billsamuels 
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Complexities of transfering Kodachrome 25 - Strange Pixels in Sky? | |
liftedspirit wrote:
First of all, as CamperJim noted, you need to see if the issue is on the slide itself or in the conversion. Use a loupe to look at those areas of sky on the negative and see if they're there. If so, there's not much you can do, but read on...if not, then the issue is with your conversion.
I use a Kaiser slimlite plano light table. Color temp is 5000 K, so much more neutral than the light you're using, and it's USB powered with a wattage of 3.6W. It could be that your backlight is creating some of the wonkiness. Are you color correcting for the 800 K (are you sure it's 800 and not 8000) light bulb? You could also try picking up a gray card and using that. Snap one photo with the gray card in the image and another immediately after without. In LR, use the white balance color selector and click on the gray card. That will give you the white balance settings for the proper coloring. (as it was in the slide, mind you - there are usually some color grading with different films) Apply those white balance settings to the image without the gray card.
Finally, dust is the devil when it comes to film, and converting film. I find Photoshop hugely beneficial in that it has some fairly automated ways of removing dust spots from the image. That dust spot removal might help alleviate some of those spots if they're indeed on the slide itself. You could also try in Photoshop using a layer and blurring those areas so the dots aren't noticeable as dots.
Finally, make sure the image itself is flat - place a piece of glass on top of the slide, and that the camera sensor is as close to parallel the slide as possible. It may not make the images tack sharp as you say the lens itself isn't sharp, but you won't have sharpness inconsistencies. (which BTW, I don't notice here) And truthfully, tack sharpness is often unnecessary....Show more →
Thanks for the honesty. I agree with both of you on these comments. The problem was I was young and although I had a decent camera, it wasn't a great camera (Olympus OM 2S) and Oympus lenses, which weren't great lenses. Now that I've owned Canon full-frame cameras and used both Canon L lenses, their non-pro lenses and both Zeiss for Canon lenses and modified some Leica lenses for use on my Canon 5DSR, I realize what a complete piece of crap the Olympus system was. My guess is the digitals are better, but the old OM film cameras and lenses just didn't have the quality that the next step up like Canon and Nikon had even back then.
My Dad owned the lenses but gave me a new Olympus OM2S when I was a teenager, but he also had a Mamiya and that was a pretty sharp camera in comparison. I got it many years later, but the camera leaked light, a lot of light by the time I got ahold of it.
One more thing - check out this photo I posted last night around the same time:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1752130
Also taken with the same camera, same lens, same Kodachrome 25 film, perhaps even the same trip. I retook the slides with my Canon around the same week. I think the photo is better, not Canon sharp, but better.
Thanks.
|
