Scan Negative

[AliBM]

Hi

I use HP Scanjet4850 devic for scaning my negative<BR>

and i use konika minolta (cent 100) Film.

when i scan this negative i see some noise on pic<BR>

and my pic have low quality<Br>

 

how can i fix this problem?

 

Best Regards<div></div>

[danield]

Ali, the "noise" you are seeing is film grain. It's visible in all films, some have less, some have more. Generally the higher the ISO, the more grain you will see.

 

It's not clear what you mean by 'low quality'. Do you mean low sharpness? Poor color? My guess is the problem is a combination of a poor scanner (the HP 4850's true resolution is more likely 1200dpi which is quite low for film) and little or no post-processing.

 

I see that you have posted similar questions before - I suggest you look through the Digital Darkroom forum and search for threads on scanning film with flatbed scanners.

[AliBM]

Thsnk's so much for your attention<BR>

about " Low Quality " , please see attachment file, you see my problem in it.

 

Best Regards

[yossarian]

Ali - you may want to invest in Noise Ninja or something similar. Google it and it should come up - about $35 for the stand alone application.

[yossarian]

same photo with a quick Noise Ninja filter

[Ed_Ingold]

I doubt you will see grain in a Scanjet 4850 scan, though grain will add coarseness to the image. The exposure, color and sharpness are poor in this example. Scanner aside, how does the negative look? Is it under or over exposed, which would increase the grain?

[danield]

Ali, I have seen your attachment but I was just not sure what you were trying to achieve. It would help if you were a bit more specific, otherwise we are left guessing.

 

In terms of noise the OP's suggestions in a noise removal software are your best bet. An underexposed negative may be more "noisy" than an overexposed one because it may have more grain. There is probably very little you can do at scanning time about that - unless the scanner software has some controls for dealing with film grain, but these usually also have the effect of degrading detail in the image.

 

The photo also has a very poor color balance - there is too much magenta for a start. Obtaining accurate color from scanned negatives is something of a black art (if not impossible) and usually involves adjustments both when scanning and post-processing. You also need to make sure your monitor is properly color profiled so that that colors you see are the same ones other people (and printers) will see.

 

There are a number of other "quality" problems. Sharpness is not very good, which could be due to either lack of sharpness on film or miss-focus at scanning time - only you can check for that. There's also some vignetting (darkening in the corners), that's most usually due to the camera lens but could also be created when scanning.

 

I hope this helps - although it doesn't give you a "fix". It all depends on the end result you expect. A better scanner may give you a better image with but that's just 10% out of the whole "quality" equation (camera, lens, tripod, lighting, technique, film, color profiling, software, etc).

[bill_tuthill]

Konica film sux, to use a technical term. Try Fuji Reala or Kodak 400UC and you'll probably get better results. I think the biggest

problem with this image is color balance, not grain. Here is after

Michael Rogner's grain reduction, Levels, Curves, and reduction of

purple in the gray clouds.<div></div>

[markus maurer]

Hi Bill

could you explain what "sux" with Konica Centuria 100 super film?

Is it just hard to scan or of lower quality than other brands in general?

I use it now for the first time and scan it using a Canon 9900f

with quite good results. I find the skin tones nice so far but have not really compared it otherwise to the Superia I normally use.

thanks and greetings

Markus

[nolan_ross]

I think that your problem is with grain. Some films have more grain than others. I am not familiar with this film that you are using. In a scenery shot such as this the grain will come out more in the sky and also if the negative is not exposed properly. Some scanners have a grain reducing feature for use during the scan in order to mimimize this problem. A gool low grain film is Fuji Reala. I took the picture to photoshop and fiddled a little with it. Post processing can help a picture but you cannot turn a average picture into a great picture. That needs to start with the initial exposure with good film and a proper exposure...nolan

[m_p2]

The lower the speed film, the less noise you will see. I use

Noiseware to batch clean noise, but Corel 9, picture by picture

does the best. You simply neeed good graphics software. Good luck.

[drjedsmith]

I've done a fair bit of scanning . . . I find it hard to believe that your problem is "grain". You are using a flat bed scanner to scan a postage stamp size piece of film - I've tried that route before too, as have many others here. It just doesn't work well.<BR><BR>

That's not to say you can't make this work with a little practice. First off, clean the negative with an anti-static brush, and wipe down your flat bed glass with alcohol.<BR>

But honestly, to get the quality of an ISO 100 film, you need to scan the negative with a dedicated film scanner, with a resolution like 4000dpi.<BR>

Jed

[bill_tuthill]

Konica-Minolta is out of the photo business now, so I no longer must

temper my comments to avoid an anti-commerce lawsuit. All the Konica

films I tried, except Impresa 50 which I liked, had poor color balance when scanned or printed (by any minilab in my area) and uncompetitive grain/resolution characteristics. Minolta scanners did a fair job of

scanning Konica films (perhaps that is why they merged) but that was

the only way I knew to do anything with them. Scott Eaton worked in a

lab that printed Konica Pro 160, and he said it was an OK film. Konica

1600 was an interesting niche film before Fuji NPZ.

[AliBM]

What you think about Kodak TX 100 film?

[drjedsmith]

Ali, that is one of the best B&W films on the market. Tight grain, very good enlarging capability, and it scans well. To me it's a toss up between that and Fuji Acros 100.<BR>

Jed