[LesDMess]

Thanks, I hadn't thought about ICE (due to my lack of experience in film scanning, in all honesty). Can I ask, how (un-)intrusive is ICE on areas of the image that don't require repair? I know it's a tried, tested and much-loved processing capability, but I wonder if it ever has any detrimental effect on images, either in the repaired areas or generally speaking?

Check out the full res version of the comparison image I posted above with a particularly scratched up Kodak 160VC courtesy of Fuji professional lab.
Here is another this time of Kodachrome. Nikonscan ICE is the only one you can use with this film type with the Coolscan 9000 being the best.


Full res version -> Kodachrome D800-Coolscan

Canon's Canoscan makes a complete mess of Kodachrome while Epson's is better but still problematic especially between the dark and light areas.


Full res version -> Kodak K64-029 ICE

[tuco]

Also for me personally, I like taking night shots at very long exposures. Clearly the Pentax LX has no equal when it comes to this, and so this is another reason I still shoot film. This one using the LX on aperture priority for about 45minutes on Kodak Ektar 100.

I'm curious. How does the LX help in long exposures over, say, a K1000 or Pentax 6x7? You need bulb mode for long exposures, right? I mean I don't think the LX has a built in reciprocity chart for all films. A 10 second metered exposure can translate into a needed 60 second exposure.

[BigMackCam]

Check out the full res version of the comparison image I posted above with a particularly scratched up Kodak 160VC courtesy of Fuji professional lab.
Here is another this time of Kodachrome. Nikonscan ICE is the only one you can use with this film type with the Coolscan 9000 being the best.


Full res version -> Kodachrome D800-Coolscan

Canon's Canoscan makes a complete mess of Kodachrome while Epson's is better but still problematic especially between the dark and light areas.


Full res version -> Kodak K64-029 ICE

Thanks, Les, that's very helpful

So, my casual observations would seem to suggest that the dust and scratch repair is outstanding, but at the expense of some overall definition and overall detail (perhaps a little local contrast too?) - which may or may not be an issue depending on the subject and user expectations, of course. For example, looking at the hair on the baby's head, it's more clearly visible in the non-ICE version. Is that a fair assessment?

Whilst this may be contrary to the whole ethos of shooting film, I suspect the addition of some local contrast / "clarity" in post-processing would restore some of what's lost through ICE... But perhaps I'm missing the point if I push things further towards digital processing

[LesDMess]

I'm curious. How does the LX help in long exposures over, say, a K1000 or Pentax 6x7? You need bulb mode for long exposures, right? I mean I don't think the LX has a built in reciprocity chart for all films. A 10 second metered exposure can translate into a needed 60 second exposure.

The Pentax LX is the only camera ever - past or present, that can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes, all the while monitoring the scene and adjusting accordingly. I've tested all the films I use for many hours long under many lighting conditions. If additional time is needed, the LX exposure compensation can he used.

Kodak and Fuji do not document reciprocity anywhere near what I use but they do encourage you to test it yourself.

As far as I know, there is no digicam that can get anywhere near this except perhaps those used in space . . .

[tuco]

Whilst this may be contrary to the whole ethos of shooting film, I suspect the addition of some local contrast / "clarity" in post-processing would restore some of what's lost through ICE... But perhaps I'm missing the point if I push things further towards digital processing

These auto cleaning techniques are suppose to be like spot-healing and not affect large areas of the image. I don't see why you'd need to adjust the contrast/clarity of the entire image for auto spot-healing some tiny dust specs.

For me, scanning and dust is not a big problem at all if I scan soon after I develop the negatives. The negatives will be the cleanest they''ll ever be. You may get some dust on them in the short time from developing to scanning but it doesn't stick and mostly blows off. And at a high resolution scan you'll still need to do some cleaning of some really small stuff and that can also be ignored often too because it doesn't show up on all but a huge enlargement.

My negatives that are in archiving sleeves and stored in 3-ring binders on a shelf still get surprisingly dusty over time. Pollen is the worst thing. It sticks to the negative. I don't shoot a lot of color film but I want to do more. Here I just blew off what I could see off the negative fresh from developing and didn't even bother with the smaller stuff.

Portra 400

[LesDMess]

Whilst this may be contrary to the whole ethos of shooting film, I suspect the addition of some local contrast / "clarity" in post-processing would restore some of what's lost through ICE... But perhaps I'm missing the point if I push things further towards digital processing

I have no such boundaries . . .

[tuco]

The Pentax LX is the only camera ever - past or present, that can aperture priority autoexpose a scene for as long as it takes, all the while monitoring the scene and adjusting accordingly. I've tested all the films I use for many hours long under many lighting conditions. If additional time is needed, the LX exposure compensation can he used.

Kodak and Fuji do not document reciprocity anywhere near what I use but they do encourage you to test it yourself.

As far as I know, there is no digicam that can get anywhere near this except perhaps those used in space . . .

I see. You're saying the camera knows how to auto correct for reciprocity on Ilford films vs Kodak and one film that does not need it, Acros?

---

Last edited by tuco; 01-13-2019 at 03:26 PM.

[LesDMess]

I see. You're saying the camera knows how to auto correct for reciprocity on Ilford films vs Kodak and one film that does not need it, Acros?

I am not aware of any camera that is programmed with each film's reciprocity characteristics based on various lighting conditions at various exposure times - let alone the exposure times I use. Neither Kodak nor Fuji specifies this in their spec sheets and just state to try it yourself.
I have personally tried some Kodak and Fuji color negatives as well as to a limited degree Kodak TMAX100 and Fuji RVP. Sorry but have never used Acros.

[tuco]

With color film they say to experiment. But with BW film the major film manufactures publish reciprocity charts. As a rule, cubic grain films are more receptive to failure sooner than tabular grain films.

[LesDMess]

But with BW film the major film manufactures publish reciprocity charts.

I agree. Go by the spec and adjust accordingly based on experience.

[Pioneer]

I always get a bit of a chuckle out of these apples vs oranges comparisons. Makes for interesting video but really a waste of time if you think you are going to learn anything.