Why are my film scans rejected by stock agencies?

[edward_karaa1]

I have been sending digital captures to various stock agencies for the last 4

years with a high rate of acceptance. Just recently, I reconverted to film and

started scanning 35mm transparencies on a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. But

eversince , hardly any picture passes the QC, files keep on being rejected for

various reasons such as "noise, artifacts or hazing at full size", or

even "too much upsizing". Aren't agencies aware that film has grain if looked

at at 100% magnification, which is like 100X150cm size on my LCD monitor.

Don't they know that film gives large files when scanned at 4000 DPI? Or is it

just plain excuses not to accept film images?

[edward_karaa1]

Do you think if I destroy the detail in images with Noise Ninja or similar, the photos have more chance to be accepted?

[steven_clark]

Actually downsampling the images might work better give what they're saying.

[edward_karaa1]

That's one option I have been also considering. The full size files are about 21 MP. What in your opinion is the ideal size for 35mm. I heard something around 6MP.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The stock agencies gurus also understand watered down beer, coffee, lemonade besides bloaded files. They look at files ALL day, no fooling them. Lots of folks have been "rejecting bloaded" before many folks who use digital were even born. In the wisdom of Beavis and Butthead, you cannot polish a turd. In a feedback loop; negative feedback means correction is required; less turds, more decent files.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many stock agenices were using 600 dpi files from 4x5" tranys before Photoshop was born. They know quality versus BS pixels.

[Ed_Ingold]

You job, as a professional, is to give the customer what he wants, not what you want. Save that for when you own your own gallery.

 

Ask yourself this... If I have an high acceptance rate with digital capture, and nearly zero acceptance of scanned 35mm, I should

 

(a) Complain to my peers on Photo.Net

(b) Explain to my customer that film is really better, regardless of what he sees

© Ditch film and start shipping digital images again.

(d) Use medium or large format film (but hurry, DSLRs are catching up).

[ilkka_nissila]

Does this mean that 35 mm film can't be used for stock submissions any more? Interesting. I guess they are spoiled.

 

Too much upsizing? Hmm. If they consider 35 mm film good for a 5x7.5 inch picture on printed paper that would lead to 300 * 5 * 7.5 * 300 = 1500*2250 = about 3.3 MP. If you sent them 20 MP scans from 35 mm film I guess that's not what they're used to working with.

 

Time to get a new digital SLR?

[edward_karaa1]

Not complaining. Just asking for advice. And please do no turn this thread into another film vs. digital debate. I have studied the matter thouroughly and decided that film suits more my shooting style and time restrictions. This is a personal choice not based on resolution charts but on practical reasons. Now if you could give me some advice on scanning my 35mm for stock, I would greatly appreciate it. Downsampling was a good suggestion. Any other options? And what in your opinion is the ideal size of a well exposed and sharp 35mm velvia transparency? Some people claim about 6MP. Any opinions?

[edward_karaa1]

Hi Ilkka,

 

In my experience 35mm is good enough for maximum 30X45 cm prints. Anything larger would be over-optimism. I guess this is equivalent to 19 MP. But of course if you look at the full size of such a file you will see a lot of grain which is not apparent at 30X45.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The real truth is most folks dont shoot static high contrast objects with slow asa 50 unobtainachrome with a giant trany/negative size at F8; using a granite block, and have it drum scanned by a guru, at a conservative moderate dpi/ppi. <BR><BR>The stock agencies gurus can tell lite versus real beer after hours by the first taste. They can tell when the file size versus real usefull info grows to nonsense, like a Iowa farmer can identify the difference between corn and cow chips when blindfolded. <BR><BR>A stock agency doesnt really care whether your image was shot with Kodak Brownie Bullet, Polaroid Swinger, Leica M3, Speed Graphic, Zorki, Graphic 35, RB67, they care about real info in the image or file. <BR><BR>What a submitter considers as food, they will reject as manure.

[edward_karaa1]

Kelly,

 

Thank you for your subtle remarks and very helpful advice.

 

Perhaps you can try to help someone else in the meanwhile, since I will need time to digest the deep meanings of your quite rustic analogies.

[edward_karaa1]

Guys, one more time, please the only advice I need is about technical issues, how to scan the film to give agencies what they expect. Perhaps guys who still use film can help me out here. I have been submitting my "manure" under digital form for the last 4 years without problems. The only problem now is that they don't seem to like film submissions much.

[jbq]

It sounds like your customers want more data per pixel and less noise, so you should downsample your pictures (never mind that they would be able to do it themselves and have more control over the process).

 

It sounds to me that your customers have a more favorable view of files that come out of digital cameras. You need to evaluate how much shooting film is worth to you against how much money you make by having a higher acceptance rate when shooting with a digital camera.

[daniel_taylor]

"I have been sending digital captures to various stock agencies for the last 4 years with a high rate of acceptance. Just recently, I reconverted to film and started scanning 35mm transparencies on a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED. But eversince , hardly any picture passes the QC, files keep on being rejected for various reasons such as "noise, artifacts or hazing at full size", or even "too much upsizing"."

 

Where's Les with his maps to educate the stock agencies on the finer points of 35mm film's utter, complete, and crushing superiority over all "digiscams" and their low-rez output? Oh...I'm sorry...you wanted to hear advice, not me laughing at everyone over the years who has started a fight at the first hint of someone suggesting digital offered exceptional image quality.

 

Let's look at their complaints...

 

1) Noise - shoot slow speed films and use Noise Ninja. Adjust the settings so that you don't lose real detail, but do suppress the grain and scanner noise.

 

2) Artifacts - look through your image and clone out any and all spots/scratches not removed by ICE. Be very, very picky about this.

 

3) Hazing - adjust levels (black and white points) to eliminate this and give better contrast and clarity. Digital images, which they are now used to, are exceptionally "clear" compared to an unadjusted film scan.

 

4) Upsizing - after you've fixed the above problems at scan size, downsample to their MP requirement to further supress/hide problems.

 

If you do this right, they may even think you did use digital and won't complain.

 

"Aren't agencies aware that film has grain if looked at at 100% magnification, which is like 100X150cm size on my LCD monitor."

 

They get digital and MF submissions all day long. Contrary to the claims of some film fanatics on this site, even slow speed 35mm, unassisted, shows grain at 8x10. Why would they want to put up with this? They can get noise/grain free images from just about everyone now.

[ilkka_nissila]

I guess the haziness can be aided by a curves adjustment (increase midtone contrast) but be subtle. I prefer GEM (in the LS-5000) to NeatImage though the latter gives more options I seem to get more natural results using the former. So you could try that.

 

And Edward, the thing is that a 35 mm image may be good for a large print, but if you have the same shot taken on 6x7 for comparison, the latter starts to show better rendition of detail at 5x7 print sizes and up. So if the stock agency has an over-abundance of submissions, they'll take the better quality files.

 

I think grain in just the right amount can be pleasing in an image. However, many people seem to like the clinically clean digital camera files. To me they look lifeless (and don't have a taste) but I know that most people don't see it this way. Keep working on your scanning and post-processing skills. Make prints on inkjet and compare against DSLR to test if you actually get better results using your film based approach.

[ilkka_nissila]

Ups, missing units: 6x7 is film size in cm, 5x7 is print size in inches.

[beepy]

Interesting discussion.

<p>

I'm on board with the remove all dust, scratches, noise. You probably want to operate at

over 100% and play a trick with a Levels Adjustment layer and slide the right and left

(alternately) histgram points way over to help make the dust pop out more. These guys

sound like they're really picky. :-)

<p>

In my more paranoid mode, might I suggest you find the exact size (pixels) of a standard

digital SLR and crop/resize to match it exactly AND strip out all the EXIF or whatever data

from the file leaving only your copyright perhaps before sending the file. I'm wondering if

the first thing they do is look at at the embedded info in the image to determine the

source and then look for artifacts...

<p>

Like I said - interesting:-)

[beepy]

You might find this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?

msg_id=00GcoT">recent thread interesting (scantips.com pointer)</a>.

[mark u]

You don't say which emulsion(s) you are using. There's obviously a big difference between Sensia 400 and Velvia 50 in terms of how good a scan you can make. Have you tried having an image drum scanned professionally, and comparing with your own scanning technique?

[ralph_jensen]

I know you don't want to hear it, but (to paraphrase what someone said above), like anybody with something to sell, you may have to choose between what YOU like and what your customers want to buy.

 

Most film shooters I know are aware that they're hurting their "sellability" by sticking with film but they've decided that the tradeoff is worth it. They'd rather lose sales and end up with an image they're pleased with.

 

So it depends on whether your photographic goals are producing "what you're most pleased with" or producing "what will sell to stock agencies," since in this case they apparently aren't the same.

[aeiffel]

Edward,<br>

We need you to tell us more on your scanning workflow : which transparencies, software, settings, calibration, post-processing, etc.<br>

The coolscan is a very capable scanner, but then you have to know what the agencies expectations are, and see if it can fulfill their needs.<br>

I'd try to meet and discuss with the persons in charge of submissions approval first. You'd probably learn where the "problem" really is according to them.

[howard_owen]

I don't know that stock agencies have as much QC as some respondents here are leading us to believe. I've paid good money (it was the client's $, I assume it was good) for noisy, less-than-sharp images from well known stock houses. Alamy even advocates (requires?) upsampling digital images to their magic 50MB threshold in order to be considered for acceptance. Talk about your polished turds...

 

I think that the truth may be that most inspectors have been looking at digital for so long that they've forgotten what film grain looks like. I still shoot film and I scan with a Nikon Coolscan 4000. I use a micro stock agency that has a crew of dedicated film inspectors (as well as an appeal process for rejected files), and we still have disagreements over quality. If I were a large contributor (I'm not) uploading dozens of files per month, I would probably shrug off the rejections (I don't). I usually prevail in the appeal process, but it takes time. My entire, meagre portfolio, is film except for a couple of illustrations. I am more of a designer than a photographer, but I like to shoot and I have a *lot* of Canon FD lenses as well as dedicated flash equipment, so the transition to digital at this time is just out of the question for me.

 

SO, how to get your film past the trolls who guard the gate...

Most film contributors downsample their images in order to lessen the grain. They also gently apply noise/grain reduction using Neat Image, Noise Ninja, or Noiseware Pro. They use 100 ISO film and control exposures carefully. They shoot creatively lit, stock-worthy photos. I recently (and amazingly) had a full resolution, B&W shot accepted. It was captured on TRI-X 400! The grain accentuated the mood of the shot. I have more in the TRI-X series to upload, and only time will tell whether the inspector was dozing when he OK'd the first one. I would provide a link to my images, but I don't want to be accused of pimping my work. Just be assured that film is still viable; don't give up.

 

EDIT: I have attatched a sample, including a 100% crop of the TRI-X file.<div></div>

[jan_brittenson]

Get a loupe, like a 22x peak, and a light table. Then take a close look at your film to see what's actually there. This will tell you whether the problem is it's not getting onto the film in the first place (technique or equipment problem); whether the film can't hold it (e.g. overcome by grain); or whether the scanner can't pull it.

 

Most likely, it's the scanning step. But it's pointless to look for problems here without making sure the original is top notch to begin with. But lets assume it's the scanning. Are your trannies mounted? What kind of a holder are you using, and are you sure it's keeping the film flat? Are you using ICE -- if so consider dedicating an area to be dust clean, all flat open surfaces that you can wipe down before you start working, also wipe down and clean the scanner and all holders etc, then clean the film and turn that ICE stuff off. The last thing before inserting the holder into the scanner is to give it a good blast of canned air on both sides. For the few spots you will have anyway, learn to use the photoshop clone tool to remove them. It's quick and easy. When what you see in the loupe matches what you get from the scanner you're doing well.

 

Finally, consider lenses. Film requires higher contrast optics than digital due to the MTF rolloff at high spatial frequencies. The optics need to resolve better than the film at any given contrast, and few brands stray solidly into the 100+lp/mm territory RVP50 can get to, at least not without stopping down to tripod speeds. (And at that point you might as well shoot 120.) A film like that will only show the limits of the optics, and with a fair amount of grain to boot since there are no edges sufficiently sharp to control the clump formation. (Why am I thinking RVP50 here? Maybe you mentioned it in a later comment, I can only see the first entry above.)

 

RVP50 also isn't a great scanning film, but that's mostly for aesthetic reasons. Scanners tend not to like the massively opaque base, highly pronounced knee and lack of linearity, and its weird dye spectrum. It looks great on the light table, but nobody will ever see that other than you. But again, it's not a real technical problem.

[edward_karaa1]

Thank you all for your replies. The issue is very simple: we have 2 problems, the grain and the softness at 100% viewing. No other issues like some of you have suggested, my film is clean, developed at a pro lab and checked before scanning, I use ICE as well. Both grain and softness are inherent to film, and both I believe can be improved by downsampling. I guess quality inspectors are too spoiled by digital. One of the replies I received was "we expect the same standard from film as from digital". I will be trying resending samples at 6 MP instead of 21 MP. I think at this size most grain and softness should have disappeared. Let's see what the response will be.