Scanning - what's going wrong?

[kiro]

I recently shot a roll through my new PinHolga and am running into some issues. I had the expected blurring from

such a camera, and desired that anyways. However, in my Brilliant Plan™, I was going to have the 120 negs

scanned and then play with them in Photoshop and then print them. Well, I had them scanned by a friend who

happens to have an Imacon film scanner (don't remember the model num, but it's one of the substantial models).

On screen, I could see there was some film grain, but that was to be expected - this is film after all. She

scanned the film at 300dpi, and targeted 10"X10", so these files were about 3000x3000. <p>

I just got the prints back and am a bit surprised to be honest. I had them printed at 8x8, and the film grain is

quite substantial, to be sure. I dug out some of my old darkroom prints, and the film grain from these medium

format scanned color negatives is about the same as the film grain from 35mm 8X10 prints made on a condenser

enlarger (both the 35mm and 120 were 100iso films).<p>

Am I being too picky? It would seem to me that I should get a LOT less grain at the same print size from a

medium format negative, even if it did get scanned. Should I have it scanned at a different resolution?<p>Thanks

for any and all help

[evan_goulet]

I don't think you are actually resolving the grain at that scanning resolution (~1350 ppi at the negative). You are probably seeing noise from the scanner (you don't mention which scanner) particularly if the negatives are under- or overexposed.

[evan_goulet]

Sorry, you do say which scanner... I glossed over that.

[Stock-Photos]

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

[bruce_watson1]

Hard to say without seeing the problem. Which film? When scanned was scanner sharpening turned completely off (with an Imacon that's not zero, it's -120 IIRC)?

[kiro]

Film is Fuji Reala 100 ISO 120 format

 

I have no idea about whether or not the sharpening was off. It wasn't me doing the scanning, and I'm a complete

noob at scanning. Following this post are the 100% crop and sample of the whole image - and yes, there's blur,

these are the first photos out of a new pinhole cam<div></div>

[kiro]

here it is<div></div>

[kiro]

J Harrington - Thanks for the link on the grain aliasing. Interesting info. So, basically what I'm reading there is "get your own scanner, and make sure it has software to eliminate film grain." I look at scanners and they include, if anything, Silverfast Ai. Will it solve my woes? Or would I still have to get Digital ICE and GEM separately? How does Silverfast Ai compare to ICE/GEM? Any thoughts on the Microtek ArtixScan M1 (it handles all the file formats I use)? And yes, I can think of some other questions to ask :)

[kiro]

that says to me that I need to get a better workflow, because if you can do 20x30 without noticeable grain, then i should certainly be able to print 8x8 without grain.

[kiro]

<i>Are you saying that you have apparent grain in 8" X 8" prints from your 120 Fuji Reala?</i><br>

Yes, and in fact the apparent grain in an 8X8 from 120 Reala is the same or worse than 8X10 from 35mm TMax<p>

I'm guessing that the issue is in the scan, because when I look at it on my monitor at print size, I can see the

grain there too. So the question is - what can I do differently with the scan? Or should I just get a setup that

involves Digital ICE/GEM or Silverfast Ai?

[roger_smith4]

I'd use Noise Ninja on the sky- the rest looks fine.

 

For future shots try to give it a bit more light to reduce grain. I find it hard to overexpose 35mm Reala.

 

ICE and Silverfast don't have much to do with grain but a different scanner might not accentuate it as much.

[obakesan]

Kier

 

firstly I find the muddled up DPI stuff frustrating, you scanned at 300 dpi or you scanned at something else, but this 300dpi@10X10 is really stating your print stuff. I don't know why it seems to be so hard...

 

anyway, I have also a Holga pinhole which uses 120 film although mine's a 6x9 / 6x12 mask. I'm surprised at the grain you're getting there as I don't get stuff like that on negative film (Fuji Pro160S) when scanning that to 3000 pixels here

 

BTW I think that the simplest way to talk about scanning is in just only the Dots Per Inch which the scanner makes from the film. So, if the film is 9cm (or 3.5 inches) then a 1000dpi scan will give you an file (digital image) which is 3500 pixels wide. My scans here at 1200 dpi give me results which don't show any where near that much grain (but then I'm scanning with a scanner which probably isn't sharp enough for that anyway). None the less, a file that is 4000 pixels wide printed at 254dpi (native res for a durst lambda) will give you a 15inches wide print (probably with out grain).

 

anyway ... which holga have you got?

 

:-)

[obakesan]

Kier

 

pardon what may come across as me being cranky at *you* ... its not the case ... I'm actually just cranky at something which has been a personal bug of mine for the last 10 or so years of so many people in this 'industry' not having any standard (or apparently any clue about gear or technology).

 

just in case you felt it was an offensive remark my apology in advance :-)

[kiro]

Roger - I gotta believe there's a better solution to this than noise ninja. And if there's not, then I'll just put my money into a color darkroom.

 

Chris - good point on the dpi stuff. shows how much of a noob i am at scanning. doing the math, it looks like they were scanned at 1333 dpi (2.25X2.25 neg to 10X10 @ 300 dpi print). My holga is just a base level 120CN that I modified myself. it has a 0.2mm pinhole and a 30mm focal length, which gives it a 110 degree field of view. i would like to build a wide format one soon as well

[erik scanhancer]

You might like to have a look at my website for a better understanding of the grain issue with film scanners:

www.scanhancer.com . Unfortunately I have no solution for Imacon scanners. The only one that comes close to the

result with a Scanhancer is the Imacon 949 as it has a built-in diffuser, similar to my Scanhancer thingy. Especially have

a look at this page:

 

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=35&men=10 .

 

Also have a look at this Imacon 949 review that adresses part of the problems involved here:

 

http://www.giorgiotrucco.com/articles/Imacon%20949%20Review.pdf

[obakesan]

Kier

 

must have forgotten to "confirm" my last post. Anyway, don't feel bad about the DPI thing, even "old hands" seem

to have managed to turn that into some sort of knot in their minds (perhaps it helps add to the mystique of what

they do)

 

Anyway, rather than build a wide pinhole, perhaps have a look at the 6x9 / 6x12 they already make

 

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2008/05/holga-pinhole-camera.html

 

I really enjoy mine, and it works better than anything I'd have made myself.