What's the best print film for scanning?

[catcher]

I'm sure this question, or one like it, has been asked before here on

photo.net, but I can't find it (them). So if it has, please just

direct me to the proper link. Otherwise, here goes:

 

I use a dedicated film scanner, and for my slides (Velvia, Sensia

mostly) it does a fantastic job. But with print film, the grain is

always excessive. Is this just a feature of print films that we have

to live with, or is there a print film that has fine enough grain to

not be distracting? I can often post-process the grain out using

software and get reasonable results, but it's hard not to get

a "plasticky" look when doing that. I've used film from Fuji and

Kodak both, some professional some ameteur. I realize that higher

ISO will result in more grain. I'm also aware there are lots of

other issues besides grain. So any suggestions/advice would be

helpful. Thanks in advance.

[eric friedemann]

I've had good results scanning 100 ISO Fuji Reala and "800" ISO Fuji NPZ shot at E.I. 400. I've used both films in 35mm and 120.

[scott_eaton]

The problem is with the scanning software you are using since 100 speed print films like Reala should not produce harsh grain. Just because your particular scanner has a screwed up black point in it's general profile doesn't mean print films suck.

 

The 100 speed slide films do have an edge on sharpness.

[scott_eaton]

By chance though what scanner are you using? Might be some tricks we can apply for your specific scanner to get around the problem? You aren't the first.

[roman_kuznetsov]

Until you are not in a real hurry, the following helps:

 

First, scan film with maximum resolution your scanner supports. Next, in the photoshop, downsize the image to the reqired resolution with bicubic mode. You will get much cleaner result because of smooothig film grain and avoiding scanner aliasing.

 

Most modern print films scan well. Portra UC is known to be scanner friendly, for example.

[nathan_dandar]

I've found Fuji NPH 400 to be very scanner friendly.

[catcher]

I use a Konica/Minolta scan dual IV. Scott, how does black point setting affect the appearance of grain? I've never heard that before, which admittedly says much more about my knowledge (or lack) of scanning than about your response.

[aa2000]

All color negatives are grainier than Velvia slide (since Ektar 25

and other goodies bite the dust). However, with Reala 100, NPS,

Vista 100, you should not get excessive grain. I guess it's

something with your lab, or scanner (or your negatives are

underexposed).

[bill_tuthill]

Aaron, on my HP S10 scanner, the least grainy print films are Reala,

Portra 160NC, Kodak 400UC, and NPH. The first two scan less grainy

than Velvia 50, but the S10 is known as being poor for slides.

Results might be different for your Scan Dual IV.

Here is <A HREF="http://www.scantips.com/dual2.html">a page from

Wayne Fulton's scantips</A> about setting white point.

[ilkka_nissila]

Reala or the slowest Kodak color negative film you can find would be good options to try. I think HD200/RS200 scan ok, although there is more grain than in conventional prints. Yeah, noise removal at least when applied to its fullest produces doll-like skin which isn't nice.

 

You could also try alternative scanning software such as Vuescan if your scanner is supported by it.

 

Notice that when scanning and making larger prints, exposure has to be good. Even slightest underexposure is enough to bin your negative.

[roger_smith4]

I think the black point issue is that underexposed color negative film tends to look most grainy in shadow areas. Thus if you set a black point too agressively and don't clip enough of the shadow to black, the extra shadow "detail" that you'll get will really just be crappy looking grain/noise. The lesson: don't underexpose CN film and don't try to brighten dark areas if you're concerned about grain.

 

I don't think that grain issues in non-shadow areas is scanner software related, but rather a problem with the scanner light source. The Minolta 5400 has a built-in diffuser to soften grain and there is a Scanhancer device that does the same for other scanners. The Nikon scanners have a GEM software feature to soften grain as well.

 

I haven't found grain which is apparent at a high-resolution 100% view of the scan to be evident in small prints (are you judging from prints or from your monitor?), but do think a fine grained film like Sensia will give you better 8x12 or 12x18 pictures. Especially if you try to lighten shadows, as slide film looks much smoother than CN film when it comes to blacks and shadows.

[ted_marcus1]

I find that Ultra Color 400 (400UC) scans very well. It has less grain than many slower films.

 

Grain will always be a problem with negative films, particularly in dark, continuous areas like blue sky. I don't know what scanner/software combination you're using. But the native software for a number of scanners (including my current Canon FS4000US and my former SCSI Photosmart) automatically sharpens scans from negative film. That always increases grain and makes post-processing unnecessary difficult. The solution to this problem is Vuescan, which doesn't sharpen unless you specifically select that option. It also has a grain-reduction option that works quite well, although I prefer to use NeatImage.

 

One problem with NeatImage (and possibly other similar programs) is that its default setting is too aggressive. The default setting removes all the grain, but softens everything too much and produces the "plasticky" look you describe. I set the luminance (Y) level to between 20% and 40%, depending on the image. That reduces the grain to very tolerable levels while leaving details intact and avoiding the "plastic."

[bill_tuthill]

Ted is absolutely right there. The two of us decided that 400UC was

no big improvement over Supra 400 for blue sky, but yellow and red

(and skin tones!!) improved markedly. Another tip: downsampling

your scans 67% or 75% markedly reduces grain without significantly

reducing acutance. Digicam JPEG images improve most at 50%. Only

DSLR images are best at native size. With slides, I find that a

tradeoff for smoother grain is a bubble effect in sparkly highlights,

which I do not like.

[albert lui]

For best results (scanning or not), use the slowest film possible. If your hands are reasonably steady and you use prime lenses or f2.8 zooms, ISO 100 film works well in many situations. Shooting on a cloudy bright, shadowless day will minimize visible film grain. My best choices are UC100 and Reala.

[bill_tuthill]

Albert Lui, could you please post some 100UC examples? On my 2400 dpi

scanner, 100UC was grainer overall then 400UC, especially yellow, but

this result might depend on scanner.

[michael_beckmann]

Fuji Reala gave me some great results, but so did other print films including Superia 800 and NPH. I was quite surprised to find the grain so fine and unobtrusive with the Superia 800 scans.

 

On the other hand, a few scans from underexposed negatives including Reala needed some serious de-graining with Neat Image.

[bill_tuthill]

Michael, I wonder if your Coolscan V isn't quite as good with Reala

as other scanners? I'm thinking of getting one; it's between that

and the Minolta 5400. (I could also get a 50-pin PCI SCSI card and

continue using my HP S10.) On the S10, Reala scans very fine grained

even when underexposed 3 stops. Here's a sample to <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=6350584">compare with Superia 800</A> at the same scan resolution.

Superia 800 has bluer sky, but its non-blue grain is more obtrusive.

From these results it seemed like I could use Reala as an 800 speed

film, but I never did.<div></div>

[michael_beckmann]

Bill,

 

I have the Coolscan 5000 and I am getting very decent results with it even from underexposed negatives. It's just that the grain is more visible than it is with a correctly exposed negative, and that is not surprising at all.

 

The grain from an underexposed negative is visible in regular optical prints as well. It's not as if the scanner somehow added grain to underexposed negatives.

 

I would not endorse the use of Reala at ASA 800, while Superia 800 and 1600 are available...

[michael_beckmann]

Bill: Note that the Minolta 5400 is very slow compared to the Nikon. Scanning four slides with ICE takes longer than a half hour. The slowness is hardly acceptable unless you make a few scans here and there.