The joy of film, but better scanner wanted

[lookupinwonder]

Hi all,

 

Recently I bought two old film Nikons (FM and FE) to be able to shoot a few

rolls of film again with the fine glass I have collected since I bought a D70.

 

Been shooting a few rolls of slide film and some B&W in different flavours.

Downloaded the latest vuescan and resurrected my Minolta Scan Dimage Dual II. I

have a lot of experience with this set-up, so rest assured I know how to get the

best out of it.

 

But the results are disappointing compared to what I get from digital. There

simply is too much grain/noise, even with good 100ASA slide film. Especially

with a bit of PP it becomes all too apparent. The slides do look very good

through the projector. Scanned they are just not as nice.

 

Are my expectations too high or should I consider a better scanner? And what is

a good choice? I don't need max res, the 2800dpi of my current scanner is more

than enough. But I do want color consistency and low noise / high DR.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Nikon Coolscan V

[j_woo]

Low noise / high DR is tough to find. The Minolta Dimage Multi Pro is very sharp but quite

noisy. Scanhancer helps a little bit but the evidence of

grain will still be there. Relatively speaking, compard to digital, scanned film is quite a

mess. However at normal 35mm-friendly enlargements (i.e. up to 11x14 max), I don't find

the grain objectionable, and accept it as part of the tradeoff of scanning film. Note that the

grain is more apparent on screen than on the print.

<br><br>

Just for the sake of the thread: Let the scanner warm up for a while before making any

scans. Try scanning negative film instead of slide film (which has a denser base). Use a

small amount of noise reduction in P/P to remove some of the color noise that you'll

inevitably pick up in scanning.

[whitestone]

I have experienced the same -- slides are great through a projector, but scanning makes a yucky image. You could try Noise Ninja, or the like, to clean things up a bit.

[mendel_leisk]

Ronald, what software/settings are you using?

[wolf_weber]

This subject, Ronald, is coming up here over & over... Replaced a Pol. 4000 with a Nik. CS 5000ED recently. Regrets, because the Nikon produces even more grain via its sharper (..?) lens than did the Pol. 4000. And I haven't found one sw that would remove resulting grain from a scanned image without reducing sharpness. Fuji slide film, despite its promises, seems to be worse than older films from AGFA. Scanners with diffusers installed may give a better result. When I have a film or slide original, from my archive, that is "important" but turns out with too much grain ("pepper grain", mainly) I take it to a service lab where they let me work on an Imacon. Result..? Larger files, less grain. At a higher cost, goes without saying.

 

Meanwhile, I only shoot digital now, Pentax K10D. So far I haven't seen the need to go past ISO 400... Therefore, so far, absolutely no grain to speak of. No dust, nor scratches. No regrets.

[lookupinwonder]

Yes, I do know that decent enlargements are possible with scanned files, done it many times. It's just that my perception of quality has changed (apparently). But the D200 is so much better and that camera's reputation wrt noise isn't even that good!

 

Back in the days when I still used Fuji Superia 800 to shoot concerts I didn't find the grain all to objectionable. Used the Minolta then too. Neat image works very nicely to tame a bit of grain but it will cost sharpness too.

 

I'll keep in mind to let the scanner warm up a bit (it can't hurt can it?) but it appears from the few comments here that home scanning simply can't match modern digital. Not that I expected as much, but I do see beautiful scans from slides and negs on these forums sometimes. Granted, they are at small resolutions but I have this nagging feeling that I could do better.

 

As for the settings: I use generic slide settings, color balance neutral, I work 16 bits (TIFF output) and the Minolta ICC profile.

The scans don't look all that bad really, but appear a tad too unsharp and grainy. If I apply unsharp masking the grain/noise becomes ugly, especially when trying to get a bit more shadow detail in slides.

[lookupinwonder]

Wolf, I am convinced that my D200 is and should be better than 35mm. I just shoot slides with a manual camera to improve myself as a photographer. It is just too easy to set WB and fire off a 19 RAW burst in one go with the D200. Slides is just harder and I am learning some old lessons again. It is a deliberate excercise to limit myself and still come up with pictures that people find good.

 

And of course, the dynamic range / latitude of film (not slides of course), especially B&W is still untouchable. As a concert shooter this can be put to good use. And there is some 'feel' about analogue B&W that I cannot duplicate with digital.

 

Enough ranting, thanks for all the feedback. Will be scanning some old B&W anyway tonight...

[jtk]

Sounds like some sort of software setting/adjustment error. For example, you shouldn't be using Ice with non-C41 silver film, and you should expect some issues with Kodachrome. You shouldn't be using any of the cute extra settings that purportedly enhance images, with the exception of adjustment of grain size.

 

I don't know if Minolta's application allows this, but using Vuescan, even with a Minolta scanner you should be able to reduce grain, while keeping it sharp using one of Vuescan's settings. 100ASA film, assuming Kodak or Fuji and in good condition, shouldn't be grainy or noisy...there's no unaided-eye "grain" or noise with my Nikon V at 12X18 using Fuji Astia... color "grain" can be seen only with a loupe at that size.

 

B&W grain looks the way it would look if printed by a condenser enlarger...it's adjustable in Vuescan so I could exaggerate it or nearly eliminate it if I chose. I'm looking at Fuji Neopan 400, pushed to 1000 and enlarged to 12X18. It shows the grain you'd expect or hope for, but it's not the first thing anyone would notice, especially if they had experience in wet darkroom with other moderately fast films.

 

The comments about scan Vs digital ("yucky" and "quite a mess") indicate lack of skill. IMO Noise Ninja serves no purpose with properly done scans.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

If you cant get very good B&W scans with the Nikons, especially using 100~400 speed film then youre doing something wrong. I can actually achieve good (for the speed) scans from 3200 speed B&W but its taken a lot of testing to work out the tricks.

 

A B&W film scan cannot take anywhere near as much unsharp mask as a slide scan - maybe around a 1:4 ratio. Using some form of edge mask with usharp will provide some control as to what you dont want to really sharpen.

 

This is also a careful tradeoff; in B&W negs, grain tends to improve edge actuance which in turn increases perceived sharpness (irrespective of what you think of grain) then if youre not careful, digital sharpening merely acentuates grain beyond acceptable limits.

 

Unfortunately, achieving good scans from B&W, especially, is not just through it in and push the button. And, a good scan of B&W is not going to look anything like a good image - likely flat, very low contrast and lacking a full tonal range.

[roger_smith4]

"There simply is too much grain/noise, even with good 100ASA slide film. "

 

I think you may need to change your expectations about what a good file looks like. Are you judging them at 100%? That's likely not realistic unless you're printing that large.

 

4000dpi ISO 100 slide scans yield perfectly nice 8x12 inch pictures without obtrusive grain/dye clouds. A smaller 8mp digital capture at 100ISO on my 20D has no grain at all which is a different look.

 

You might go somewhere like digitalslides.net and have a few test scans done at 4000dpi to see if you would benefit from a better scanner. If not, stick to digital.

[anthony_r]

John Kelley has nailed it. I get fantastic scans from the Nikon 9000 and I, at one point in my

life, was a drum scanner. Something is awry somewhere.

[wgpinc]

I am getting some really nice scans from my KM 5400 scanner and Lasersoft Silverfast. In a project of going through bins and bags of slides and scanning some of them. I don't notice objectionable noise, just the brilliance of the Leica lenses with modern slide films. Good luck!<div></div>

[lookupinwonder]

Well, I guess a picture says more than a thousand words:

 

The first two are (obviously) from B&W negs, the third is from Agfa Precisa CT slide film. All have been PP'd to my liking and have had the 'neat image' treatment. This is the very best my scanner (or quite possibly myself) can manage. Cameras: Nikon FM (B&W) and FE (slide). Lenses: Nikkor 35mm f2 AF D, Nikkor 50mm f1.8 'E' manual focus.

 

<IMG SRC="http://members.chello.nl/~r.hogenboom/temp/crop0010a.jpg">

 

<IMG SRC="http://members.chello.nl/~r.hogenboom/temp/crop0019.jpg">

 

<IMG SRC="http://members.chello.nl/~r.hogenboom/temp/crop0016_cees.jpg">

 

Just to state the obvious: I have no wet darkroom experience, but a LOT of experience with my scanner and vuescan. But technology and even my moderate skills have improved considerably over the years. If I look at old files they look grainy too, buy hey, that was all 800ASA C-41 cheaply processed. Maybe my expectations are a bit too high now or maybe my scanner is wearing out. Just trying to find this out. I enjoy my slides and B&W negs anyway.

[howard_owen]

If you think your scanner is dying, you might look into the Nikon 4-5000 and a wet mount system. There is one (wet mount) available but I can't remember who makes it off the top of my head

[scott_brim]

Most of my scanning using my CS 5000 is done against legacy Kodachrome II and Kodachrome 25. Mostly I get good results if I work at it.

 

But I do shoot some Elitechrome 100 once in awhile as a backup to my digital camera, and I find that you have to go back to basics if you want good results with a film camera. If you want a sharp photo and colors that aren't muddy or too grainy when scanned, keep exposures on target, keep the camera steady, and use the optimum f-stop/shutter speed combination for the lighting conditions.

 

However, I do find that a scan from a 35-year old well-exposed Kodachrome II slide beats anything I can do when scanning current 35mm films; i.e., obtaining excellent sharpness at 4000 dpi with little to very moderate grain.

[erik scanhancer]

Your B&W photos look overdeveloped (or overexposed). This can especially be seen in the

highlights that are grainy. Your slide scan looks quite good, but there are traces of pepper

grain (which isn't grain, but tiny little airbubbles in the film base). Pepper grain can be well

eliminated using a more diffuse light source combined with ICE dust removal. Overly gritty

grain in negative film can be pushed back a lot by using a more diffuse lighting source as

well, especially because NeatImage will work more effectively.

[jtk]

Ronald H,... those are fine photos.

 

OK, if you want to worry, you've lost highlight tone in two of them. Presumably you wanted that and could get different tonality if you cared.

 

If that small amount of grain bothers you, you're a lost cause :-)

 

You'd never get that beautiful bokeh (girl #2) with your D70, and it'll force feed artificial-looking fine detail on you ...you may miss film's reality factor. I think the B&W film rival is Canon 5D (don't know about D200).

[robert goldstein]

Personally, I think that your standards have risen since you started shooting digitally. I know

that mine have. Still, you should be able to get very good results from well done scans. Up

until recently, I used a Minolta 5400 to scan Astia 100F and Provia 400F, and I was very

satisfied. I never bothered with 3rd party software, as I felt that the Dimage Scan performed

admirably. Setting the proper pre-scan exposure was critical, and it was rare that I was

unable to capture the full tonal range present on the film.

[bobmichaels]

I used to have a Scan Dual II and have a MultiPro now. I've compared a lot of scans and prints from others who have 5000 and 9000's. I can assure that you are not being constrained by using the SD II.

 

Scanned 35mm film and digital capture will always look a bit different, especially b&w. Neither is better, just personal preference. But it seems you have come to like the look of digital capture and are now trying to duplicate that with film. It's not going to happen. So use whatever gives you the results you like.

[lookupinwonder]

Hi John,

 

I think you are right on the money. The negs ARE overdeveloped. I have enough experience with the FM's metering to know that it wasn't overexposure. I don't develop myself, but lately my trusted lab is slipping a bit it seems. I tried to hang on to as much highlight detail as possible in PP.

 

Also very true that it would be impossible to get the selective focus in image two with the D200. It's taken at f2 (a.k.a wide open) and 1/1000th of a second.

 

Anyway, I'm going to take some material to an old friend with a high-end Nikon scanner to see what he can make of them.

[User_503771]

Have you been shooting digital for a while? From your post, it sounds as though you're coming back to working with film after a hiatus, during which you've become accustomed to working with digital cameras.

 

I really think we need to remember that they're two different media!

 

I think your scans are wonderful, regardless of exposure issues. Grain is a part of the film-photography terrain, and was never really an issue in the days before digital. Sure, people were looking to minimize it, or get a different "look" from it, all the time. But it's an accepted part of that medium.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, or can't see the detail you can see with full-res scans on your screen? But these look really clean to me, and I'll bet the "depth" of detail you're getting in your scans is much better than you'd ever get with your digital camera.

 

I'm speaking as one who has been working with digital seriously for only a couple of years, while still also working with film cameras. I really don't consider digital "up to snuff" in some ways -- but wonderfully adequate in others -- when compared head-to-head with film.

 

But when I treat them as two different media, with different attributes, I'm much happier and, thus, more creative.

 

My favorite digital results, technically, so far have been from film scanned, and that only with color. I always prefer to take a medium format or 4x5 black and white negative into the darkroom.

 

But then again, I'm also thoroughly happy, both technically and artistically, with much of the work I've been doing with my digital camera.

 

But I'd go crazy if I didn't keep them as separate media.

 

If your standards have changed since your last work with film, perhaps you just need to re-examine how you adjust your settings for your scans? Tweak your settings for the initial scans, and try some different settings in your post-processing work?

 

Have you printed these pictures, see how it all looks on paper? That is the final result, in the workflow, isn't it?

 

I've seen a lot of black and white work over the years, some of it exposed the way yours appears to be, some not. Perhaps your darkroom prints are different than the scans? Is that the issue? Or maybe you need to experiment with multiple exposures from the negs and then put them together as an HDR combo?

 

I don't know if any of this is helpful, but it's written from this viewpoint: I looked at your scans, and asked myself "What's wrong with these?!?!?" I couldn't find anything wrong with them, they just look like terrific film scans to me.

[lookupinwonder]

Thanks Michael,

 

Your comments make a lot of sense, especially the one treating film and digital as seperate media.

 

I indeed are coming back to film. Last year I bought a Nikon FM from a collector. Put some rolls through it, tried my Sigma 20mm f1.8 on it and got refreshingly different results as compared to my digital work. I also made some 'refreshing' mistakes as well.

 

The different settings you mention I have already tried, I'm well aware of what Vuescan and my scanner can do. As stated before, I do not have a darkroom, nor do I have prints from these negatives.

 

This thread is deviating quite a bit from my original intentions to be fair. It is very nice to discuss techniques and objectives, but my main question was if the amount of grain I got from my scans/scanner is 'normal' because it seemed excessive compared to digital and my memory.

 

As for the nuances of working with film in the analogue domain... to be continued.