Bad processing or "film grain" as lab says

<p>Hi all, I have recently begun doing more film work, and this was a first attempt after several years with C-41 processing and scanning from a local lab. The film was Portra 400 with no pushing or pulling on a Contax G1 with the 90mm 2.8. Admittedly, there was some user error on several shots as I got used to the system, so not every image was in perfect focus. However, after looking at the negatives, several were very sharp and right where the G1 had locked focus. I had asked the lab to include their "high-res" scans, which are listed as a jpeg at 2048x3072, yielding a file size of about 4~4.5mb. I realize this isn't a TIFF, but still was hoping to do some basic retouching (blemishes, etc). When I got the files back, I was actually shocked at the poor quality. Technically the specifications meet their "high res" description, yet the quality of the imagery and file itself looks horrible. Zooming in even slightly revealed that even basic retouching wouldn't be possible given the low quality of the file. I went back to the lab and asked them for a rescan, but they refused, looking at the file specs and saying that they were, in fact high res ... even pointing out that they had scanned them mistakenly at a higher resolution than what they normally would. I told them that while the specifications might meet that criteria, the quality of the scan itself is not acceptable. They looked again and told me that I was just seeing film grain. I have limited experience with Portra 400, yet I find it hard to believe that what I'm seeing is grain. It looks, to me, like digital artifacts. I honestly feel like I've had better scanning results from a local drug store and their 550K Kodak photo CD. The example I've included is one in which it was clearly sharp in the negative. So my question is, bad scan or developing or just bad technique on my part? Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>And this is a zoom in of the same image.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't use Portra 400, so I can't comment on the grain issue, although it seems like 400 ISO in bright sunlight is inviting a grainier look. However I did notice that the focus is way off, the model's eyes are very unsharp. So coming back to the scan, have you examined the negatives themselves. If negatives like this are indeed sharp, but the scan isn't, then your lab should redo them.</p>

<p>Good point about the lighting inviting more grain, Stephen. I have looked at the negatives and this was one example that was sharp. This is another example, without backlighting. In this example, I was at f11 and focus had locked on her right eye (camera left) in the negative and it's sharp. You can see fine detail in her eyelashes and eye lids. </p><div></div>

<p>Les, I was only saying I expected more than this based on the fact that the negatives are sharp and yet the scans aren't and seem to have introduced artifacts despite being advertised as "high res." The closeup was actually one of the best examples of their scans. I've shot Tri-X, Tmax, HP5 and Delta 400 in the past but have developed it myself in a variety of developers from Ilford brand to HC-110(B) and Rodinal. So, while not color films obviously, I'm not unaware of the qualities of an ISO 400 film. If your assertion is that I did expect too much if I was hoping for more usable files, perhaps you could expand on what I should have expected rather than just reasserting that, yes, I have limited experience. I was trying Portra 400 based on Kodak's recommendations as a fine-grain, true 400 ISO film, and as I've mentioned, I've gotten better scans that are only 1mb from a local drug store of Kodak Gold 200. This was, in fact, done with a Noritsu HS-1800. And so it sounds like a lack of quality such as is seen in these examples should be expected given a "typical over sharpening"?</p>

<p>I'm saying unusable files based on what appear to me to be poor scans. The lab told me what I was seeing was film grain. To me it looks like poor scan quality and introduced artifacts. Given my lack of experience with Portra 400, yet seeing sharp negatives, I'm posing a question asking if this level of quality seems acceptable to people who have more experience using both Portra 400 and having color negative film scanned. If, to a person with more experience, this looks like what you should expect from Portra 400 and a scan that isn't a TIFF or highly controlled, then I would accept that. In my experience with other 400 films, this does not look like natural film grain.</p>

<p>The first image was underexposed. This probably caused the subject to "grain up". How was it metered? How did you determine that the negatives were sharp? I use Portra 400, mostly in medium format. The grain in the subject's face is high for this film, but I doubt that the problem has to do with the processing.</p>

<p>It was metered using the G1's center-weighted metering for the model's face (filling most of the frame) and then locking that exposure. I used a Peak Loupe on a Pro Slim light panel to look at the negatives, which is where it seemed that the actual processing of the negatives was OK, i.e., shots in focus and with a decent amount of detail. I realize there are limitations in what I can and can't present here for everyone's analysis, so I apologize if this thread was a bit futile. I was simply expecting a bit more from what was advertised as a "high res" scan with a professional color negative film. I'll be the first to admit that some shots were not in focus due to my own error and inexperience with the G1 and that whole system. That said, I posted because I was curious to see if there were initial reactions from others who had experience both with this film and having it scanned. If not or if it all is error on my part, I would absolutely accept that and use it as a consideration on how to improve in the future. I'm not sure if it is helpful, but I can post a few images of a roll of Kodak Gold 200 scanned at low resolution from a test roll from a different lab.</p>

<p>Your "zoom in" has severe JPEG compression artifacts.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. That was one image I showed the lab as an example, and when we zoomed in they told me was film grain. I realize the film will have some just as a natural quality, but I wasn't buying their assessment.</p>

<p>In general, when metering on most Caucasian skin, open up one stop from the metered reading. I would also check the meter on the Contax.</p>

 

<p>I'll also go with underexposure on the second example. If you look up close, the part that is really grainy is the shadows. Since there are fewer film grains to make up the negative image of dark areas you get more grain if the negative is thin. My guess would be that the processing from the scanning lab compensated for the excess contrast and brought up the shadows, maybe more than they could be supported. Really this isn't bad as color film grain goes.</p>

<p>The linked zoom version of the first one looks out of focus where the digital scan appears to still have applied some noise/grain reduction.</p>

<p>Compare that with a similar backlit shot I took with a Minolta Riva Freedom Zoom 38-135 AF 35mm instamatic on Kodak UC 400, scanned on a Noritsu minilab Nikon scanner at 16base 3029x2048 Tiff. It was just point & shoot. No futzing with settings.</p><div></div>

<p>AFAIK the entire Portra range has been designed as low grain and neutral colours; it is also very tolerant towards under- and over-exposure. For instance Fuji 400 Pro has more pronounced grain than Portra 400.</p>

<p>In my view the poor (medium resolution) scan is responsible for your dissatisfaction. High resolution TIFF in 16-bit mode run from around 75mb and over 200mb.</p>

<p>If you want to shot film perhaps you should buy a scanner and do the scanning yourself. No auto-settings are good for each negative, and I see no reason why such critical step as scanning should be left to chance.</p>

<p><img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah16/I_G_I/moi_2014.jpg" alt="" />l<br>

Here is what film grain looks: a tiny crop from a huge scan (215mb) with zero sharpening. The film is Kodak Ektar and the lens is Pentax 85 "Soft"<br>

<img src="http://i1376.photobucket.com/albums/ah16/I_G_I/2014.06.19_0029.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

<p>Thanks for responses. Based on others' assessments agreeing with Steven it looks like it's a combination of underexposing on her face as well as a poor scan ... although maybe not "poor" as much as just limited. And thanks, Tim, very helpful to see the closeup of another backlit image. Ivo, thanks for your input as well. I had been operating under what you stated about the Portra line being tolerant toward under/over exposure and having low grain. I realize my own errors caused situations that exacerbated the grain, so was mostly posting to get an idea of how much my own error and the scan quality were impacting things. I currently have an Epson 4490 that I had some success with a few years ago scanning medium format negatives. Haven't tried it with 135, but seeing as incorporating film into our workflow will become more regular, investing in a newer scanner will be something to look into.</p>

<p>Mr. Imler...</p>

<p>I think you are right in suspecting a bad scan as part of the problem. Here is an example of a "Pro" scan vs. a low priced home film scanner. Their model scanner can do a better job than my cheapo, if they use it right (but they did not). These are only about 1200PPI, far below the rating or either scanner which should make them sharp. The film processor has a very good reputation but did not do well on my roll. </p>

<p><a href="

<p>My Scanner: PrimeFilm XE, 2014 </p>

<p>This is a small, under $500.00 scanner that actually works pretty well for 35mm slides and film. It advertises 10,000 PPI, but that grossly exaggerates its capability. When scanning at 10,000 PPI, there is no more information than when scanning at 5000 PPI. The file is just four times the size on disk. However, when scanning at 5000 PPI, you get an actual 4000+ PPI. However, you have to scan at 5000 PPI to get the 4000. As far as actual scanning information gained from a scan, it delivers far more PPI at the 5000 PPI setting than the Epson flatbeds do at the 6400 PPI setting. </p>

<p>Their Scanner: a Noritsu fitted to a QSS-32_33 processor/printer: </p>

<p>This scanner is rated at 4600 PPI and in fact has that many sensors in the array. However, due to software or the lens (I suspect the lens) there is only about 3000 PPI worth of information in the scan in .jpg form. Some of the flatbed scanners have the same problem with lenses and are infamous for not resolving the potential of the sensor count. Most under $2000.00 flatbed scanners only give 40% to 60% of their rating. I would have thought Noritsu would do a better job. </p>

<p>I’ve found that in order to scan over 4000 true PPI which the Nikons would approach (except for the out-of-production Minolta 5400 II), one has to get a true drum scan and with a talented operator to boot. </p>

<p>That being said, these quick-and-dirty low res scans producing a scan 1024 pixels on the short side stunk. The color was bad and one could get the same resolution with chalk on a concrete sidewalk. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

I agree with poor scans. You should be winding up with files that are at least 6000x4000 @ 300dpi. Preferly tiffs.

Buy a dedicated film scanner or a photo flat bed like a Epson V800. Silverfast scanning software can remove dust and

scratches and reduce grain, besides curves, levels, etc. Your photo lab is only doing straight scans. Pro labs will do high

res scans but your going to pay several dollars a frame. I scanned 15,000 35mm & medium format slides and negatives

last year, my scanner paid for itself.

Just my two cents.

<p>Black and white film has grains, color has dye clouds. Grains are sharp, and at a high enough resolution scan you can resolve grains. (You can also get grain aliasing.)</p>

<p>http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4050_portra_400.pdf</p>

<p>has the MTF graph out to 80 cycle/mm, which is more than your scanner resolution.</p>

<p>Without looking at the negatives, I wonder if their focus is sharp enough. </p>

<p>Black and white film has grains, color has dye clouds. Grains are sharp, and at a high enough resolution scan you can resolve grains. (You can also get grain aliasing.)</p>

<p>http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/e4050_portra_400.pdf</p>

<p>has the MTF graph out to 80 cycle/mm, which is more than your scanner resolution.</p>

<p>Without looking at the negatives, I wonder if their focus is sharp enough. </p>

 

going to revive this thread. At least its not too old. I have replied to 10 year old threads before for film stuff (hey, those are the years with all the information).

 

 

You comment that "Grains are sharp, and at a high enough resolution scan you can resolve grains." I find extremely interesting.

 

Would it be beneficial to resolve the grain? Or a detriment to the image to resolve the grain? Is there some list where we can know for each film what scan resolution is high enough to start resolving the grain or the dye clouds? My initial though on this is that, I doubt that scanning at a level to resolve the grain would be beneficial to image quality for online viewing and or any print that you would hold in your hands in front of you to evaluate. You probably would not get much more detail vs. a resolution just below the grain size, but with the impact of much more grain.

 

I know we can start talking about billboard size prints etc, but that like only 0.00001% of all photos taken. I guess my I would be referring to the 16x20 and smaller print size, or typical online viewing on a retina display.

 

I know that online viewing just maxes out at about 5mb for most computers, but I am thinking more about what the effect of scanning a 35mm frame at ultra high resolution first has on the overall look, detail and grain of the image as its downsampled to a 6mp jpeg. I assume it changes the look? Does it make it "better" or "worse"?

 

When I think if the best looking scans, for most photos most of the time, I think of the outputs from the kodak pakon, which is only ~6MB. Maybe that is the sweet spot for most films? Or perhaps there are other things going on in that machine...

From sampling theory, you want a low-pass spatial filter cutoff at half the pixel spatial frequency, though the ideal filter is physically impossible.

 

As well as I know, most scanners use the imperfections of the optics as a low-pass spatial filter.

 

Also, the size of the sensor elements, compared to the ideal Dirac delta function (zero width) samples

reduces aliasing somewhat.

 

But it is not beneficial to resolve grains. (Unless you intentionally want the grainy look, which some do.)

From sampling theory, you want a low-pass spatial filter cutoff at half the pixel spatial frequency, though the ideal filter is physically impossible.

 

As well as I know, most scanners use the imperfections of the optics as a low-pass spatial filter.

 

Also, the size of the sensor elements, compared to the ideal Dirac delta function (zero width) samples

reduces aliasing somewhat.

 

But it is not beneficial to resolve grains. (Unless you intentionally want the grainy look, which some do.)

 

hmm

 

1) how to i turn what you just said, combine that with official documentation for different emulsions, with the resolution of hand held 1/500s photography with a specific lens to determine the optimal resolution to scan a certain film at? if the goal is to "stay above" the grain/dye

 

As per usual, I am likely overthinking this. But that is essentially my question.

 

I mean, in practice, when I scan ultramax 400 at 4000ppi I get so much grain (or it that digital noise? I am not sure if there is a difference?) its almost unuseable, but at 1000ppi its....ok. For ektar, 4000ppi is perfectly fine. Everything else is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

 

 

2)I guess another question would be why do we get digital noise in a film scan which takes 5min at 4000ppi? I thought digital noise was a function in digital cameras of not having enough light to make a decision of what color the pixel actually is. But this should not be a problem in a slow high quality film scan, as there should always be enough light, no? Or is digital noise in a film scan the grain? Or it that what happens when you scan between the grains at too high a resolution and are essentially scanning the thing that holds the dye or the grains in place...and thus...no information.

Edited March 18, 2019 by richard_golonka

Very typical result. Underexposure on the face resulting in increased grain...especially after the lab machine attempts to slightly compensate. Than, the final touch is when the lab has sharpening set agressively which makes it all even worse.

Very typical result. Underexposure on the face resulting in increased grain...especially after the lab machine attempts to slightly compensate. Than, the final touch is when the lab has sharpening set agressively which makes it all even worse.

 

 

So, is the grain we see in color negative film, for the last 20

Years, actually just a function of bad scanning?

 

Around what year would every color 4x6 darkroom print have been made with a scanner?

 

Going back through all the family photos...I’d be very interested to compare how color images looked when they were actually optically printed vs scanned and printed.

 

Actually, I bet even printing a scanned negative would result is less grain.

 

Hmmm...maybe I should just get prints and scan the prints with a flatbed lol. I bet they would look fine for the web with much less grain.

 

Film is not digital, it’s not about the utmost detail. It’s about the look and the colors and the process of working within limitations. I get that you can create the same look with a digital process, but the point is that with film that end look took no work, and is authentic.

 

I should print more

and is authentic.

 

As authentic as Nylon or dyed hair! Film's colours and texture are the product of a chemistry lab. No more, no less.

 

The emphasis of grain during scanning is a form of aliasing or interference pattern. If the 'average' randomised dye-cloud clumping is close to the scanning pixel-pitch, then a false grain pattern is inevitable. It has nothing to do with digital noise, which is orders of magnitude less noticeable and obtrusive.

Edited March 24, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1