrome IT8 target?
And if there is, does anyone have the official reference file that describes the "Pleasing" color of Kodachrome.
Peter, that's a very good looking scan, but I don't see any uniquely "Pleasing" color characteristic that defines it as Kodachrome over any other film. If I were to see that out of context of this discussion I would've mistaken it for any type of film and even a DSLR capture.
It is clear from its reputation in American culture and from comments throughout the decades of its existence that Kodachrome has gained a reputation for a particular look and I haven't seen any image around that defines this look so it can be reproduced on a consistent basis.
Has anyone found an it8 target that faithfully and definitively shows the look of Kodachrome? We could at least build some type of spectral color definition maybe off a wide gamut display using Apple's Digital Colormeter to get Lab readouts.
-
Peter, that's a very good looking scan, but I don't see any uniquely "Pleasing" color characteristic that defines it as Kodachrome over any other film. If I were to see that out of context of this discussion I would've mistaken it for any type of film and even a DSLR capture.
Not me...that shot screams Kodachrome...the yellow intensity and that shade of blue in the sky is pure Kodachrome. The clean clouds with the warm ground in also a clue.
No doubt you could take a digital capture and make it look like this, but it would take effort. Good job Peter...
-
Jeff is correct about the typical Kodachrome skies, which skew towards magenta, and the yellows as well. I did pull the skies back a bit as they were too magenta for my tastes. Tim's comments were also valid. This image takes advantage of the color contrast to make something visually appealing, but there is something different about Kodachrome vs. E-6 films. When you look at a large print of this image, and I have a 42 inch wide version in my girlfriend's music room, there is something more "meaty" about it that a similarly sized print from E-6 or digital that is hard to describe, other that to say it strikes at a guttural level. As with any visual medium, it always helps to choose subject matter that plays to the strengths of that medium.
My last rolls of Kodachrome came back from Dwayne's yesterday and I was disappointed to find that they had mounted ten roll of it instead of sleeving. That only makes my job more time consuming, but on a quick perusal, some the best images were from two rolls of K25 that expired in 1991 - twenty years ago. I'll try to get at least one on the scanner this afternoon.
-
And there is the rub in all of these discussions and what is causing the confusion. Accurate to how Kodachrome sees it or accurate to the original scene? Pleasing? What's that? Can you define it spectrally?
I mean pleasing skin tones when projected. I'm not saying that it's accurate in reference to the original scene.
Hopefully this link to Google Books will open for a description of "preferred" reproduction starting at page 174 in Reproduction of Colour: http://books.google.com/books?id=nFtW4LG24fEC&pg=PA174&dq=%22preferred+colour+reproduction%22+OR+%22preferred+color+reproduction%22&hl=en&ei=XkM_TfveHYT68AbJxoT7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22preferred%20colour%20reproduction%22%20OR%20%22preferred%20color%20reproduction%22&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=nFtW4LG24fEC&pg=PA174&dq=%22preferred+colour+reproduction%22+OR+%22preferred+color+reproduction%22&hl=en&ei=XkM_TfveHYT68AbJxoT7Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22preferred%20colour%20reproduction%22%20OR%20%22preferred%20color%20reproduction%22&f=false)
It's not specifically about Kodachrome, but covers projection viewing. Apparently a lot of the research was done at Kodak.
Who and how is the "Pleasing" color of Kodachrome defined and are their Lab/XYZ (pick a connection space) color coordinates associated with a color target IF there is no existing Kodachrome IT8 target?
And if there is, does anyone have the official reference file that describes the "Pleasing" color of Kodachrome.
A link to the Kodak Kodachrome target was given in one of the other threads. SilverFast has targets, too. At the Kodak link there is a QSP file that contains the spectral data if that helps you.
But what can you get out of a profiling target, anyway?
It is clear from its reputation in American culture and from comments throughout the decades of its existence that Kodachrome has gained a reputation for a particular look and I haven't seen any image around that defines this look so it can be reproduced on a consistent basis.
Without having a Kodachrome original to refer to, maybe reproducing the look on a random image won't be so simple. A detailed model would take into account the spectral sensitivity, the tone curves, and the colors of the dyes. Then you have to account for the perceptual effects of dark-surround viewing, incomplete adaptation, etc.
What has come out in these threads is that it's not that straightforward, even when you're starting from an actual Kodachrome scan! How do you want to reproduce the look of Kodachrome, with or without the blue cast?
Has anyone found an it8 target that faithfully and definitively shows the look of Kodachrome? We could at least build some type of spectral color definition maybe off a wide gamut display using Apple's Digital Colormeter to get Lab readouts.
If you want to definitively show the look of Kodachrome you will either have to 1. show an actual Kodachrome slide, projected or on light box, or 2. take a scan of a slide and modify it to match the appearance of the actual projected slide.
Cliff
-
But then I notice how all four of those beach shots changed hue in sky blue and the color of the sand. They're the same beach and same time of day. Don't know if that's user error or the inconsistent nature of Kodachrome.
Those are my photos. THey look that way because they were scanned on an Epson V750 with EpsonScan software in Full Idiot mode with the Color Correction feature turned on to get it done quickly. In other words, User Laziness. After fooling around with both Silverfast and VueScan, and getting horrific results, I just got plain ol' tired of dealing with it.
Honestly, I think the nicest Kodachrome scans I have seen to date are pfigen's. Are they a "correct" representation of what Kodachrome is supposed to look like? I don't know. But they sure do look like the way I remember Kodachrome in the good old days.
-
So, Should I save my $$
has anyone actually used Silverfasts Kodachrome "solution" effectively, and would you say it is worth the price they are asking, or is there a better "solution"for scanning Kodachrome?
Can anyone give me a straight answer after 3 threads, as to a reasonably affordable scanning "solution" to achieve resonably good quality scans of my Kodachromes??
-
David,
Probably the best non drum scanned scan I've seen of Kodachrome were from a Nikon 8000 or 9000. That's the most affordable solution, but the CCD will still never record all the shadow or highlight detail that a drum scanner's pmt will, so it kind of depends on what your definition of good is. The Nikons can make some great scans particularly if you've got a slightly flat slide, but even the drums have a hard time digging all the way into Kodachrome's shadowy past. That's one of the hallmarks of Kodachrome - a very very dense black - higher than any normal pictorial film.
-
I did get around to scanning a couple of pieces of film today. Here's a small scan from a piece of PKM Kodachrome 25 that expired in 1991, which means the film is at about three years older than that. Interesting enough, this batch came through being not nearly as blue in the shadows at other Kodachromes I've scanned, only underscoring the entire content of this thread. But even still it was about ten points blue in the shadows rather than twenty-five. Maybe the latest chemistry is better or maybe it's the old film. There was very little done to this in Photoshop aside from cleaning up some dust and a very minor overall curves adjustment and a very slight reddening of the lips. And it's very close to the film as well. The detail scan, for anyone interested, is from the original 8000 ppi scan. Yeah, it's grainier than digital and not quite as sharp, but it's got guts. This was shot right at dusk, so the sunsetty color is completely appropriate. Canon EOS1vn and a 35mm 1.4 at f/2. All in all, I spent about a minute tops in Trident and about the same for the Ps tweaks, aside from the minor dust. I almost forgot to give due to my model and girlfriend, Gee Rabe, LA's accordion diva, who was wearing no makeup aside from the lipstick.
-
Not sure what happened to the full frame scan, so here it is...
-
Beautiful shot, model, and scan. Great Kodachrome example, for sure.
It's amazing that the film held up so well, despite having expired so long ago.
-
Well I just received my Lasersoft Kodachrome target slide in the mail. It was a quick job to profile my Coolscan V with it and Vuescan. The results might not match up with pfigens examples, but I'm satisfied. The color straight looks pretty good right out of the scanner and with a couple curve tweaks in Photoshop, I'm getting the best scans I've ever gotten with Kodachrome. Which is good, because I have about 10 new rolls to scan and thousands to cull and scan from my childhood.
I guess what I'm saying is this: I think it's worth the 50 bucks for the target if you have a prosumer scanner like a Coolscan.
-
So, Should I save my $$
has anyone actually used Silverfasts Kodachrome "solution" effectively, and would you say it is worth the price they are asking, or is there a better "solution"for scanning Kodachrome?
Can anyone give me a straight answer after 3 threads, as to a reasonably affordable scanning "solution" to achieve resonably good quality scans of my Kodachromes??
Have you read the two articles on this website where I deal with how SilverFast IT8 Auto profiling handles Kodachrome? See especially my Plustek Scanner Review. Is it worth the price? - up to you to decide that. I can only comment on my own technical findings. I only migrated to SilverFast after progressing from manufacturer's software, to Vuescan to SilverFast in order of increasing cost. All of it is usable in one way or another. Just depends on what you think gives you the best results, what you like best using, and how much you want to pay. All are available as free demo downloads to do your own testing.
-
David,
That's one of the hallmarks of Kodachrome - a very very dense black - higher than any normal pictorial film.
Yes, I agree with this observation, and I have found a really effective way of dealing with it is to scan in as much shadow detail as feasible without wrecking the rest of the image, then open the completed image in Lightroom and finish the job with Fill and Blacks. This is one example where deft control at the can stage and use of good complementary software at the post-scan stage can really help. I wrote this up in my review of SilverFast Ai6 on this website some time ago.
-
Those are my photos. THey look that way because they were scanned on an Epson V750 with EpsonScan software in Full Idiot mode with the Color Correction feature turned on to get it done quickly. In other words, User Laziness. After fooling around with both Silverfast and VueScan, and getting horrific results, I just got plain ol' tired of dealing with it.
Software has "personality", and can behave differently, giving better or worse results depending on whether it is being "fooled around with" or used scientifically/seriously. :-) Joking aside, both programs can give good results - depends on the user.
-
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Mr. Figen. Excellent scan. Reminds me of the color palette of a lot of image's I remember seeing thumbing through Communication Arts magazine and other high quality magazines in the '70's and '80's.
I can definitely see the underpinnings/undercolor of the halogen lamp in that scan. I base this observation on my days as a painter and the first thing that was taught was to never start a painting on a white canvas. We had to apply a warm-ish undercolor/underpainting throughout the entire canvas to establish some kind of color reference other than white to prevent from going astray from what was considered "Pleasing" color.
Then I started studying the color effects of the Solux lamp and its halogen underpinnings and noticed the same kind of color palette characteristic though subtle in prints which happened to match to what I saw on my display. I also noticed this change of color examining the skin tones in my hand under halogen lamps at my local hardware store. The same subtle maroonish brown undercolor showed up in the shadows even though the overall skin color looked the same.
When I stair at Peter's Kodachrome scan for a length of time and compare it to the overall color palette of similar daylight scenes I've shot in Raw taken with my Pentax K100D DSLR and edited in ACR, all of a sudden they all look green-ish! I can tell you for certain they didn't look like that before I saw your scan, Peter.
I'm laughing at this because it proves something I've suspected all along and have demonstrated with the DSLR shot posted below which might explain why there are so many comments on why folks see a difference between "film and digital" but can't put their finger on it. It also explains why there's so many different looking versions of Kodachrome scans.
The sample shot below was taken early in the morning showing the golden color from the the sun shining through my window onto my wall. I use this shot for simplicity sake, but it proves an optical phenomenon explained above about undercolor painting. I've included color purity's and gradients I've sampled from Peter's scan in sRGB made on a blank layer set to "Multiply". The bottom dark squares of the purity's was set to "Overlay". The gray and black square is just 127RGB and 000Black as a reference.
Stair at the bottom image below and note the hues of each color. Then view the top version. Notice a difference to the overall look of all the colors especially the gray and yellow square? I see a subtle green cast.
The only thing that changed was I applied in ACR's Split Tone...360 Hue/50 Saturation-(Shadow) and +100-(Balance). Note the difference to the perception of the sun rendered golden color which if you sample doesn't change its RGB readouts but looks different. Also note on the bottom image's shadows RGB readout is R>G>B which should look warm but looks green-ish gray. Tell me if you see something different.
This same "undercolor" optical phenomenon is happening in TokenGirl's Beach scans of Kodachrome from an Epson scanner which uses a fluorescent light source. It's just not as amplified as other scans seen in the "Kodachrome Project" due to a combination of scanner light source and color temp difference and subject matter in each scene. This may explain why you can't rely on RGB readouts especially when establishing neutrality for Kodachrome.
It could be the scanner light source that's causing most of the problems.
-
Tim,
I hear what you're saying. I should always wait a day before posting something. I think it's just a tad magenta right now or really just needs to be backed off in the skin saturation, which I did today and like better. It's all subjective in the end. I'm not sure I agree with your being able to tell that it was scanned with tungsten bulbs. I think it has more to do with manipulating the software. If it was the bulbs, then everything else would have a different look as well. The scanner profile takes into account the illumination anyway.
What I do notice is that this latest film has less blue in the shadows that the film that was processed by A&I back twenty years ago, but I also think that Dwayne's processing is somehow a bit less saturated overall than what I used to get from A&I. Whether this has anything to do with the new prepackaged chemistry and no onsite chemist, I have no idea, but there does seem to be a difference. And then there's the fact that this particular piece of film was over twenty years old.
The one negative Kodachrome attribute is that is really does not like to have shadows opened up very far. They immediately get extremely grainy, giving the look of almost having two pieces of film with drastically different ISO ratings merged into one. So it's either live with it, or merge exposure brackets if possible.
The drum scanner has been spinning all afternoon. Just for reference to those who complain about long scanning times, this scanner takes about 7 minutes to scan a 35mm at 4000 and 28 for an 8000 ppi scan. But you can gang as many as thirty on a drum, set up the prescans and walk away, go to lunch, or just take a nap.
-
Peter, does the image you posted match to what you see on a light table under a loupe? Does the quality and color temp of light of your light table influence or change the perception of color in the slide compared to the Howtek's halogen light source?
Thought the whole point of your posting your scan sample was to show what Kodachrome is suppose to look like outside of the influences of other scanners that may have limits to their being properly profiled or other color idiosyncrasies.
I would think a Howtek could faithfully reproduce what you see on the light table over like say an Epson flatbed or Nikon scan. Not sure, I've never scanned slides, only negatives which of course there's nothing to match to. I can match to prints on an Epson flatbed but have never been able to get that kind of color I see in that Kodachrome you posted.
I still get a gut feeling the halogen is playing some part in delivering the depth of color and unique hues I see in your scan.
My little image demo was to show that light source plays a part in color perception in relation to what the RGB numbers should look like. Light source in a way influences the DNA of an image even profiling can't compensate for. IOW something that looks blue on the slide may not have the numbers that indicates it's really that blue in the shadows because of what the light source does to other colors influencing the perception of the appearance of blue. The bottom image I posted shows the RGB readouts in the shadows to be around 50,40,30 but it looks kind of greenish. How do you explain that?
Hope I'm making myself clear.
-
Tim,
The image I posted was VERY close to how the slide looked on a Just-Normlicht D-50 lightbox. I don't know if I buy into the idea that Kodachrome was supposed to be viewed under tungsten for proper viewing. Everyone I know has always, and this goes back to the late '70s, viewed on D-50 flourescent boxes, balanced to that with CC filters and shot away. Sure, we used to have slide shows as well, but no one ever really noticed a color shift between the box and the screen, but we weren't looking for one either.
I still have to think the real reason for the bluish cast to many Kodachrome scans is simply that most scanners see and interpret the K-14 dyes differently than they see E-6, and that most scanners have input profiles based on E-6 pigments only makes it all the more apparent. I'm only manually compensating for the deficiency in the profile I'm using, and as I've said previously, this latest batch of film is less blue in the shadows than the films I've scanned from decades past. It's really not that hard to do. It only takes a few seconds, but you have to know what to look for and maybe having done a lot of drum scans in the past thirteen or fourteen years, I've just learned what to look for. The really funny thing is, is that the monitor I'm using for scanning is really old and only sort of calibrated any more. It's a PressView 17 that was manufactured in '94, but still works. Not as good as the Artisan's but with the overall Hutchcolor profile and reading the numbers, the scans are really close when they get shoved over the network.
Here's one more from today. Again, shot late in the day in a not particularly great part of West Adams Street in Los Angeles, but in a neighborhood that has fantastic local color, and color that is very well suited to Kodachrome. This one is close to the film but I did pull some magenta out of the sky.
-
The one negative Kodachrome attribute is that is really does not like to have shadows opened up very far. They immediately get extremely grainy, giving the look of almost having two pieces of film with drastically different ISO ratings merged into one. So it's either live with it, or merge exposure brackets if possible.
I think what you may be seeing here rather than film grain is scanner noise. Film grain is usually much more apparent in the mid-tones for obvious reasons, so it would be interesting if you could compare the pattern of noise/grain you see in the mid-tones with what you see in the opened-up shadows. If they look similar it may be different grain characteristics as a function of tonality, but if they look quite different I would expect the dark stuff to be mainly scanner noise.
-
Thanks for taking the time for the extra scan and confirming a match to your scanner and light box, Peter.
That kind of yellow lit by a low sun on that building seems like that familiar old school color from paint pigments I've worked with and what seems CMYK friendly for a commercial press to reproduce without gamut clipping and black and/or cyan entering into the mix. Photoshop CMYK readouts bares this out.
Just to confirm Kodachrome records yellow like this, was the yellow in the scene that golden (100%Y and 40% magenta) when you took the shot or more cadmium to lemon yellow which often DSLR's tend to render? My DSLR sees limestone lit by golden sunset in a clear blue sky such as yours with a weird slightly greenish but intense thalo yellow almost going orange, but actually that's exactly what it looks like.
I do get an overall feel of your scan of having a subtle patina of a pastel (CMYK) magenta permeating throughout the entire image compared to how my DSLR captures similarly lit scenes but I guess that's part of the look of Kodachrome since that's what it looks like on your light table. The sunset whites appear a pastel pinkish orange. It's far different than the other scans I've seen online especially on the "Kodachrome Project" site which have this overall dark blue to dark bluegreen patina but uncontaminated intense primaries.
Thanks for the feedback, Peter.
-
Thanks Mark,
I have found and bookmarked your site and articles, Will Read For sure!.
I always wondered why my Microtek i900 came with a It8 Ektachrome target but not a Kodachrome.I imagine now, that because of the complexity of getting good results they just decided to completely avoid the issue
There was no mention in any of the literature of having to use a Kodachrome target for Kodachrome. I had assumed when I got the scanner that a slide was a slide. It wasn't untill I got deeper into color management and profiling recently that I have been enlightened.
-
I still have to think the real reason for the bluish cast to many Kodachrome scans is simply that most scanners see and interpret the K-14 dyes differently than they see E-6, and that most scanners have input profiles based on E-6 pigments only makes it all the more apparent.
That's definitely the favored theory around here. To test it, here is a scan of a Color Checker and gray scale on K64, from a SprintScan 4000.
The first frame has an Ektachrome profile.
The second frame has a Kodachrome profile.
The third frame is the second one with Kodachrome profile again but with the addition of a simple Levels mid-tone adjustment of Red 1.09 and Blue 0.8 to neutralize the gray-scale somewhat and provide a reference.
The surprising thing is that the excess blue is present to the same extent with either profile. There is no increase of blue with the Ektachrome profile. The difference is a weaker red response with the Ektachrome profile, resulting in an additional cyanish cast.
So you could say that this scanner has a cyanish cast due to the way it sees and interprets the Kodachrome dyes, but that is corrected by a Kodachrome profile. There remains a separate cast from excess blue that is not corrected by any profile because it is a part of the film image itself, hence the need for special Kodachrome modes, etc., etc.
-
So you could say that this scanner has a cyanish cast due to the way it sees and interprets the Kodachrome dyes, but that is corrected by a Kodachrome profile. There remains a separate cast from excess blue that is not corrected by any profile because it is a part of the film image itself, hence the need for special Kodachrome modes, etc., etc.
I always interpreted that the special Kodachrome modes try to correct for the same thing that is mostly corrected by a profile. A lot of people use scanners and never profile them. So a Kodachrome mode takes care of most of the misreading of the cyan dye, which would presumably be caught with a good profile as well.
-
All I want to know is why the colors in crame's scans of Kodachrome look so different from pfigen's with regards to density, contrast and richness in color especially in the skin tone patches and yellow, red and blue.
-
All I want to know is why the colors in crame's scans of Kodachrome look so different from pfigen's with regards to density, contrast and richness in color especially in the skin tone patches and yellow, red and blue.
Because I am showing in the first two frames exactly what comes out of the scanner without any manipulation. The only difference is the ICC profile applied. This was to show what an ICC profile does correct and also what it doesn't correct. (The third frame is nothing more than a gray balance based on using gamma adjustments to align the RGB curves - notice that with this simple adjustment the color of the skin patch, at least, is right on the money.)
In contrast, pfigen has described that his scans are not exactly what comes out of the scanner - they have been skillfully enhanced to bring out the Kodachrome look.
-
I always interpreted that the special Kodachrome modes try to correct for the same thing that is mostly corrected by a profile. A lot of people use scanners and never profile them. So a Kodachrome mode takes care of most of the misreading of the cyan dye, which would presumably be caught with a good profile as well.
I can imagine a special Kodachrome mode that includes a profile, but otherwise, the special mode needs to do something different from what a profile does.
After all that has been presented in these three Kodachrome threads, do you think that the famous blue cast is simply due to misreading the cyan dye?
-
In contrast, pfigen has described that his scans are not exactly what comes out of the scanner - they have been skillfully enhanced to bring out the Kodachrome look.
I believe you may have misread what pfigen said. He said the scans he just posted match exactly what he sees on his light table. He's not bringing out anything that isn't in the slide.
Do your scans you just posted match what you see on your light table or however you view your Kodachrome slides? And if so, which of the three match?
-
After all that has been presented in these three Kodachrome threads, do you think that the famous blue cast is simply due to misreading the cyan dye?
I get the feeling that it plays a large role in it. To the eye, Kodachrome and E6 both display pretty neutral, regardless of light source. So I do think it's mostly the interaction of the RGB filters in the scanner and the spectral curves of the dyes that make Kodachrome scan differently than E6. The 3200/5000 balance might play a part or might not, I don't know. Even if it does, I think the cyan dye is a major aspect. It makes physical sense to me and is also supported by ex-Kodak guys.
Frankly I'm not very impressed with the Kodachrome mode of my Coolscan when using Nikonscan. I got better results ignoring the mode and adding a preset layers adjustment to shift the colors around a bit. And I recently got MUCH superior colors by using a profile I generated using a target. On the other hand, most E6 scans quite easily and much closer to the original without using a profile.
-
I took a quick little shot at your MacBeth chart, adding a separate Curves Adjustment Layer to both the first and the second images, concentrating more on the MacBeth chart than your gray card, which seems to be a bit cooler than the MacBeth. Both versions that I did, which are fairly close to each other, put the MacBeth as viewed on my Sony Artisan, much closer to the actual MacBeth I have sitting right next to me. The Curves were much more complicated than "normal" curves, having usually seven or eight adjustment points in each channel to really fine tune the respective gray patches. While the Kodachrome input profile does indeed improve the out of scanner rendition on this particular scanner, it's also not that difficult to tweak the original file to more or less match. It also illustrates that the more or less global adjustments done on the far right image were maybe less effective than they could have been. Kodachrome is always an interesting exercise, but one that never fails to satisfy.
-
Peter, so you're making crame's scan match to an actual CC chart next to you?
I don't see the point in doing this.
I would think you'ld want to construct edits to make crame's scan match to your own Kodachrome slide of the CC chart.
I wasn't under the impression from the look of your scans that Kodachrome reproduces reality all that accurately. It adds its own color patina to the recording of reality that is unique and all its own.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
-
I believe you may have misread what pfigen said. He said the scans he just posted match exactly what he sees on his light table. He's not bringing out anything that isn't in the slide.
Yes, he said "The image I posted was VERY close to how the slide looked on a Just-Normlicht D-50 lightbox." But what comes out of the scanner isn't what you see on a light table (or projector). The scan has to be edited to make it look that way. dfigen is around so hopefully he will correct me if I am misstating.
Do your scans you just posted match what you see on your light table or however you view your Kodachrome slides? And if so, which of the three match?
In terms of hue and chroma, the closest is definitely the third, but the actual slide looks a lot brighter and the grays are more neutral looking, but I'm comparing a D50 light box to a D65 calibrated monitor, so that muddies the water about neutrality.
The purpose of that image was only to show the visible effects of two profiles. I made no effort to adjust the brightness or anything else to match the lightbox as that would have obscured what the profiles are doing. I only made a rough gray balance in the third panel and no other.
The second one has an accurate Kodachrome profile that corrects for the light source and filters of the scanner, yet doesn't come close to matching the appearance of the slide.
-
I get the feeling that it plays a large role in it. To the eye, Kodachrome and E6 both display pretty neutral, regardless of light source. So I do think it's mostly the interaction of the RGB filters in the scanner and the spectral curves of the dyes that make Kodachrome scan differently than E6. The 3200/5000 balance might play a part or might not, I don't know.
If you don't use a profile, you can get all kinds of color problems. But once you use an accurate ICC profile, you are getting the color as seen by the CIE Standard Observer, with a perfect D50 light source. A profile invalidates the argument that the blue cast is due to the scanner filters or light source. (Aren't there any color management gurus around to weigh in on this, or have they all left the building?)
Even if it does, I think the cyan dye is a major aspect. It makes physical sense to me and is also supported by ex-Kodak guys.
I've quoted an ex-Kodak guy a few times (RWG Hunt, The Reproduction of Colour) about the nature of the blue cast in Kodachrome:
When the viewing conditions consist of projection by tungsten light in a darkened room, the light from the projector appears yellowish (Hunt, 1965), and therefore to obtain results that appear grey the picture has to be slightly bluish (see Section 5.7 [quoted previously]); this is why the curves of Fig. 14.9(a), which relate to materials for tungsten-light projection, are not even approximately coincident, the blue densities being lower than, and the red densities higher than, the green densities, in order to produce the bluish result required...
Regarding the cyan dye, I could be wrong but looks to me as though the excess blue is mainly controlled by the yellow dye, if you were to look at the characteristic curves.
Frankly I'm not very impressed with the Kodachrome mode of my Coolscan when using Nikonscan. I got better results ignoring the mode and adding a preset layers adjustment to shift the colors around a bit. And I recently got MUCH superior colors by using a profile I generated using a target. On the other hand, most E6 scans quite easily and much closer to the original without using a profile.
Have you tried the new profile and the Kodachrome mode together?
-
I took a quick little shot at your MacBeth chart, adding a separate Curves Adjustment Layer to both the first and the second images, concentrating more on the MacBeth chart than your gray card, which seems to be a bit cooler than the MacBeth. Both versions that I did, which are fairly close to each other, put the MacBeth as viewed on my Sony Artisan, much closer to the actual MacBeth I have sitting right next to me. The Curves were much more complicated than "normal" curves, having usually seven or eight adjustment points in each channel to really fine tune the respective gray patches. While the Kodachrome input profile does indeed improve the out of scanner rendition on this particular scanner, it's also not that difficult to tweak the original file to more or less match. It also illustrates that the more or less global adjustments done on the far right image were maybe less effective than they could have been. Kodachrome is always an interesting exercise, but one that never fails to satisfy.
I made no attempt to match the real Color Checker, but I do think that the two small gamma adjustments make a large improvement. It's something quick and simple, doesn't require a reference, and looks a lot better than the uncorrected blue stuff. The gamma adjustment only tilts the red and blue curves, without changing their overall shapes. The idea is to get rid of the blue, simply while minimally affecting other aspects of the image.
By editing to match the real Color Checker aren't you in effect turning the KC tone curve into a straight line and removing part of the look? Sorry, it's been a long, tiring Friday and I'm not getting it.
Edit: Oops - I see that you didn't straighten the curves.
-
If you don't use a profile, you can get all kinds of color problems. But once you use an accurate ICC profile, you are getting the color as seen by the CIE Standard Observer, with a perfect D50 light source. A profile invalidates the argument that the blue cast is due to the scanner filters or light source. (Aren't there any color management gurus around to weigh in on this, or have they all left the building?)
Why exactly? I'm not getting a blue cast when I use a profile...
Regarding the cyan dye, I could be wrong but looks to me as though the excess blue is mainly controlled by the yellow dye, if you were to look at the characteristic curves.
Sorry. I had a brain fart there. I still think this statement is accurate: "So I do think it's mostly the interaction of the RGB filters in the scanner and the spectral curves of the dyes that make Kodachrome scan differently than E6."
Throw in a different color balance on top of that as you quoted from hunt, and you'll get all kinds of funky casts.
-
Why exactly? I'm not getting a blue cast when I use a profile...
Please clarify: you don't get a blue cast when you use a profile by itself, or you don't get a blue cast when you use a profile along with the Kodachrome setting?
I still think this statement is accurate: "So I do think it's mostly the interaction of the RGB filters in the scanner and the spectral curves of the dyes that make Kodachrome scan differently than E6."
Throw in a different color balance on top of that as you quoted from hunt, and you'll get all kinds of funky casts.
That's not what Hunt says. He says the Kodachrome is manufactured to have a blue tint. The blue tint that has been manufactured into the film has nothing to do with the scanner, the light source, the filters. It's not a different color balance. It's not removed by a filter or by changing the light source. You can see it in the characteristic curves that Kodak provides.
A gray scale shot on Kodachrome has increasingly more blue as you go from white to black. There is also decreasing red as you go from white to black. The scanner will pick this up.
Now if you scan without an ICC profile, the characteristics of the particular scanner can introduce other things that add to the blue tint that Hunt is talking about. I just showed an example where my scanner can add a cyanish cast if I'm not using the right profile. With the Kodachrome profile in place, there is no cyanish cast, only the real blue tint that the scanner has measured off the film.
Think about what an ICC profile is supposed to do. It translates the device-dependent RGB values of a scanner into a device-independent representation. The lookup table in a scanner profile compensates for the light source, the filters, the dyes, the sensor, etc. So if there is a defect in the color being caused by those things, the profile will remove it. The profile won't/shouldn't remove any of the actual color of the film, such as the blue tint described by Hunt.
-
I've been reading these Kodachrome threads with much more interest than understanding; however, my lack of expertise does not prevent me from contributing to the message thread because I too have shot the "last" roll of Kodachrome -- and the Tee shirt from Dwaynes is on its way to me!
My last roll of Kodachrome was shot, appropriately, in my old Konica T2. At the same time, I (sometimes) grabbed similar shots with a Canon G9 digicam. I had Dwaynes scan the roll on the assumption that they knew how to do it. To my surprise, the Dwaynes scans came back on a Kodak Picture CD and I did not like them. My next step was to scan the slides myself using a Canon FS4000 scanner using Vuescan. I set up Vuescan for Kodachrome slides with no additional adjustments (no white balance, levels, etc.). The other part of my plan was to process the G9 shot as a "Kodachrome" by using the Pixel Genius PhotoKit Color2 setting as"Classic Chrome".
The scans were capture sharpened with Pixel Genius Capture Sharpener 2, reduced in size and then output sharpened with Output Sharpener 2. The G9 was converted in ACR in my relatively simple and consistent manner, tweaked as Classic Chrome, reduced in size and output sharpened.
To my eye -- and surprise -- the Dwaynes scan most resembles the real slide but is relatively low resolution, 8 bit and seems to be highly compressed. If I were to make a print from the slide, I'd use the Vuescan version with additional post processing. On the other hand, if I wanted a print of the scene, I'd take another hack at the G9 RAW file.
Anyway, all this means something or other, I'm sure.
-
I know that we are currently speaking about scanning, but now that I think about it...
In the early days when sorting a new batch of slides, I used a very inexpensive folding light tray that used a standard tungsten light bulb, I knew nothing of D50 standards back then.Not only that but I have no idea now what the kelvin temp (white balance), was of the ELH halogen bulb in my Carousel projector, and I'd venture to say that the different bulbs used by different projectors from various manufacturers varied in color temp also.
To add to the variables there were projection screens that had a silvered gray surface and some that had a white beaded surface.
I'd imagine that any different combination of these values affected the appearance of the slides when being viewed !?
Could we not say that each individual situation would render a different appearance when viewed, and some were better than others as far as being true to the Kodachome "look", or true to what we actually remember the scene to have been.
I had said in an earlier post that there are so many variables involved, seems like nothing has really changed much.
I am curious as to how did one (profile), deal with filtering for the blue cast of Kodachrome, when using a direct print method such as Ilfochrome (Cibachrome), before the computer age?
-
We also haven't ruled out processing induced differences that may be influencing the different looks of those posting their Kodachrome scans so far.
It would really help and reduce confusion to just post what the slide exactly looks like which should be of scans of scenes that contain a wide range of real world colored objects containing a wide range of different colors lit under real world lighting, otherwise there's no point in profiling if you're not going to show exactly what the scan looks like.
pfigen's scans look so different from everyone else's so far and it's further confusing the issue of establishing the look of Kodachrome. And maybe that's what this discussion will finally prove and rule out which may be processing and/or type (K25, K64, etc.) that's causing the differences. It doesn't matter if the scanner sees blue, cyan. Is it on the actual slide? And if so, why isn't it on other contributor's slide?
Looking at an it8 target or any color target with or without a profile isn't going to tell us how Kodachrome renders every possible real world lighting situation and how Kodachrome reacts to it with every possible color under the rainbow. That's why I asked pfigen if that yellow on that building was truly golden yellow or lemon yellow. Was that white really a pastel pinkish orange under that golden sunset?
-
Tim,
The yellow was definitely not lemon yellow but much more on the golden side, and the white at the top was more pinkish, but all those things can be affected by the emulsion lot, the processing, the time of day, whether or not you had any sort of filter on the lens, whether you shot with a Leica, Nikon or Canon lens and probably about thirty more factors I can't think of at the moment.
The reason I did the corrections on the MacBeth chart previously posted were just to illustrate that there are even more variables to consider when considering who is doing the scanning. The first frame was obviously way too cool, and while the second frame, with the profile applied was considerably better, it too was not only cool but non-linear in the gray balance from light to dark. The third was sort of a half hearted attempt to warm it up a bit, but had a lot of shortcomings as well. This still begs the question of how close to the original color checker was that piece of film? If it pretty much matched, then the K-14 profile wasn't all that good to begin with and with a couple of minutes with well places curves, you could actually better the profile manually. It was all to illustrate that there's more than one way to get this done effectively. If you've got a piece of film with a color checker on it and know how that color checker is supposed to look, do you correct the scan to do that or do you make your scan match the film as close as possible?
If in fact you are using the color checker for some sort of control, then you would probably want to correct it so it looks as close to the real life checker as possible, overriding whatever the profile is giving you straight out of the scanner. The profiled scan is really just a starting point and any good scanner operator will always set white and black points at a bare minimum, but also consider gray balance and selective color as well, where applicable. You just have to examine the pixel values in the scan and see what makes sense. I didn't know off the top of my head what the actual pixel values were for an idealized color checker, but I shot for something like the black patch at around 16-17 and the white patch at around 237-8 or so, while making the rest as neutral as possible. That made all the other colors come in a lot closer all on their own. It's all just the basic digital color correction theory 101 that I've been practicing for the last fifteen years.
-
The yellow was definitely not lemon yellow but much more on the golden side, and the white at the top was more pinkish, but all those things can be affected by the emulsion lot, the processing, the time of day, whether or not you had any sort of filter on the lens, whether you shot with a Leica, Nikon or Canon lens and probably about thirty more factors I can't think of at the moment.
Then Kodachrome could look like anything no matter what subject and lighting you shoot.
So there's no nailing down the look of Kodachrome. I don't know what else to conclude.
Folks are just seeing what they want to see in this film. Nice bright colors according to Paul Simon is good enough description I guess.
-
Well, I think there's definitely a Kodachrome look to it no matter what. You really see it more when looking at a high res file but there is a palette to Kodachrome that is unlike any other film or digital. The greens are particularly muted too. As far as it looking any way you want it to, it can have many different looks based on all of the factors I mentioned previously. A lot of people used to shoot Kodachrome in the mountains - Galen Rowell for one - and high altitude unfiltered would give you and extra dose of blue as well. My guess is that by bringing the highlights and shadows in to line, you are going to eliminate as many of those other variables and see the film for what it really is. The only thing that really matters is if you like the images you are producing, no matter what medium you use.
-
Well, I think there's definitely a Kodachrome look to it no matter what.
If one has shot a lot of Kodachrome over the years, yes, there is a "look". Can you achieve it with an E-6 scan or digital capture? Yes...if you understand what the look is (if you know how to move the image). If you don't, then no...it's tough to achieve the look if you don't really "grok" it...
Kodachrome is a tough film to scan and a tough rendering to replicate–if you don't know it.
-
I did get around to scanning a couple of pieces of film today. Here's a small scan from a piece of PKM Kodachrome 25 that expired in 1991, which means the film is at about three years older than that. Interesting enough, this batch came through being not nearly as blue in the shadows at other Kodachromes I've scanned, only underscoring the entire content of this thread. But even still it was about ten points blue in the shadows rather than twenty-five. Maybe the latest chemistry is better or maybe it's the old film. There was very little done to this in Photoshop aside from cleaning up some dust and a very minor overall curves adjustment and a very slight reddening of the lips. And it's very close to the film as well. The detail scan, for anyone interested, is from the original 8000 ppi scan. Yeah, it's grainier than digital and not quite as sharp, but it's got guts. This was shot right at dusk, so the sunsetty color is completely appropriate. Canon EOS1vn and a 35mm 1.4 at f/2. All in all, I spent about a minute tops in Trident and about the same for the Ps tweaks, aside from the minor dust. I almost forgot to give due to my model and girlfriend, Gee Rabe, LA's accordion diva, who was wearing no makeup aside from the lipstick.
Peter, I noticed the relative lack of film grain in your scans, even the detail view. Do you agree?
My scans of Velvia and Provia on my Minolta 5400 scanner show more film grain, or probably grain aliasing to be more accurate.
Is the lack of grain in your scans the result of the small size of the samples you posted, or maybe scanning at 8,000 ppi avoids grain aliasing, or maybe Kodachrome has less noticeable grain than Velvia or Provia, or maybe the grain isn’t as noticeable in the detail sample since there aren’t any uniform areas like clear sky? It’s not all that important. I’m just curious.
-
I've been reading these Kodachrome threads with much more interest than understanding; however, my lack of expertise does not prevent me from contributing to the message thread because I too have shot the "last" roll of Kodachrome -- and the Tee shirt from Dwaynes is on its way to me!
My last roll of Kodachrome was shot, appropriately, in my old Konica T2. At the same time, I (sometimes) grabbed similar shots with a Canon G9 digicam. I had Dwaynes scan the roll on the assumption that they knew how to do it. To my surprise, the Dwaynes scans came back on a Kodak Picture CD and I did not like them. My next step was to scan the slides myself using a Canon FS4000 scanner using Vuescan. I set up Vuescan for Kodachrome slides with no additional adjustments (no white balance, levels, etc.). The other part of my plan was to process the G9 shot as a "Kodachrome" by using the Pixel Genius PhotoKit Color2 setting as"Classic Chrome".
The scans were capture sharpened with Pixel Genius Capture Sharpener 2, reduced in size and then output sharpened with Output Sharpener 2. The G9 was converted in ACR in my relatively simple and consistent manner, tweaked as Classic Chrome, reduced in size and output sharpened.
To my eye -- and surprise -- the Dwaynes scan most resembles the real slide but is relatively low resolution, 8 bit and seems to be highly compressed. If I were to make a print from the slide, I'd use the Vuescan version with additional post processing. On the other hand, if I wanted a print of the scene, I'd take another hack at the G9 RAW file.
Anyway, all this means something or other, I'm sure.
Gordon, it appears to me that the VueScan scan could have used a little more hardware exposure (not merely a software adjustment), which may make your comparison a little better. I suspect that there would still be a large difference in the scans, however.
-
It should be possible to compare the gamuts of slide films based on profiles, preferably made with equipment that can deal with the character of both films, so a continuous spectral lightsource of a Kelvin grade that does justice to both etc. Joseph Holmes created the Ektachrome color space, a similar space should be possible for Kodachrome. In that sense one could talk of typical Kodachrome color, Ektachrome color, Velvia color if the gamuts are shifted in shape to one another or wider.
He writes here that he doesn't expect much difference in the Kodachrome gamut but that wasn't based on research it seems:
http://www.livepicturegroup.com/EktaSpace.txt
His experience with Kodachrome may have been limited too, I saw one reference to the use of Kodachrome 25 in his youth.
Where Peter described the lighting and filters on the Howtek, I was intrigued by the dichroic filters. As far as I know they usually have a stricter spectral transmission/blocking than possible with dye filters. With the halogen tungsten lightsource being more continuous + the dichroic filters it is possible that both slide film types are more similar in the scan than possible on CCFL lit CCD scanners, the last also have difficulties with IR that has to be blocked for the sensor.
A typical CCD RGB filter set spectral plot is shown in this PDF. It is the three linear Kodak CCD that is used in the Nikon 8000. The sensor is no longer produced by Kodak.
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/business/ISS/datasheet/linear/KLI-10203LongSpec.pdf
Typical dichroic filter plots:
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/78789-autochrome-rgb-spectrums-via-modern-dichroic-filters.html
+ as dessert the Autochrome spectral plots, the color slide film that started all this complexity.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
New: Spectral plots of +230 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
"Peter, I noticed the relative lack of film grain in your scans, even the detail view. Do you agree?"
I certainly notice the grain. The detail scan I posted was scanned at 8000 ppi and using a 3.3 micron scanning aperture, which generally accentuates the grain. It was Kodachrome 25, which is finer grained than either 64 or 200 and seems to be on par with Velvia 50 but with a different character. The detail scan had no sharpening at all applied to it.
"My scans of Velvia and Provia on my Minolta 5400 scanner show more film grain, or probably grain aliasing to be more accurate."
Hard to say without seeing scans of the same piece of film from the two scanner. A few years ago a friend brought his 5400 over to my studio and we did some side by side comparisons. The Minolta was surprisingly good for the price but was definitely harsher overall and lacked the smoothness in gradations that is apparent in the Howtek.
"Is the lack of grain in your scans the result of the small size of the samples you posted, or maybe scanning at 8,000 ppi avoids grain aliasing, or maybe Kodachrome has less noticeable grain than Velvia or Provia, or maybe the grain isn’t as noticeable in the detail sample since there aren’t any uniform areas like clear sky? It’s not all that important. I’m just curious."
Well, there's always more apparent grain in areas like blue sky and much less in areas of detail, so that may be affecting your perception. The blue skies are much less "pure" in Kodachrome when looking at a grain level, being made up of smaller clumps of what I'd call contaminating colors - things like purple dye clouds in between the more cyanish overall sky color. That may account for the tendency for Kodachrome skies to skew slightly toward magenta. Just surmising though. Of course, that phenomenon is apparent in any film.
After having scanned several of this latest batch of film it does appear that the later emulsions of K64 certainly seem to be slightly less grainy than film from years ago, but I have no idea whether there was any real change to the film or if the newer chemistry has anything to do with it or some combination including overall exposure. There are areas of highlight detail that appear almost grainless in comparison to the detail scan I posted earlier.
Even after seventy plus years of Kodachrome, it continues to mystify.
-
The Minolta 5400 exists in more versions. There is a Scanhancer like grain dissolver in the 5400 while there is a more diffuse lamp in the 5400 II. The last seems to deliver more grainy appearence with B&W scans.
Actual film grain resolved (or dye clouds) is another thing, the more the scanner can resolve the smaller aliased grain becomes in the scan. That might be what you see as grain difference between the 8000 SPI Howtek and the 5400 SPI Minolta scan.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
Peter, you're correct. I took another look at a Velvia scan, and not so much grain. Here is a 100% crop, with no adjustments except to convert from 16 bit linear to sRGB.
EDIT: The scan was made using ICE and "Grain Dissolver" which is an optical device between the film and the CCD sensor to reduce the appearance of grain. It is similar to the Scanhancer that was developed for the Minolta Multi Pro.
-
In the old days of shooting film before scanning and in the early days of Cibachrome, we shot our film and either projected it or tried to print it, but we were quite limited in scope as to how we could alter the look compared to today. When printing you could do minor color and brightness corrections and if your were ambitious with Pan Masking Film, you could make some fairly complex masks for both contrast and color control (exposing PMF through color filters), but still, nothing like the control we have today.
So the question becomes; Why the emphasis so much on matching the film, particularly when the film was virtually never exactly where and with what we know today, most of us are going to want to make the images we had in our minds, not necessarily the ones on our film.
Hell, Steve Crouch, a photographer I knew growing up in Monterey who did a very nice book on the area titled Steinbeck Country, never ever filtered his Ektachrome, claiming that's how the great yellow god intended it to be. Having seen enough of his original images (he used to come in to the store I worked) and having looked at Steinbeck Country more recently, I have no doubt there is much more hidden in his images waiting to be discovered.
I find it interesting that so many people shooting transparencies are somehow frozen into what they see on the film whereas the black and white neg crowd would never think of making a "straight" print, and often spend hours burning, dodging and sometimes literally massaging a print in the darkroom to achieve their vision.
-
Please clarify: you don't get a blue cast when you use a profile by itself, or you don't get a blue cast when you use a profile along with the Kodachrome setting?
No blue cast with a profile itself. I get more of a cast with the Kodachrome setting and no profile. I've not tried the two in conjunction, because frankly, the profile alone is working very well for me in reproducing what I'm seeing on my light table.
When I'm talking about a blue/cyan cast, I'm talking about a horrible blue/cyan cast over everything. It's not subtle and isn't there when you look at the slide by eye. I'm not talking about imperfections with the way Kodachrome renders colors in the scene. It's like you took a photo through a CTB filter. I have a slide of White Sands from my childhood. If you saw my original scan of it from a couple months ago, you'd call it Blue Sands. The slide on the light table doesn't look like that at all. I've not yet rescanned that particularly slide, but newer ones that I've compared with/without a profile seem to prove to me that the profile is obviously doing a better job at reproducing what's on the slide.
-
I find it interesting that so many people shooting transparencies are somehow frozen into what they see on the film whereas the black and white neg crowd would never think of making a "straight" print, and often spend hours burning, dodging and sometimes literally massaging a print in the darkroom to achieve their vision.
So if I reading your thoughts correctly, all the profiling and preliminary stages of setting up to ultimately print,whether it be from a slide or any other digital camera capture, is just a means to be at a point where the creative process takes over, and you interpret the file the way you see it in your minds eye. It is effectively your prerogative as far as what you do to achieve your end result as an artist, there is no right or wrong.
Of course it is a whole different situation when you are reproducing files according to someone elses requirements and WYSIWYG is the name of the game.
-
David,
I think that's a pretty fair statement. When I'm scanning or doing post production/retouching for other people, I'll often give two versions - one that is as close to the film as possible and one that is how I, as a photographer, would do it. Almost without exception people prefer the new improved versions. But neither is more right than the other, just different interpretations. A lot of times people had never considered that veering away from the film might be either possible or desirable. I have way too many of my own images that have come to life in post. The potential was there in the original but now there are tools to work with. There are quite a few images I'm really glad I never tossed.
-
Gordon, it appears to me that the VueScan scan could have used a little more hardware exposure (not merely a software adjustment), which may make your comparison a little better. I suspect that there would still be a large difference in the scans, however.
I think you are correct. I just used the Vuescan default. The slide is not so underexposed.