Hi Scott The 8400f should be very similar to the Canon 9900f I have. Color negative scans seem to be quite cold and desaturated and need quite a bit of sharpening and sometimes contrast adjustments too for me if I compare them to the first prints I get from the lab. The prints are always looking quite warm and like taken with a gold reflector compared to the negative scans, not necessarily a bad thing IMHO. I have had very mixed results with Vuescan, sometimes it is easier to use the Canon scan software and later auto adjust in Photoshop. The scanner lamp really has to be warmed up for at least 10 minutes, otherwise I get a strong red and bluish color cast, a slightly red/magenta color cast seems to be "normal" here for that Canon model.
greetings Markus >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 2:13 AM >>To: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: Outdated Kodachrome 64 slide film any good? >> >> >>I have an 8400f, which probably came with the same software yours has. >> The canoscan software is crap, and requires significant tweaking for >>each scan. I don't think it accommodates profiles. VueScan is quite >>a bit better. There's even a Kodachrome setting. It's much easier to >>get a usable image via VueScan that can be tweaked in Photoshop. It's >>not perfect, and the colors aren't quite as saturated as they are on >>the slides, but that could be due to the flatbed scanner combined with >>my own inexperience. >> >>On 4/13/06, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi Scott >>> Oooh, good that you mention the scan problems you have. I would >>have to scan >>> the slides too and I don't know if my Canon 9900f flatbed scan >>will be any >>> good for that? >>> Did you have some success with Vuescan or the supplied scanner >>software so >>> far or could you at least correct - what errors ever - from a >>Kodachrome >>> scan later in Photoshop? >>> greetings >>> Markus >>> >>> >>-----Original Message----- >>> >>From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 1:47 AM >>> >>To: [email protected] >>> >>Subject: Re: Outdated Kodachrome 64 slide film any good? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>On 4/13/06, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mark >>> >>> I have the opportunity to get some Kodakchrome 64 slide >>film dated 2003 >>> >>> including development and framing and postage >>> >>> for around 2 dollars a 36 exposure roll. The film comes from a >>> >>professional >>> >>> photo dealer who had them always cooled in the fridge. >>> >>> He sells them now because Kodak stops developing slide film here in >>> >>> Switzerland at the end of the year as far as his information >>> >>goes so I would >>> >>> have to use it soon. He says that because of the special >>nature of that >>> >>> Kodachrome film such a long storage should not cause quality >>> >>problems. He >>> >>> says that compared to today's slide film this type is rather >>> >>soft and color >>> >>> muted, he sounds honest to me. >>> >>> >>> >>> I would love to try about 40 rolls slide film at 10% of its >>> >>original price, >>> >>> would you trust it for **a not** important project? I have >>> >>never used slide >>> >>> film, I would be quite a new experience for me :-) >>> >>> >>> >> >>> >>>From what I hear and read, Kodachrome is very stable. If it's been >>> >>refrigerated like he says, then it's definitely worth a shot. And at >>> >>$2 per roll, why not? You might as well use it while you can. >>> >> >>> >>I'm really starting to like Kodachrome, and just dropped off three >>> >>rolls today. If only I could figure out how to scan it.......... >>> >> >>> >>-- >>> >>Scott Loveless >>> >>http://www.twosixteen.com >>> >> >>> >>-- >>> >>"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >>> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Scott Loveless >>http://www.twosixteen.com >> >>-- >>"You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >>
