400 UC results/scan test shots - your opinion please

Following on from my previous question about 400 UC film, I present here some

test shots to try and work out what has gone slightly wrong with my photos

taken on the Kodak 400 UC film. I am new to this film but it does get a good

review usually.

 

OK, Lens used is the Nikkor 45mm P, and film on this one is Fuji Superia 200.

It is a 100% crop of the shop scan. Lens is clean for all photos.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6401389

 

Now is the 100% crop from Kodak 400 UC (same lens as above).

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6798745

 

The whole image from above is here:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6796692

 

Please click on 'larger' to see the uncompressed scan.

 

Tm my eyes, the Fuji holds detail much better, and the Kodak looks 'mushy',

but I know it is probably something either the shop or I has done wrong, but I

am not sure what. Your opinions are welcome - I want to improve my results if

possible.

 

Thank you, Ian

Doesn't seem overly mushy for a 400 speed film to me. I think the Fuji does hold more detail, but that is expected for a slower film.

I am not sure why you're comparing film with two different ISO's.

Have you seen this?

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009i4p

Your UC400 scan is crushed both in the blacks and the whites. Looks like a scanning problem to me.

I second Gareth's comments. Be very, very, very careful in judging a film based on a scan made from it. I've been scanning film for 10 years, both at home and professionally in labs. The quality is invariably awful. Some of this is due to pattern interference and can't be avoided. However, there is no technical reason things like saturation, resolution, contrast and tonality are reproduced so poorly in scans.

 

Scanner manufactures also make digital "cameras", and their greatest dream is that film will just go away. Then we all would have to shell out thousands of dollars every couple of years for the next digital "break through". It's been nearly five years now that digital schills have been posting horrible scans next to an image shot with their $5000 modern marvel to justify the false claim that digital image quality is better.

In my opinion, no scanner in the world gives perfect results just by pushing the button. For me a good scanner is that which captures a flat scan with as much information as it can, which can later be shaped into anything you like by adjusting the curves and saturation.

In fact, more serious scanning solutions will probably output less-interesting looking scans out of the box, than most cheap solutions which try to make everything look "impressive" out of the box, by appealing to the tastes of an average consumer (usually sharpening everything to the point of insanity, crushing the blacks etc.)

 

Features in scanning software that put out "adjusted" scans without any user input, are actually aimed at the least-involved kind of consumers.

Same as minilab machines.

 

You can't compare films with scans done by someone else, or some other machine which didn't consider what you are actually trying to do.

If you have two films one flatter, other more contrasty, they are both going to end up similar in such tests, because the scanning software in a minilab machine, or any software without consideration for specific filmstocks, will assume that all films should look the same, and will adjust contrast accordingly. Or anything else, saturation, color balance, anything.

 

The only way to compare is to scan yourself, carefully using the same setting for both scans, or making an optical print on the same paper.

But even then, all you can get is a relative difference, because you are not seeing the actual look , because there is no such thing for negative film. What you are seeing is a combination of film and paper, or film and scanner characteristics, and all you can ever find out is in which direction does the difference between these films go.

The Superia 200 scan is extremely grainy for greens and blues,

which bothers me more than the sharpness pleases me.

I think you have motion blur visible in the fence with 400UC,

but maybe this is just the scanner not being in focus (?).

I'll offer a visual to support Tim and Edgar's points about processing having far more

influence on quality of output than the brand of film scanned.

 

Below is a scan of Kodak UC 400 taken with a Minolta Freedom Zoom P&S with varied

curves applied and their effect on image quality and apparent grain.<div></div>

Thank you all.

 

Scans were done by a Noritsu machine (lab scan). As I am not privvy to the settings/curves/sharpening applied I am not sure if it is scanner related blur or not. All photos on the roll have a similar look, so it probably is the scanner at fault.

 

I will run another roll and try my local Fuji lab and see what they make of it.

 

Ian, UK

Ian,

 

I wouldn't put too much trust in minilabs. Their scanners color balance for the printer and

the gamut of some scenes combined with the Kodak UC 400 ability in capturing it can

result in some really bad scans.

 

Here's what a local Noritsu minilab did to my 400UC capture of a wide gamut scene.<div></div>

And here's how they should look after scanning on my Epson 4870 with a trip into Lab

space because the gamut was too much even for the Epson.<div></div>