Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2386 times:
I prefer to perform my own scratch and dust elimination when I scan a print. Can you turn off (defeat) the ICE process on the slide/film scanners that are on the market today? I prefer to purchase a device that gives me a choice, especially because my collection is mostly Kodachrome.
Milt From Netherlands, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2289 times:
With the Nikon (are there others with ICE?) scanners you can disable it (i.e. you have to enable it specificaly). But I can recommend it. It works great and costs only a fraction of sharpness which can easily be regained by some sharpening (which isn't a bad thing to do anyway).
Chrisair From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1923 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2273 times:
Yes. Every scanner I know of with ICE can have it turned off. I leave it on, just to get any dust I might have missed. It really does work. I am really somewhat against posting pix here, as I believe it is a way for one to get more hits, but since it's nessecary here, I'll make an exception. The picture below (and others in this roll) had a large scratch on the top. Probably from processing. However ICE did a fantastic job of "covering" it up. If you look midway up the shot, you will see one or two black smudges probably 2MM thick. That's all that remains of the line after ICE. It used to run all the way across. It works wonders!!!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 658 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2247 times:
The ICE in the new Nikon's (IV, 4000) is amazing - a significant improvement on what has gone before, plus the Nikonscan 3 software has the best unsharp mask tool I've seen. Yes, ICE can be turned off (though I doubt I ever will!) but no, it still won't work with B&W or Kodachrome.
Interestingly, the new scanner has a setting especially for Kodachrome scans - haven't had time yet to determine what benefits this offers.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Thanks a lot for the replies.
Yeah, I see that slight horizontal smudge in your photo, but it's not really objectional, at least for most uses on the internet. Speaking of the internet, why post perfect images-they're just going to steal 'em and post them on their own obscure websites without our permission anyway. Oops, sorry, went off subject.
My impression is that if I am willing to manually remove the defects from scanned Kodachrome and B&W then I could use several of the current scanners with satisfactory results.
The only contamination problem I have with my slides is occassional loose dust. I learned to remove this with compressed air before having them scanned to PhotoCD. I don't think any image improvement occurs when you have your work scanned to PhotoCD, at least not at the price I am paying. So I'm pretty familiar with having to look for dust in the image anyway. Its really part of self-imposed quality control, and I think all of us practice this. Or we should.
My B&W negatives have always had more spots and contamination on them than my slides. It doesn't seem to matter who develops them, the B&W negs often have small spots that appear white on the print. When developing my own negs, I installed a water filtration system because of this, and that didn't seem to help. So I started using distilled water, and that didn't seem to help. Eventually I lowered my standards and went to commercial development.
I still doubt that I have the additional time available to spend it on the computer using a slide/film scanner. It would be another case if I had several paying customers who demanded quick image services, but at present profit motivation is minimal.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 658 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
Tom, if you are working with mostly Kodachrome & B&W, then you're right ICE has little to offer you. Since ICE depends on infrared light, this is not something that's likely to change.
A little off topic, but those small spots you refer to sound to me like air bubbles trapped on the film during development. Using the inversion method of film agitation combined with a sharp bang of the tank after each agitation should get rid of these.
Tomh From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2224 times:
The air bubbles I eliminated as a problem using the very technique you suggested. The spots bothered me until I switched to commercial B&W development about 6 years ago. They are actually some sort of solid matter that sticks to the negatives. Sometimes I could clean it off with a cotton swab and alcohol, but not always. I resorted to removing some with an Exacto razor knife, which worked, but of course would often scratch the negative. I was never able to trace the source of this stuff. The basement of my house is where the darkroom (unused lately) is located, and it really isn't as clean a location as it should be for that purpose.
Now that I think back on it, I really should have used extra "expendable" rolls of film to learn B&W development on. But as a kid, I didn't have the spare money, so I used the film I shot at the time. Sent some nice United Caravelles and American L.188s into the trash bin back then because of newbie ineptness. Oh well, scan and upload today. None of that chemical darkroom stuff anymore.