Scanner improvement with time & ICE

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by hellman@stanford.edu, Aug 1, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Last November, I bought a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400-2 to
    scan 35 mm slides and negatives and have been very happy with it. To my
    surprise, i outshines three professional services I tried during that
    time. In two of those three cases, one area it is head and shoulders
    above the pros' scans is digital ICE removal of scratches and other
    surface blemishes. (The third pro scan did just as well on that score.)

    Has digital ICE improved that much over the last few years (that's when
    I know one of the pros bought his scanner), or is something else going
    on? If ICE has improved that much then anyone with a few year old
    scanner might want to look into getting a new one. The difference is
    astounding -- making almost unusable pictures (they are 65 years old!)
    look almost new. Incidentally, I am amazed at how well Kodachrome
    colors held up over those years, though some PSE tweaking did perk
    things up. And this was for slides my father kept in his basement --
    far from climate controlled conditions.

    I've found GEM and ROC much less useful and don't use them in general.
    Any comments there? Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

    One other thing that I know has been mentioned here but is relevant:
    Don't believe the statement (as in my K-M manual) that ICE doesn't work
    with Kodachrome. It might not with some, but in my case you can tell
    it's been a life saver.

    Martin
     
    , Aug 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote:
    > Last November, I bought a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400-2 to
    > scan 35 mm slides and negatives and have been very happy with it. To my
    > surprise, i outshines three professional services I tried during that
    > time. In two of those three cases, one area it is head and shoulders
    > above the pros' scans is digital ICE removal of scratches and other
    > surface blemishes. (The third pro scan did just as well on that score.)


    Professional scanning has the problem that anyone who is smart enough to do
    a good job scanning is smart enough to make a decent living doing something
    else; to get a good professional scan, you have to pay a competent
    professional competent professional wages. And that gets very expensive.
    Fast.

    You've got exactly the right idea, though, and that is to try the
    professional services, find which is the best, and then figure out how to do
    better yourself.

    If you are still shooting film, try the new Fuji Pro 160 C (I think that's
    what it's called); it's a color negative version of Velvia with saturated
    colors, fine grain, and great sharpness.

    > Has digital ICE improved that much over the last few years (that's when
    > I know one of the pros bought his scanner), or is something else going
    > on? If ICE has improved that much then anyone with a few year old
    > scanner might want to look into getting a new one. The difference is
    > astounding -- making almost unusable pictures (they are 65 years old!)
    > look almost new. Incidentally, I am amazed at how well Kodachrome
    > colors held up over those years, though some PSE tweaking did perk
    > things up. And this was for slides my father kept in his basement --
    > far from climate controlled conditions.


    Yep. ICE is amazing. But you are _WAY_ behind the times: ICE is pretty old
    news by now. (It was already old when I bought my scanner (Nikon 8000) in
    early 2002.)

    > I've found GEM and ROC much less useful and don't use them in general.
    > Any comments there? Maybe I'm doing something wrong.


    You aren't doing anything wrong. GEM is essentially noise reduction, and
    NeatImage and Noise Ninja will do a better job. And ROC tries to
    automagically correct faded colors. It might work on some cases, but in
    general, I find that automagic color correction really doesn't work.

    > One other thing that I know has been mentioned here but is relevant:
    > Don't believe the statement (as in my K-M manual) that ICE doesn't work
    > with Kodachrome. It might not with some, but in my case you can tell
    > it's been a life saver.


    Apparently there's a lot of variability in "Kodachrome", and I've heard it
    claimed that some Kodachrome doesn't have all the silver removed. I've never
    shot Kodachrome, but I hear a lot of teeth gnashing and agony from people
    who have had trouble scanning it. (Nikon scanners are notorious here:
    apparently the Nikon LED light sources are extremely narrow band, and thus
    only "see" part of the dye response, resulting in some dizzy color shifts,
    and (if memory serves) prior to the 4000/8000 (or maybe the model before
    that) Nikon simply didn't support scanning Kodachrome.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 1, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. I purchased an hp scanjet 3970 flatbed scanner w/negative and slide
    scanning and wow what a major disappointment that was. I thought my
    slides were permanently damaged, the scans looked like someone had
    taken a wire brush to the slides. My ambition was to digitize about
    approximately 4000 of my Grandfathers slides and to create a DVD for
    family members. I ended up getting a slide to video transfer unit
    carousel device and transferring to DV tape. Definitely not the image
    quality you guys are talking about, but definitely good enough for what
    I was doing. Cheaper, faster, more efficient.
    I pity the families who have one or two dog earred, yellow prints to
    document an entire history of family life. Those of us who have rich
    photographic histories of our families owe it to posterity to preserve
    them and to make them presentable to future generations.
    My grandparents golden years where the goldest golden years I have ever
    seen. They went everywhere. It's sad that working class guys probably
    won't have that kind of reward for longevity of service in this country
    anymore.
    wrote:
    > Last November, I bought a Konica Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400-2 to
    > scan 35 mm slides and negatives and have been very happy with it. To my
    > surprise, i outshines three professional services I tried during that
    > time. In two of those three cases, one area it is head and shoulders
    > above the pros' scans is digital ICE removal of scratches and other
    > surface blemishes. (The third pro scan did just as well on that score.)
    >
    > Has digital ICE improved that much over the last few years (that's when
    > I know one of the pros bought his scanner), or is something else going
    > on? If ICE has improved that much then anyone with a few year old
    > scanner might want to look into getting a new one. The difference is
    > astounding -- making almost unusable pictures (they are 65 years old!)
    > look almost new. Incidentally, I am amazed at how well Kodachrome
    > colors held up over those years, though some PSE tweaking did perk
    > things up. And this was for slides my father kept in his basement --
    > far from climate controlled conditions.
    >
    > I've found GEM and ROC much less useful and don't use them in general.
    > Any comments there? Maybe I'm doing something wrong.
    >
    > One other thing that I know has been mentioned here but is relevant:
    > Don't believe the statement (as in my K-M manual) that ICE doesn't work
    > with Kodachrome. It might not with some, but in my case you can tell
    > it's been a life saver.
    >
    > Martin
     
    silverthreads, Aug 1, 2006
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lorenzo J. Lucchini

    "Digital ICE" without Digital ICE

    Lorenzo J. Lucchini, Oct 26, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    729
  2. Nobody Nowhere

    nikon 8000 scanner - does ICE interfere with the image?

    Nobody Nowhere, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    282
    Nobody Nowhere
    Dec 30, 2004
  3. All Things Mopar

    Looking for advice for a good Digital Ice 35mm slide scanner

    All Things Mopar, Feb 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    141
    Views:
    2,624
  4. Ockham's Razor

    Scanner/Digital ICE question.

    Ockham's Razor, Sep 3, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    357
    Hebee Jeebes
    Sep 4, 2006
  5. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    739
    Old Gringo
    Jan 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page