Washed out signs

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob M, Oct 28, 2006.

  1. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm slides.
    The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector to a
    screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I can
    see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont, NH"
    the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO to
    80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to maxmim
    number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I use a
    2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP, and if
    I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is the
    same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
    Any suggestions?




    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=/4dddre2&.dnm=f8bfre2.jpg&.src=ph

    -----------

    Remove "not" for return address.
    Bob M, Oct 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob M

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Bob M wrote:
    > I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm slides.
    > The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector to a
    > screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I can
    > see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont, NH"
    > the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO to
    > 80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to maxmim
    > number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I use a
    > 2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP, and if
    > I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is the
    > same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
    > Any suggestions?


    Hi Bob...

    Way back when I tried what you're doing, and given that I'm
    old and long retired with lots of time on my hands, I did every
    experiment I could think of to get satisfactory results, but
    failed. I suspect from your sample that you've done already
    than I ever did, but of course cameras have much improved since
    I did it, so...

    Anyway, if you're looking for the best results, you want a
    dedicated film/slide scanner, preferably with digital ice
    to remove dust from your pics. (you will see it :)

    Next best will be a flatbed scanner with a backlight for
    scanning film/slides. I have an Epson which works great.

    Be aware that if you have many slides/negs, it's a long and
    tedious project. I've been at a lifetime collection for a
    couple of years now, and am about half finished :)

    Finally, if you insist on using your camera, don't project,
    but rather get yourself a light box, and photograph the
    slide/film directly. This will provide far better results
    than projecting.

    Just my two cents worth.

    Take care.

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, Oct 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:47:04 GMT, Ken Weitzel <> wrote:
    >
    >Hi Bob...
    >
    >Way back when I tried what you're doing, and given that I'm
    >old and long retired with lots of time on my hands, I did every
    >experiment I could think of to get satisfactory results, but
    >failed. I suspect from your sample that you've done already
    >than I ever did, but of course cameras have much improved since
    >I did it, so...
    >
    >Anyway, if you're looking for the best results, you want a
    >dedicated film/slide scanner, preferably with digital ice
    >to remove dust from your pics. (you will see it :)
    >
    >Next best will be a flatbed scanner with a backlight for
    >scanning film/slides. I have an Epson which works great.
    >
    >Be aware that if you have many slides/negs, it's a long and
    >tedious project. I've been at a lifetime collection for a
    >couple of years now, and am about half finished :)
    >
    >Finally, if you insist on using your camera, don't project,
    >but rather get yourself a light box, and photograph the
    >slide/film directly. This will provide far better results
    >than projecting.
    >

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I am also retired, and this is the project
    that has finally risen to the top of the priority list.
    I got out the old screen and projector a couple of weeks ago to look at some
    old Florida vacation slides from 1964. It was such a hassle, it reminded me
    why we have not done that in such a long time. The screen has creases in it,
    and seems ready to fall over. I have 2 Anscomatic 40 slide tray projectors and
    neither works very well. Jamming up, needing a nudge now and then.
    We watch the digital camera's pictures on the TV via a laptop, and I want to
    do the same with the old slides.
    The TV has really poor resolution by design, and the computer puts out a
    compatable signal. Pictures on the TV look a lot fuzzier than on the computer.
    I need to look into some way of using the TV's HDTV to show the pictures with
    better resolution.

    I looked at 2 attachments, the Opteka HD2 for about $60.00 which has bad
    reviews, and a Specialty Photographic model for about $100.00 plus an adapter
    to fit the Kodak. I may get the latter, but I am concerned that the Z650 may
    not be able to focus well enough. I set up a light source, a diffuser and a
    slide holder on a bench. After several experimental shots, I could not get the
    Z650 to focus adequately. It has manual control over everything but focus. I
    wonder if it would work any better with one of these adapters?

    -----------

    Remove "not" for return address.
    Bob M, Oct 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Bob M

    Jim Guest

    On 2006-10-28 10:15:21 -0400, Bob M <> said:

    > I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm slides.
    > The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector to a
    > screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I can
    > see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont, NH"
    > the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO to
    > 80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to maxmim
    > number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I use a
    > 2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP, and if
    > I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is the
    > same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
    > Any suggestions?
    >
    >
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=/4dddre2&.dnm=f8bfre2.jpg&.src=ph


    -----------

    Remove
    >
    > "not" for return address.



    Best way... invest in a film scanner, either a dedicated film scanner
    or very recent model flatbed with slide/film scanning capability.
    Second best (read expensive) send your slides out to be scanned.
    Projecting a slide to photograph it introduces too many variables to
    ever get a decent reproduction. (Quality of the projector lenses, lack
    of flatness of field, too high a light contrast (as you have seen),
    texture of the projected surface etc. etc. ) Back before digital the
    slide was photographed with a camera with a slide copy attachment (A
    belllows or rigid tube) attached. A frame held the slide and light was
    shone through the slide. Either special slide copy film was used (which
    had much lower contrast than normal film) or copy negative file was
    used if the goal to was to make a large print. Digital scanning is the
    way to do this. Suitable scanners can be had for under 300 USD these
    days.

    Jim
    --
    Jim <jen....not....home..remvdots...@....yahoo
    Jim, Oct 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Bob M

    JohnR66 Guest

    "Bob M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm
    >slides.
    > The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector
    > to a
    > screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I
    > can
    > see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont,
    > NH"
    > the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO
    > to
    > 80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to
    > maxmim
    > number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I
    > use a
    > 2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP,
    > and if
    > I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is
    > the
    > same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
    > Any suggestions?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=/4dddre2&.dnm=f8bfre2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > -----------
    >
    > Remove "not" for return address.


    If your camera has exposure compensation, experiment with different
    settings. -1 would be a good starting point.
    John
    JohnR66, Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. Bob M

    jeremy Guest


    >>I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm
    >>slides.
    >> The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector
    >> to a
    >> screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera.


    The only way to digitize slides properly is to use a film scanner. Trying
    to take a photo off of a projected image is going to result in near complete
    loss of luminance and color saturation information.

    You have already seen how unacceptable such images are. I know of no way to
    improve them sufficiently to look like scanned transparencies. Even
    low-resolution scans, similar to those on a Kodak Picture CD, are far
    superior to any of the do-it-yourself schemes that do not involve use of a
    real film scanner.
    jeremy, Oct 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Bob M

    Ron Baird Guest

    Hi Bob,

    Sounds like you are trying to capture a scene that is a bit overexposed. You
    might be better off scanning the slides. There are a number of scanners out
    there that can scan slides as well as negatives. Not sure if you have a
    scanner, but they are great for a lot of applications and having one with
    the capacity to scan slides would be worth any extra money. You are going to
    get a better image via a scan than taking a picture with your camera. You
    may want to consider it.

    Talk to you soon,

    Ron Baird
    Eastman Kodak Company



    "Bob M" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am using a Kodak Z650 Zoom camera to try to make copies of old 35mm
    >slides.
    > The results so far have been poor. I project the slides using a projector
    > to a
    > screen about 4 feet from the projector and camera. On the subject photo, I
    > can
    > see 2 signs on the bridge when looking at the screen. One says "Claremont,
    > NH"
    > the other is something about a 20,000 pound load limit. I reduced the ISO
    > to
    > 80, the minimum. Set "High Sharpness". Tried Aperture priority set to
    > maxmim
    > number (smallest opening). Tried shutter priority at 1/2 and 1 second. I
    > use a
    > 2 second delay so I don't shake the tripod}. The camera is set to 6 MP,
    > and if
    > I shoot a test shot of text printed on a piece of paper where the text is
    > the
    > same size as the signs, it comes out readable.
    > Any suggestions?
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=/4dddre2&.dnm=f8bfre2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > -----------
    >
    > Remove "not" for return address.
    Ron Baird, Nov 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    Re: Washed out signs Revisited

    On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:19:13 GMT, "jeremy" <> wrote:

    >The only way to digitize slides properly is to use a film scanner. Trying
    >to take a photo off of a projected image is going to result in near complete
    >loss of luminance and color saturation information.
    >


    Thanks to the advice from this newsgroup, I bought an Epson 4490 Photo
    Scanner. It does a better job than the Projector/Camera method.

    The very first slide I scanned is shown as the 2nd link below. While it did
    show the signs which were missing from the camera attempt, it was a little too
    dark, losing some of the fall colors in the background. I ran it thru Kodak'a
    Enhancement software, and got the 3rd result.

    First the Projector/Camera shot:
    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=f8bfre2.jpg&.src=ph

    The Raw output of the Epson Scanner. Only "ICE" was checked off.
    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=87acre2.jpg&.src=ph

    After running it through Kodak's "Enhance"
    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=87acre2.jpg&.src=ph

    It isn't quite right yet. If you look at this part, cut from the scanned
    image, there is something wrong just to the left of the sign. At the edge
    between the bright white and the darkness of inside the bridge, there is some
    kind of distortion. How do I get rid of that?

    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=81b2re2.jpg&.src=ph

    -----------

    Remove "not" for return address.
    Bob M, Nov 4, 2006
    #8
  9. Bob M

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Re: Washed out signs Revisited

    Bob M wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:19:13 GMT, "jeremy" <> wrote:
    >
    >> The only way to digitize slides properly is to use a film scanner. Trying
    >> to take a photo off of a projected image is going to result in near complete
    >> loss of luminance and color saturation information.
    >>

    >
    > Thanks to the advice from this newsgroup, I bought an Epson 4490 Photo
    > Scanner. It does a better job than the Projector/Camera method.
    >
    > The very first slide I scanned is shown as the 2nd link below. While it did
    > show the signs which were missing from the camera attempt, it was a little too
    > dark, losing some of the fall colors in the background. I ran it thru Kodak'a
    > Enhancement software, and got the 3rd result.
    >
    > First the Projector/Camera shot:
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=f8bfre2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > The Raw output of the Epson Scanner. Only "ICE" was checked off.
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=87acre2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > After running it through Kodak's "Enhance"
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=87acre2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > It isn't quite right yet. If you look at this part, cut from the scanned
    > image, there is something wrong just to the left of the sign. At the edge
    > between the bright white and the darkness of inside the bridge, there is some
    > kind of distortion. How do I get rid of that?
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=81b2re2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > -----------


    Hi Bob...

    Glad you bought a scanner, glad you bought Epson. Now I'm a
    little jealous being that I still have a 3200 :)

    Hope you're using the twain driver and importing the output into
    some graphics program rather than using Epson's stand alone stuff.
    Hope you visited Epson's site to grab the latest updates if available.
    Know that the scanner is new to you, but there may have been updates
    since the machine was packaged. The original twain that came with
    mine is nowhere near as good as the latest available (free)

    Hope you're using the twain driver in pro mode.

    Looked at your bridge, and it's obvious that the whites are blown
    out... mine does it too. The defense is to do your pre-scan,
    crop if necessary, click on the auto button, then click the
    histogram and pull down the whites by about 5 points. Look at
    the new histogram with the "show output" button.

    Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
    possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
    that the effect came about from radical downsizing?

    It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
    and put it on your site without downsizing.

    Finally, I played with your pic a bit with Paint Shop Pro;
    I'll try to email it to you directly, and hope that's OK.

    Take care.

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 5, 2006
    #9
  10. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    Re: Washed out signs Revisited

    On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:47:42 GMT, Ken Weitzel <> wrote:

    >Hi Bob...
    >
    >Glad you bought a scanner, glad you bought Epson. Now I'm a
    >little jealous being that I still have a 3200 :)

    The Epson looked like a good compromise for price/performance. I doubt that I
    will need the higher 9600dpi resolution offered at twice the price (This one
    had a max 4800 dpi).
    I hope I won't regret choosing a flatbed over a dedicated slide scanner. I
    realize that there is glass between the slide and the sensor on a flatbed, and
    I hope that is not what is causing the distortion I mentioned. Fringing I
    believe it is called, or chromatic aberrance.
    >
    >Hope you're using the twain driver and importing the output into
    >some graphics program rather than using Epson's stand alone stuff.
    >

    Wish I knew what you meant by that. I save the output from the scanner in a
    file, which I can then operate on using the Kodak Software or Photoshop. Is
    there another way?
    >Hope you visited Epson's site to grab the latest updates if available.

    Yes, I downloaded the latest 3.01a version.
    >Hope you're using the twain driver in pro mode.

    I am now.
    >
    >Looked at your bridge, and it's obvious that the whites are blown
    >out... mine does it too. The defense is to do your pre-scan,
    >crop if necessary, click on the auto button, then click the
    >histogram and pull down the whites by about 5 points. Look at
    >the new histogram with the "show output" button.

    I seem to have a handle on the blown out whites. I am in process of trying the
    histogram adjustment. I have tried unsharp mask off and on with each of the 3
    levels, low, med & high. In all cases I get the "Fringing".
    >
    >Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
    >possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
    >that the effect came about from radical downsizing?

    I don't think so. The fringing is visible without zooming in on it. It is not
    on the original slide, it did not show on the screen when I projected it, and
    of course, it was not there in the camera shot of the projected image. It
    started to appear when I started using the scanner.
    >
    >It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
    >and put it on your site without downsizing.

    I will try that later, but I don't see (yet) how that would be any different
    from cutting out part of the initial scanned jpeg? Which was done at 4800 dpi.
    >
    >Finally, I played with your pic a bit with Paint Shop Pro;
    >I'll try to email it to you directly, and hope that's OK.

    Sure, it is appreciated. My results with PaintShop were not as good. I posted
    the Kodak Enhanced version because it had a crisper version of the signs on
    the bridge.
    >
    >Take care.

    You too.
    >
    >Ken


    One pleasant surprise is that the 4490 deals with Black & White negatives.
    Last night I scanned a negative of a Baltimore & Ohio Railroad exhibit taken
    by my father 1n 1927. I have the negatives, but never saw prints of them. I am
    amazed that the scanner can do that.
    Next on the list is to see what it can do with some old (Agfa?) slides which
    my brother "Liberated" from a Nazi SS officer during WWII in Germany. They are
    terribly faded, so I do not have too much hope for them, but I will try.

    -----------

    Remove "not" for return address.
    Bob M, Nov 5, 2006
    #10
  11. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    Re: Washed out signs Revisited

    >On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:47:42 GMT, Ken Weitzel <> wrote:
    >
    >>Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
    >>possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
    >>that the effect came about from radical downsizing?

    >I don't think so. The fringing is visible without zooming in on it. It is not
    >on the original slide, it did not show on the screen when I projected it, and
    >of course, it was not there in the camera shot of the projected image. It
    >started to appear when I started using the scanner.
    >>
    >>It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
    >>and put it on your site without downsizing.

    >I will try that later, but I don't see (yet) how that would be any different
    >from cutting out part of the initial scanned jpeg? Which was done at 4800 dpi.


    OK, I guess my original upload was less than 4800. Here is one at 4800.

    http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=7db8re2.jpg&.src=ph

    FYI, if you "save" the picture shown on the Yahoo site, you get a lower
    resolution than the one I uploaded. If you click "Download", you get the full
    file at the original resolution.

    I have tracked down the source of the fringing. If I de-select ICE, it goes
    away. But all the lint and fuzz comes back. I guess I will be using ICE for
    all except those slides with overexposed sections.

    >-----------
    >
    >Remove "not" for return address.


    -----------

    Remove "not" for return address.
    Bob M, Nov 6, 2006
    #11
  12. Bob M

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Re: Washed out signs Revisited

    Bob M wrote:
    >> On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:47:42 GMT, Ken Weitzel <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Not sure what that weird effect is beside the sign... it's not
    >>> possible that you did have unsharp mask on? Or is it possible
    >>> that the effect came about from radical downsizing?

    >> I don't think so. The fringing is visible without zooming in on it. It is not
    >> on the original slide, it did not show on the screen when I projected it, and
    >> of course, it was not there in the camera shot of the projected image. It
    >> started to appear when I started using the scanner.
    >>> It would be nice if you'd scan that tiny portion at 2400 or better,
    >>> and put it on your site without downsizing.

    >> I will try that later, but I don't see (yet) how that would be any different
    >>from cutting out part of the initial scanned jpeg? Which was done at 4800 dpi.

    >
    > OK, I guess my original upload was less than 4800. Here is one at 4800.
    >
    > http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//detail?.dir=4dddre2&.dnm=7db8re2.jpg&.src=ph
    >
    > FYI, if you "save" the picture shown on the Yahoo site, you get a lower
    > resolution than the one I uploaded. If you click "Download", you get the full
    > file at the original resolution.
    >
    > I have tracked down the source of the fringing. If I de-select ICE, it goes
    > away. But all the lint and fuzz comes back. I guess I will be using ICE for
    > all except those slides with overexposed sections.



    Hi...

    My 3200 doesn't have ICE, so I've found a next best solution
    that you may wish to try out for those that you can't use
    ICE on... (freeware)

    http://www.polaroid.com/service/software/poladsr/poladsr.html

    A heads-up that may save you a little time... in my opinion
    the defaults are much much much too agressive, so I think you'll
    want to pull them way down.

    Take care.

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, Nov 6, 2006
    #12
    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. Mike
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    592
    Toolman Tim
    Jul 10, 2004
  2. JohnF

    video all washed out in Win MediaPlayer ???

    JohnF, Aug 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    481
    Claude
    Aug 26, 2004
  3. Help: Canon i950 prints look washed out

    , Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    661
    Winston
    Nov 12, 2003
  4. Chris

    washed out photos

    Chris, Apr 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,444
    Bob Hatch
    Apr 15, 2004
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    385
Loading...

Share This Page