Caused by film or scanner?

[jonathans]

<p>I shot a roll of Kodak Tri-X Pan 400 the other day and had it developed and scanned at the local lab.  The negatives look OK, but I don't have a loupe handy to really check them out.  The scans, however, are very grainy/noisy.  My first thought was the film must be the grainiest ever, but after searching through the archives I'm starting to suspect it's the scanning (which is dissapointing, as I'd hoped to use them until I can learn to develop B&W myself and acquire a decent film scanner).  At this point, I'm hoping it is just their scanner - I like some of the shots on the roll but this level of grain/noise is a bit excessive for my tastes!</p>

<p><br /> Here's one of the images:  </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I had some Tri-X processed by pros, as opposed to my home processing using HC110 dilution B, and it had a massive increase in graininess. The scanner too could be a factor. Scanners with more directional lightsource (Coolscans for example) are merciless at accentuating grain.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Scanning b&w film is a craft unto itself, akin to mastering the conventional darkroom techniques.  You really need to do it yourself for best results.  This section, <a title="Film scanning (B&W only)" href="?category=Film+scanning+%28B%26W+only%29" title="Film scanning (B&W only)">http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/?category=Film+scanning+%28B%26W+only%29</a> , has several previous discussions with some tips that may help.</p>

<p>I've found Vuescan very helpful with getting the best results from my old Minolta Scan Dual.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>You might want to check what developer was used. 2 secrets to B&W is 1. do it yourself and 2. Do it yourself.<br>

Scanning B&W can at times be a problem but you learn as you go like Lex said it can be an art. Tri-X though not a fine grain film looks wonderful in HC-110 and if I do want to show more grain to get a mood I use Rodinal.<br>

 </p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p><span style="color: black; font-family: "Lithos Pro Regular";"><span style="font-size: small;">Vuescan has a grain reduction filter (in the Filter tab), that might help.</span></span><br /><span style="color: black; font-family: "Lithos Pro Regular";"><span style="font-size: small;">Hmm, maybe the grain always looks better on the other side? I've experimented with desaturating dslr images, and then <span style="text-decoration: underline;">adding</span> grain.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="color: black; font-family: "Lithos Pro Regular";"></span></p>

<p><span style="color: black; font-family: "Lithos Pro Regular";"><span style="font-size: small;">(Excuse the font, just having a little fun with the new editor)</span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: "Lithos Pro Regular";"><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span><br /> </p>

[peter_dalton]

This looks like typical Tri-X grain - I don't think its noise from the scanner. There are also some JPEG artifacts which are making the grain look worse in places (I am hoping they gave you TIFs and you just converted to JPEG to post). FWIW Tri-X is about the grainiest ISO 400 film from the first tier manufacturers.

[robert lee]

<p>The image as posted is way, way too grainy for Tri-X even in 135.  At only 700x1000 pixels, it should be about as noiseless as low ISO digital.<br>

Is this really the resolution file the lab provided?  If this is the case, then the poor file quality is an artifact of the low resolution scan.  Have them re-scan to at least a 6MP file.  If you then resample the file down to 700x1000 using any algorithm other than nearest neighbor, the grain will disappear and the apparent accutance will increase to boot. <br>

As an experiment, try resampling using nearest neighbor.  You'll get back the high noise image just like the one posted.</p>

[don_e]

<p>Could be the scan -- or the jpeg compression, or the resampling, or the development, or the exposure, or all of them. Scanning silver b&w is not simple, and having a lab develop it, especially if it is just handed to them over the counter, will not likely produce the best result. What is the intended use of the image? A print? If so, have a print made and see what it looks like. Having a touch of grain-phobia, TriX is not the best film to shoot.<br>

 </p>

[jonathans]

<p>Thanks for all the replies.  I'll have to investigate the local store a bit more and see if they can do better quality scans.  I was expecting TIFF or at least high-quality jpegs, but the files I got back were around 1 meg each (and I'm missing a few images, they apparently never made it through the scanner).  <br>

As for doing it myself - that's the goal, and if all goes as planned I'll be acquiring the various bits I need to do so and starting to learn.  </p>

[don_e]

<p>If they don't provide larger scans, or you can't find anything else locally, Dwayne's (dwaynesphoto.com) will develop and scan silver b&w.  The scans are about 6 megapixels (or about 3000x2000). <br>

With silver b&w, the most you can hope for are clean negatives when having a consumer-lab do the devel.  You have no control as you will have in the darkroom where you can exercise some control over grain.<br>

 </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For now, if you're not in a position to develop or scan b&w film yourself, I'd strongly recommend sticking with a chromogenic monochrome b&w film.  Ilford XP2 Super is your best bet if you plan to eventually do any conventional darkroom printing; otherwise, Kodak's stuff scans very well.  Even an indifferent minilab should be able to handle these films without excessive grain and ugly artifacts.</p>

<p>Next best thing, if you can get your lab to cooperate, is to rate Tri-X at EI 200-320.  Avoid underexposure.  And it's essential that the lab avoid overdevelopment.  Excessive development, which many labs tend toward, exaggerates grain and scanning will reveal every flaw.</p>

<p>Or try T-Max films.  TMX and TMY both scan with finer grain.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>What Lex said if you can't follow the 2 rules I said earlyer... :) The XP-2 and Kodak C-41 B&W are nice... but underexposed they show what looks like grain but is a dye cloud ... Finest 400 film iff shot at 400 past 800 it shows much Dye Cloud.... Grain.. never noise... that is an ugly term that has no visual.<br>

 </p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>I've done a good bit of this myself and the graininess is nearly always attributable to certain high resolution scanners of famous make.  We have several brands of scanners in our department including very famous makes.  Our best results for b/w, old Kodachrome, and troublesome color print films (including Interneg Films) are the Epsons.  I have an Epson 3200 in my office and an Epson 4780 in my home office, I personally paid for these and I could afford some more expensive rigs.<br>

Lynn</p>