blurry and grainy portra 400

Moderator Note:

Intending respondents - please see Post #6 and read it as the Opening Post

Hi folks! I'm a amateur photographer, went from digital to film a few month ago. I started with black and white film stocks (eg. HP5, delta400, Tmax400) and was pretty happy with the result. However, I tried a few rolls of color negative film, and was never satisfied with the result.

I went to Hawaii last month and shoot one roll of portra 400. The problem is the scans were pretty grainy and blurry.

It is a little hard to tell from these pictures. The fire hydrant looks pretty good, but the background blurry.

That usually means you (or your camera) focused on the hydrant.

I presume you had a professional lab process them, otherwise it could be your technique.

EI 400 should be fast enough for plenty of depth of field, and also fast enough shutter to minimize motion.

Tell your lab to turn off noise reduction. That way you can fix it yourself at much higher quality in a third party image editor like ACR/LR.

I just applied NR in ACR 6.7 to a scan from my local one hour photo's Noritsu lab output at 3000x2000 tiff format of 35mm Kodak UC 400 which has finer grain due to higher resolution capture. You don't mention the resolution of the original scan and size of film.

It is a little hard to tell from these pictures. The fire hydrant looks pretty good, but the background blurry.

That usually means you (or your camera) focused on the hydrant.

 

I presume you had a professional lab process them, otherwise it could be your technique.

 

EI 400 should be fast enough for plenty of depth of field, and also fast enough shutter to minimize motion.

Indeed I focused on the hydrant. That photo is meant to be a example of "less grainy photo when well lighting is good". I planed to upload a few more photos, including the 100% crop of the mountain-with-grass photo to illustrate it can get very grainy in shadows, but I accidentally pressed the post button instead of upload photo button. I has lot information to say so I exceed the 15 min edit limit. I'm new here, it's awkward to post a unfinished thread with incomplete information, though. I am waiting and see if moderators can delete this thread so that I can post a more polished version. Thanks for your help anyway. : D

edit: I put what I intend to see in #7

Tell your lab to turn off noise reduction. That way you can fix it yourself at much higher quality in a third party image editor like ACR/LR.

 

I just applied NR in ACR 6.7 to a scan from my local one hour photo's Noritsu lab output at 3000x2000 tiff format of 35mm Kodak UC 400 which has finer grain due to higher resolution capture. You don't mention the resolution of the original scan and size of film.

Resolution is near 3000x2000. I'll try talk to the people at the lab next time, but I doubt if there'll be willing to do so. Thanks!

Note: I accidentally posted the incomplete thread and exceed the 15min editing limit. So instead I put what I originally intend to say here. Sorry for all the trouble.

Hi folks! I'm a amateur photographer went from digital to film a few month ago. I picked up a nikon f3 and three lenses, 28/2.8 35/2 and 50/1.7. I started with black and white film stocks (eg. HP5, delta400, Tmax400) and was pretty happy with the result. However, I tried a few rolls of color negative film, and was never satisfied with the results. I went to Hawaii last month and shoot one roll of portra 400. The problem is that the scans were pretty grainy and blurry.

In the photo below details in the grass are messed up with grain in the shadow. You can clearly see what I mean in the 100% crop.

I found out that the results were very inconsistent, varying from frame to frame. Especially with good lighting and less shadow, photo turned out to be OK. For example, these two shots have much less grain than the previous one. Both photos have a 100% crop shown below. Please do not complain about the composition, as I mentioned I'm just getting started and the focus in this post is not how good the composition is anyway.

In addition, the dynamic range of portra 400 (or the scanner) seems pretty narrow, which is more obvious when put side by side with one taken with my iPhone7 in similar lighting condition (a few seconds after the film version is taken). Considering even a smart phone outperform portra 400, I was pretty disappointed.

This is taken with portra 400.

And this is the iPhone version.

I tried to figure out what's wrong but I guess I'm not experienced enough in film to come to a conclusion. I listed a few my guesses below and hopefully somebody can help me.

1. Operator of the camera (of course that's me) making mistakes (eg. underexposure) results in grainy photos. In this case I will be glad if some one can point out what I did wrong.

2. That's the limitation of 35mm format. I went from digital to film and was accustomed to relatively nosie free images produced by digital cameras. If that is the limit of 35mm format (but I am sure this is probably not the case), I may have to step up to medium format.

3. Bad scanner or bad scanner operator. I send the film roll to a local lab to have it developed and scanned. As I was told, the film was scanned with Noritsu HS-1800. Is it the scanner uncapable of pulling out fine details or the operator's problem? In this case I may have to try a difirrent lab.

Resolution is near 3000x2000. I'll try talk to the people at the lab next time, but I doubt if there'll be willing to do so. Thanks!...

...I found out that the results were very inconsistent, varying from frame to frame. Especially with good lighting and less shadow, photo turned out to be OK.

Went back and looked at the other frames in my Kodak UC 400 scans off the Noritsu and I'm getting the same inconsistency. I was wrong on the higher resolution making the difference. I hadn't shot film in over ten years and the Kodak UC 400 35mm was near the last before I finally bought a Pentax K100D DSLR.

I'ld stick with the iPhone. That's a much more beautiful shot in your last example.

Went back and looked at the other frames in my Kodak UC 400 scans off the Noritsu and I'm getting the same inconsistency. I was wrong on the higher resolution making the difference. I hadn't shot film in over ten years and the Kodak UC 400 35mm was near the last before I finally bought a Pentax K100D DSLR.

 

I'ld stick with the iPhone. That's a much more beautiful shot in your last example.

You know, coming from digital I appreciate clean sharp and noise-free images digital cameras produce, but I find shooting film much more relaxing and fun. I hate to come to the same old film vs digital debate, but I'm reluctant to give up film so soon just a few months after picking up film camera. I'll probably turn to pure black and white stuff and give up color negative if future attempts to "make negative great again" fails.

First, let me show you the results I get from Kodak Portra 400 as a point of reference.

 

Latitude range of Kodak Portra 400

http://www.fototime.com/B1379B2FE749C83/standard.jpg

Full res ->http://www.fototime.com/B1379B2FE749C83/orig.jpg

 

As a point of reference, most digitals - certainly your phone, will blow out the highlights long before Kodak Portra 400 even becomes unusable.

http://www.fototime.com/3EDD4D13204247B/standard.jpg

Full res ->http://www.fototime.com/3EDD4D13204247B/orig.jpg

 

In real world use, this allows you to recover shadows and highlights of a very wide latitude scene easily.

http://www.fototime.com/DCE615918D77901/standard.jpg

Full res -> http://www.fototime.com/DCE615918D77901/orig.jpg

These were scanned usin the Nikon Coolscan with no post enhancement. You can use grain reduction to adjust to your taste. What did you use to scan?

Note that Portra 400 has huge overexposure range, perhaps your F3 underexposes and your scanner is trying to bring up too much of the shadows?

 

If finer grain is what you want, you can also try Portra 160, Kodak Ektar 100.

Thank you for your test result. I have heard generally color negatives has wide latitude, now seeing portra produces usable result from -2 to +6 is no surprise. To this point I'm pretty convinced grain is produced by underexposure. I'll try meter for shadow the next time. As for dynamic range, if I understand correctly, film itself retains wide range of information but the scanner cannot pull enough information out of it. The film is developed and scanned by a local film lab with Noritsu HS-1800, but Hasselblad Flextight X5 scanning service is also provided with (much) higher price and longer waiting time (10 days compared with 2 days if scanned bu HS-1800). The thing is that if I have to wait 10 days plus pay the high price for better scans, I probably won't bother shooting color negative.

There's nothing in your scans that appears to be film related. You could pay more attention to focus and camera shake. Grass in the foreground of the first image appears to be blurred by the latter. You should include a good tripod in your kit, and use it especially for landscapes. If you see grain in the scan, the image is as sharp as it will ever be. Film doesn't have the crispness of digital, but can be improved by judicious sharpening.

Color negative film is very tolerant of highlights, not so much for shadows. Portra has relatively flat colors, but a wide dynamic range, and has ample margin for adjustments in the scan. I usually overexpose negative film by up to one stop in order to preserve shadow detail. Ektar 100 has finer grain than Portra 400, but not enough to make a striking difference in your results. All film has grain, and suffers from optical and chemical halation effects which reduce edge sharpness.

There's nothing in your scans that appears to be film related. You could pay more attention to focus and camera shake. Grass in the foreground of the first image appears to be blurred by the latter. You should include a good tripod in your kit, and use it especially for landscapes. If you see grain in the scan, the image is as sharp as it will ever be. Film doesn't have the crispness of digital, but can be improved by judicious sharpening.

 

Color negative film is very tolerant of highlights, not so much for shadows. Portra has relatively flat colors, but a wide dynamic range, and has ample margin for adjustments in the scan. I usually overexpose negative film by up to one stop in order to preserve shadow detail. Ektar 100 has finer grain than Portra 400, but not enough to make a striking difference in your results. All film has grain, and suffers from optical and chemical halation effects which reduce edge sharpness.

I focused at infinity when shooting the grass photo. As I recalled it was something like 1/500, f/8, and was shoot with nikkor 35/2. With such high shutter speed, I wonder if a tripod is really necessary. I will give it a try anyway. As for dynamic range, I think it is clear in the example above the iPhone photo does contain more detail in the clouds than the portra one. Any thoughts?

Was your iPhone image HDR?

I know that my phone will kick on HDR automatically. Basically what this does is take a couple of different images in rapid succession with different exposures and "stack"them to increase the total dynamic range.

There probably IS more detail in your scans that the scanner just isn't picking up. As others have said, though, you should be exposing for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may-chances are you won't lose them.

Second, it's worth mentioning that your F3 meter is VERY heavily center weighted. When you're setting the exposure, you need to be very conscious of where you place the circle in order to get the exposure correct. I never use my F3 in aperture priority for this very reason.

I focused at infinity when shooting the grass photo. As I recalled it was something like 1/500, f/8, and was shoot with nikkor 35/2. With such high shutter speed, I wonder if a tripod is really necessary. I will give it a try anyway. As for dynamic range, I think it is clear in the example above the iPhone photo does contain more detail in the clouds than the portra one. Any thoughts?

No, you would not need a tripod with a 35 mm lens at 1/500. While the rule of thumb suggests 1/focal length, this is only good for an 8x10" print (same as DOF). Three times FL is a better choice for landscapes. You fall well over that value, which would be 1/100. I thought I saw doubling, but it's just a limitation of the lens and medium.

I don't see that you have a big issue. Enjoy the colors you get from film, and the sense of satisfaction. You would get brighter colors and more contrast with Ektar 100. Portra is for portraits (duh!), which work better of the colors are subdued. I miss Fuji Reala, my favorite at the time. I prefer negative to reversal film. It's harder to get good color at times, but the enormous dynamic range is worth the trouble.

Was your iPhone image HDR?

 

I know that my phone will kick on HDR automatically. Basically what this does is take a couple of different images in rapid succession with different exposures and "stack"them to increase the total dynamic range.

 

There probably IS more detail in your scans that the scanner just isn't picking up. As others have said, though, you should be exposing for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may-chances are you won't lose them.

 

Second, it's worth mentioning that your F3 meter is VERY heavily center weighted. When you're setting the exposure, you need to be very conscious of where you place the circle in order to get the exposure correct. I never use my F3 in aperture priority for this very reason.

I forgot to mention, the iPhone photo is not HDR, otherwise it won't be a fair comparison.

By exposing for shadows, do you mean put shadows in zone 5 or put shadows somewhere near zone 3?

I'm getting used to F3's central weighted metering. In the case of scenes of high contrast, I tried to meter -> lock -> frame and expose. I tried to put sky and foreground about 50/50 in the center to meter, nut next time I'll try to meter for shadows.

Then your problem is the same as my problem with my Kodak UC 400 which is the Noritsu's scanner and software. Everyone gave valid answers but didn't provide a solution to the results you posted except blame the photographer.

How the heck is a daylight scene to be shot with a prime lens and decent camera? No one gave a workable solution to this.

My Kodak UC 400 shots were taken with a Minolta Freedom Zoom P&S (plastic lens). I got some really sharp, fine grain and detailed captures and other frames were like what the OP posted. The difference was the sharp clean shot was a closeup of a flower filling half the frame shot in overcast light and the others were of distant landscapes shot in bright sunlight.

Something tells me a mix of the dynamic range of the scene, distance to subject and how the Noritsu deals with it in software is the problem.

Then your problem is the same as my problem with my Kodak UC 400 which is the Noritsu's scanner and software. Everyone gave valid answers but didn't provide a solution to the results you posted except blame the photographer.

 

How the heck is a daylight scene to be shot with a prime lens and decent camera? No one gave a workable solution to this.

 

My Kodak UC 400 shots were taken with a Minolta Freedom Zoom P&S (plastic lens). I got some really sharp, fine grain and detailed captures and other frames were like what the OP posted. The difference was the sharp clean shot was a closeup of a flower filling half the frame shot in overcast light and the others were of distant landscapes shot in bright sunlight.

 

Something tells me a mix of the dynamic range of the scene, distance to subject and how the Noritsu deals with it in software is the problem.

I find out generally less detailed scene, for example the hydrant photo, gives great result, while "busy" scene with fine details, for example the grass photo, doesn't work so good. Since there're so many answers, I'll probably shoot a few rolls in the future and find out if it is operator's error.

I blamed the camera possibly underexposing and didn't know the scan method used. But now that I know, the Noritsu in a cheap scan mini-lab setting is definitely the first suspect. Automatic scan with enhancements applied - sharpening, auto levels, etc.

 

Here is one comparison I have from Fuji 100 film - Noritsu minilab scan vs Coolscan.

http://www.fototime.com/A97C91D882E1621/standard.jpg

Full res version -> http://www.fototime.com/A97C91D882E1621/orig.jpg

 

I understand that the Noritsu is capable, but the full enhancement applied automatically for fastest - cheapest, results does not help. I suppose if you can establish a relationship with the operator t may help.

 

However, the photog does have to learn the film and workflow required to get results too. The Portra lineup is intended to deliver "flat" results which is great for post work.

 

One of the learning process is grain - how much of it and how to manage it both in shot and in post.

 

Of course results - if you are not making wet prints, are all dependent on the scanner and operator.

 

Manual focus camera is and average metering is also something to learn.

 

I have a few Nikons myself and none more important than the Coolscan.

Noritsu HS-1800's typical cyan cast seems to appear in your scan too. I also found HS-1800 produces green cast in the shadow. Perhaps talking to the operator may help with the problem, and I'll try next time. Thanks!

Simply put, I never have had any luck with normal scans from a lab. In a very old thread that I can't find anymore, I had a comparison between a scan of Kodak BW400CN from a lab (a Frontier if I recall well) and my Reflecta, which is a good deal cheaper than the Coolscan shown.

The difference in the amount of information available, especially for highlights and shadows, is stunning. The lab scans all looked flat and with little to no detail towards the extremes. Scanning your own negatives (at least the best ones) is completely worth the effort, in my view.

Simply put, I never have had any luck with normal scans from a lab. In a very old thread that I can't find anymore, I had a comparison between a scan of Kodak BW400CN from a lab (a Frontier if I recall well) and my Reflecta, which is a good deal cheaper than the Coolscan shown.

The difference in the amount of information available, especially for highlights and shadows, is stunning. The lab scans all looked flat and with little to no detail towards the extremes. Scanning your own negatives (at least the best ones) is completely worth the effort, in my view.

As I said, I am not shooting film for a living but as a hobby, so a scanner is quite an investment. Which Reflecta model are you referring to? I see many people use Epson v550/v600, but also heard that flatbed cannot produce detailed scans, especially for 35mm film. Which scanner do you think is a good choice?

I'm also a hobbyist ;-)

I have a Reflecta ProScan 7200, it is called Pacific Images PrimeFilm 7200 in the US. The US pricing is very attractive, in Europe we have to pay quite a lot more. The current model is called ProScan 10T / PrimeFilm XE, as it has been updated some time ago. Comparable scanner is the Plustek 8200i. These scanners will only do 35mm, so if you shoot medium format, they're not ideal.

For what I've seen, with the Epson it is possible to get good scans, also from 35mm, but it takes some effort. There are older threads on this site with more info, and examples that show it is a myth that the Epsons cannot get detailed scans. Basded on results I saw, I'd prefer the higher models Epson (v800/v850, or v700), but they do cost a good bit more.

I currently have a CoolScan V on loan, to test against my Reflecta. The Nikon is better, but even second hand it will cost 2x more than the reflecta. If you can spend the money, the CoolScan is worth it, but value for money, the Reflecta and Plustek scanners make a lot of sense (even if a lot of people on these forums will dismiss them without ever having used them).

Learning to scan takes some time, though. It's not as simple as "push a button and get a good digital file", so whichever scanner you choose, it will take time and effort to get things right.

I'm also a hobbyist ;-)

I have a Reflecta ProScan 7200, it is called Pacific Images PrimeFilm 7200 in the US. The US pricing is very attractive, in Europe we have to pay quite a lot more. The current model is called ProScan 10T / PrimeFilm XE, as it has been updated some time ago. Comparable scanner is the Plustek 8200i. These scanners will only do 35mm, so if you shoot medium format, they're not ideal.

For what I've seen, with the Epson it is possible to get good scans, also from 35mm, but it takes some effort. There are older threads on this site with more info, and examples that show it is a myth that the Epsons cannot get detailed scans. Basded on results I saw, I'd prefer the higher models Epson (v800/v850, or v700), but they do cost a good bit more.

I currently have a CoolScan V on loan, to test against my Reflecta. The Nikon is better, but even second hand it will cost 2x more than the reflecta. If you can spend the money, the CoolScan is worth it, but value for money, the Reflecta and Plustek scanners make a lot of sense (even if a lot of people on these forums will dismiss them without ever having used them).

 

Learning to scan takes some time, though. It's not as simple as "push a button and get a good digital file", so whichever scanner you choose, it will take time and effort to get things right.

Thanks for the info. I'm considering trying out MF, so I guess Reflecta/Plustek 135 dedicated scanners are not for me. I'm thinking buying a macro lens and digitize film with my Canon 5d2. I have seen several comparisons indicating dslrs can produce better scans than (cheap) flatbeds, so I think it is a good ideal to give it a try.

Thanks for the info. I'm considering trying out MF, so I guess Reflecta/Plustek 135 dedicated scanners are not for me. I'm thinking buying a macro lens and digitize film with my Canon 5d2. I have seen several comparisons indicating dslrs can produce better scans than (cheap) flatbeds, so I think it is a good ideal to give it a try.

As far as I know, the usual flatbeds should be good enough for MF. (At least for hobby MF use.)

Yes a DSLR should do better than a cheap scanner, but a medium priced 35mm scanner should do fine.

There are a few problems with the DSLR method:

One is you need a way to hold the film. A little easier for mounted slides than strips of film.

Next is you need a good light source. Maybe a few lights on a white mat board?

You want enough depth of field for focus errors, too.

All those are taken care of, hopefully, by a good enough scanner.

I have a ScanDual IV, 3200 dpi across the 35mm frame.

As they are long out of production, some are going for way overinflated prices.

Note that a flatbed scanner may claim a high DPI, and may deliver that, there is no guarantee that the positioning of the pixels is that accurate.

That may or may not matter. The optical system on a dedicated 35mm scanner is simpler, and likely to be closer to ideal.

There are some cheap scanners that use 2D sensor arrays, maybe designed for cell phones, some only 640x480.

Better scanners use 1D arrays and move the film with a stepper motor.