Slide problems?

Hey all.

This was my first time shooting slide film, so I didn't really know what to expect. I did however kinda expect better results than this though.

http://www.flickr.com/gp/80184463@N00/0466DQ

Theres a small set with some examples to show what I mean. The ones that show the mount were taken with my 30D, the ones without the border were scanned with the 'proper' equipment. Prints come out the same as these scans BTW (washed out/foggy, and just generally lacking any of the contrast that I had expected to see). I'm thinking that I did something wrong during the scan process, and since I'm new to this type of photography I was wondering if anyone had any tips for scanning/printing of slides. (I'm not looking for tips regarding the actual exposure/composition/whatever of the photograph, just the scanning/printing/output of the slides themselves.)

I'm very eager to give this type of film a try for my flash-lit skate and action shots, but I figured I should know ahead of time if I'm doing something wrong before I waste an opportunity to get a good trick.

Thanks

Does the film actually look like that or just the scans? How are you scanning the slides? When you photograph the slides with your 30D, how did you illuminate them?

Edit: Just wanted to add that I don't shoot slides but I have scanned them from friends using my Nikon Coolscan V scanner and Vuescan software. I've never had any trouble unless the shot was improperly exposed with the camera. Some slides dated back to the 1960's and they looked beautiful. I found slides to generally scan better than negatives and much less post-processing is required.

I went back and read your descriptions on flickr. Prior, I just looked at it as a slideshow. (That's how I normally like to view photos in flickr).

What scanner did you use? It may be an issue with film flatness or focusing the lens of the scanner was off. The DOF of a scanner's lens is extremely tiny. My Nikon has autofocus so I don't have to worry about this. Most flatbeds, including the popular Epson v7xx do not have autofocus. To compensate, the Epsons have feet on the slide carriers that allow for three different steps in height, I believe. There are 3rd party carriers that have offer more control over the height.

Hmm. I scanned these at work, (Blacks). Maybe the slide mask thing just needs a good cleaning? Or maybe it's not focussing correctly like you said? It doesn't get NEARLY the same usage as the regular color negative one does, so it might just not be calibrated right. Or whatever. I don't really know what I'm talking about, heh

The shots taken with the 30D were with the slide held up to a window and the on-board flash on to light up the front (which basically consisted of my hand and the plastic mount...kinda pointless in hindsight).

I have an Epson scanner that does negs if you want to borrow it, Anthony.

I'm not sure what type of scanner you have at Black's. I'd hope that it is something nice like an Imacon. I assumed earlier that you were using a flatbed.

Like I said, scanner lenses have very short DOF. Different media sit at different heights above the lens and the scanner or the film carriers have to be set up correctly. For example, large 4x5 or 8x10 can be wet-mounted right on the glass. Negative film-strips can be a few millimetres above the glass. Slides in their cardboard holders (which sometimes vary in thickness) are also mounted in carriers above the glass but the film may not necessarily be at the same height as the negative film in the strip carriers. Often times, just half a millimetre could result in a soft image.

Here are example images from an Epson v700 review using film holders at heights of 2.5mm, 3mm and 3.5mm.
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_13.htm

Here's another. This type an Epson v750. (scroll down to the bottom images)
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_4.htm

Here's an example from Betterscanning.com (they sell aftermarket holders with more flexibility in setting heights).
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_advantage.html

The lack of an autofocus lens on any scanner is a real turn off for me and its one of the reasons why I paid the extra bucks for a Nikon film scanner. I can't imagine how time-consuming and frustrating it would be to experiment with all the different height settings.

If this scanner you use has a glass plate between the lens and the media, like most flatbeds, light can also reflect off the glass can cause a loss of contrast and poor colour. There is almost always a lost of sharpness in the image and Unsharp Mask has to be used for the scans to match the that of a dedicated, glassless film scanner. Normally it's not that big of a deal to most people.

An example: Epson v750 flatbed vs Nikon 9000 ED dedicated film scanner
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_6.htm

If the negative scanner is working ok, an option would be to process your slides and cut them into strips instead of mounting them. Scan them with your negative scanner and then invert the colours in Photoshop. However, if the scanner does any automatic post-processing (especially auto white-balance or auto-levels), then doing this may cause some headaches when post-processing positives scanned as negatives (or vice versa). My particular scanner can do a straight scan without any manipulations (not even reversing the colours on a negative) and save it to Adobe DNG RAW or TIFF.

Really nice stuff AA. It's been said before... if the slide looks perfect, it's got to be the scanner.
So don't give up on slide just yet.

Thanks for the help everyone--I do think nando's idea has potential. Would it be a bad idea to un-mount the slides I currently have? I think there's a way to disable the inverting-to-positive action when using the regular single frame negative holder, and there should also be a way to disable the auto-corrections on that as well...although it might be more work thank it's really worth.

Ken, negatives as well as mounted slides?

Thanks crowellphotographs. I don't think I'll ever give up on it...I just keep seeing really inspirational stuff and I just love the results I'm seeing from other people, once I get a way to properly scan I'll be shooting a lot more of it. Maybe invest in a scanner of my own? I see the Canoscan's get really good reviews and seem to be moderately priced...

Actually after having another look at that first link in your last post (? haha confusing), the result from the different height settings not being accounted for properly seemed to give the exact results I'm seeing--Generally un-sharp and foggy images, and the very bright hilights GLOW.

Interesting...still I wonder about getting my own though...it would be so convenient...

Yes, slides as well.

It's not an amazing scanner but it might work out for you.

Anthony,

Think of using a crazy lens with a depth-of-field of like one or two millimetres. And instead of focusing with the lens, you have to move the subject back and forth (in this case, up and down) to get it in that one or two millimetres where everything is sharp. That's what you are dealing with when using a scanner without an autofocus feature. Flatbeds made primarily for scanning paper documents and printed photographs at 300dpi, being out of a bit focus is not that big of a deal but when you are dealing with 35mm film and scanning at 2800+dpi, it is a HUGE deal. The worse thing about this problem is that scanners (like most electronic products these days) are usually built on the cheap and there is enough variations between the same scanners (and the holders) to throw the focusing right off. I know a few people with Epson v7xx's and each of them have the heights on their negatives holders set differently. One of them bought a 3rd-party holder to lower the height bellow the minimum heights of the stock holders. I think the stock holders can go as low as 2.5mm and this person had to set his 3rd-party holder to a height of 1.5mm. And it took them a lot of experimentation to arrive at an optimum height for the holders too. There are people that actually like this type of experimenting but not me - its torture.

If the using the negative scanner and reversing the colours doesn't work well for you, my offer will still be on the table. Scanning does take a bit of time because my scanner needs to make at least 4-5 passes to eliminate most of the scanner-generated noise - so that's 5-6 minutes per frame at the max 4000dpi at 16-bit with dICE enabled. (Yes, Nikon advertises 35 seconds per frame but they're milking it to get that low time - 1 pass, 8-bit, no dICE, no autofocus, saving as a low-res JPG for the web, etc.) However, if it is just scanning to a RAW Adobe DNG or TIFF formats without post-processing (so you can do it later yourself), it is pretty much a brainless exercise with no real work involved. It just a matter of putting in one slide after the other and pressing the scan button while watching TV so I don't mind. It just might take me a few days to do a roll.

If you get a scanner, I highly recommend getting one with an autofocus lens feature. I know that this basically eliminates most of the consumer/prosumer scanners out there. I think that the feature is worth it if you want to do larger prints using 35mm film (and a digital darkroom) but don't want to spend too much time fiddling around with the holders to get the film suspended at the proper distance to the lens. I'm going to get another scanner (eventually) for scanning 120 film as my Nikon can only do 35mm. Right now, the front runner for me is a Microtek Artixscan M1, which allows for mounting film up to 4x5 large-format underneath the glass plate and has an autofocus lens. It is a bit pricey - a bit less than my Nikon scanner but in between the Epson v700 and v750. Most reviewers feel that this scanner is superior to the Epson v7xx's.

However, Microtek had some licensing issues with Kodak and couldn't offer Kodak's DigitalICE (dICE) technology with scanners sold in North America. This is a big deal-breaker for many people. The version of the M1 sold outside of the US and Canada, called the F1, does have it. dICE is a neat feature that uses infrared light to detect scratches, dust, (small) water-spots and other unwanted things on a negative allowing the software to automatically clean them. However, it only works with C41 and slides - not black and white negatives. The lack of dICE in the M1 won't matter too much for me as my negatives are usually clean and I plan to do mainly black and white. Any dust or other foreign things usually can be cleaned up in PP rather painlessly. However, when I have a large number of C41 negatives to scan, dICE is welcomed as it does save time.

Another option that I've been mulling over is selling my Nikon Coolscan V and upgrade to a Nikon Coolscan 9000, which takes both 35mm and 120 film (but nothing larger). I may take that route but I hope that Nikon is still in the scanning business by the time I save up enough money to buy their Coolscan 9000 scanner. Rumour has it that Nikon may soon stop producing film scanners.

BTW, I just met a photographer-friend at Rome's today for a coffee upstairs and he had just picked up two rolls he had processed there. Nearly every frame had a large number water-spots and dust everywhere and it affected his prints (not that the prints really mattered). I also spotted a lot of dust and something that looked like an eye-lash. To be fair, I've seen worse from Walmart. However, I don't think I'm going to get C41 negatives done there anymore unless I'm just testing equipment.

Anthony, I might pay you a visit at Blacks the next time I need to have a roll of C41 processed. Will Blacks process C41 film without making prints (for less money)?

Yeah, we do that. $7.19 for develop only (1 hour or 3 day, same price) as opposed to $12.99 (1 hour) or $10.00 (3 day) with prints.

Ken, maybe that week or whatever of me lending you the lighting gear might make for a good trade for the use of your scanner to play with?

Sure. I don't need it for a week though. Just a day or two.

I don't use the scanner very much, so you're welcome to keep it for a week or more.