good film for scanninhg

<p>I've been scanning negatives taken on trips over the last 10 years. Much of the film is fuji 400 purchased at wal-mart. Most of the rest is Kodak UC 400 purchased from the same source and I liked the film as shown on my 4x6 prints.<br>

I got an LS-4000 Nikon scanner and have been scanning some of these photos with generally acceptable results, but they seemed to be a little grainy and I'm not experienced enough to evaluate the quality.<br>

I recently took some slides with velvia 100. There was an incredible difference in quality. I had absolutely no problems with the quality. Absolutely minimal grain.<br>

I realize that slides are a different medium than negatives and also that some films scan better than others. I am considering shooting more 35 film to get full frame and a wider exposure latitude.<br>

1. Will I get that wider exposure latitude by scanning from negatives?<br>

2. I am looking for a recommendation of films. Portra 160 vc strikes me as a possibility as well as the fuji offering in the same iso range. I will be using the film mostly for nature shots, very little that requires excellent skin tones, but the focus of my question is to get the smooth scan that I got with the velvia. Is that just an inherent difference between the two types of film.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Try some Ektar 100. What grain. :) well almost. :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Be careful not to toss out the baby with the water. Pixel peeping can be your enemy. If you scan at 4000dpi you will see grain. I print 4x6 on a dye-sub for quick tests.</p>

<p>As a rule of thumb, chromes will give you the finest grain and least latitude. Negatives give you an amazing amount of latitude and if grain is truly a concern, stick with the pro films.</p>

<p>For wimps such as myself, Provia 100F is very nice. Longer tonal range than Velvia, no electric greens and reds but still can be quite saturated (athough less than Velvia), and scans quite nicely. But it doesn't have the biting sharpness and contrast of Velvia.<br>

I prefer scanning slide films to negative films. Negative films seem gritty (slide film "grain" is more mushy); even the least grainy negative films still have a grain texture to them. But the real reason is that the slide on the light box (I shoot 6x7) tells you what you have at a glance. I hate looking at negatives and not having a clue as to what I'm going to get. I suppose for old darkroom geezers (of whom I am one, actually), the joy of seeing the print come up in the developer may be reborn as the pleasant surprise when a reddish, low contrast, meaningless negative image magically appears as a vibrant RGB image. But here, scanning's such a pain, that unless I can see that I've got something worth scanning, I can't come up with the energy to scan.</p>

<p>Richard, I also use both slide and negative film, and like you, scan with the Coolscan 4000. You should be able to get very good results from both types. I just retuned from the Eastern Sierra, last weekend shooting the fall color. I did use both slide and negative. Portra 160VC and Fuji Pro 160S. a few initial results can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmt_man/sets/72157624973299153/<br>

So far it looks like the Portra scans a bit better than the Pro. Just my experience!<br>

Best wishes for your endeavor.</p>

<p>IMO you'll accomplish infinitely more by learning just a little more about scanning than you will by learning a lot more about film. </p>

<p>For example, it's easy to adjust grain size and easy to eliminate dust (which shouldn't be much of a problem anyway, if you store film reasonably well) without affecting detail sharpness.</p>

<p>Velvia has always been a problem film because it is usually badly exposed (ie the photographer exposes to produce deep blacks and then is stuck with a scanning problem). Velvia is far-inferior to Astia and Provia if your goal is print making, especially with one-pass scans. IMO it would have been wonderful with Kodak's defunct 4X5 internegatives.</p>