Velvia 50 & Fugi Frontier Scan

[peter_korzaan]

<p>Just graduating into the wonderful world of slide film. Took a couple of rolls of Velvia 50 and had them developed and scanned by a professional imaging lab, not a mini lab. They have high resolution virtual drum scans, economy scans with a file size larger than their Fuji Frontier scans, and the normal frontier scan. I went total economy and had two rolls frontier scanned before mounting, rather than selecting slides, and having them scanned later, and have a few questions. </p>

<p>Because the film is Velvia 50, does the 'staff operator' need to change any settings for the scan, as compared to other slide films, before a full roll is most likely done automatically? (I don't know if this is the case on how this stuff is done, but suspect that there is a little as possible technical study of the film that has been developed. More of a slam bam thank you man process.)</p>

<p>The reason I ask, is the example of one slide below, and I have several in this two roll group, out of two different camera bodies, and two different TTL metering, which show the same ... what, contrasty, grainy appearance. The slides before and after, in bracket shot, are OK.<br>

So shat is this a sign of? Scanning, underexposure or...</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[peter_korzaan]

<p>Hmmm can't really see it, here is a zoom and crop, maybe it will show up better.</p><div></div>

[tom_aellis1]

<p>The short answer is YES.<br>

Now, here is a gent that is an awesome photographer, 100 pct film, and has his own Frontier SP-2500 scanner. (But he swears to the Noritsu Processor however) jonathan@jonathancanlasphotography.com<br>

And here is his web site so you can see his results: http://canlasphotography.blogspot.com/2009/10/alyssa-joseph-washington-dc.html<br>

He is a fine guy who shares so I know he will not mind if you hit him up.<br>

Good luck.</p>

[greg_peterson3]

<p>It might be noise introduced by the scanner trying to compress the dynamic range of a very contrasty image. (Automated scans often do stuff like this.)</p>

<p>Without "auto contrast" the scan might have looked more like this:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[patrick_mont]

<p>I think it is worth it to have the lab make scans right at the time of processing if you plan on using them. If your lab is too expensive than you may want to try another.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Korzann....</p>

<p>Here is a scan of Velvia 50 done on a home model Nikon scanner at 4000 PPI, much higher than your scan was done at. My scan is typical of Velvia grain, I've seen many. Yours is not. Go here:</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=937554">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=937554</a></p>

<p>The whole frame from a 6x7 camera is on the left. Looking at that, you can see what a small portion of film is in the cut to the right. Scanning-wise, the cut to the right is really getting down to the short strokes. If grain/dye clumps were going to show up, they would show up on the right hand shot. A pixel for pixel cut is on the right. Tap on the right image and after it gets larger, tap again to see the cut, pixel per pixel, at 4000 PPI. You can see it is practically grainless. And no, those two dots above the mountains in the upper right hand portion are not flying saucers. They are dirt particles imbedded in the emulsion, courtesy of the last E 6 processor in town, who obviously is doing his best to go out of business.</p>

<p>Looking at your cut above, which was done at a much lower resolution, had it been at 4000 PPI, that grain (really dye clumps) would have been as big as dimes on your screen. I've scanned a lot of Velvia with my lower price home scanners and have never seen grain like that come from Velvia at any amount of over or under exposure. I own and have scanned Velvia on an Epson 2450 flatbed, an Epson 4180 flatbed at 4800 PPI (supposedly), a Minolta 5400II slide scanner, and three Nikons, a IV, 5000, and 9000.</p>

<p>My conclusion, from having scanned way over and way under exposed Velvia 50 on so many different scanners and having never gotten your results, is that you had poor processing and/or poor scanning done. Maybe your professional imaging lab owner went to business school with the owner of the shop who added the "flying saucers" to my film.</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>No scanner designed for high-throughput C-41 scanning (thus, Frontier, Noritsu, etc.) is going to scan Velvia or Kodachrome worth squat. They are designed to get detail out of dense areas of the transparency, since C-41 negatives never are very dense, even in the highlights. The shadows of Velvia and Kodachrome are about the densest thing you will ever find on color film that has any picture information. So the mini-lab scanners just generate noise, instead of signal, in the shadows.</p>

 

[david_henderson]

<p>It is kind of difficult to know just where to start.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>There are a lot of scanning threads here, and it is almost rare for questioners to say what they intend to use the scans for. Yet thats what drives the scanning route to select. For example you wouldn't choose Frontier scans if making a large print was the objective. You wouldn't pay for a drum scan to post a photograph on the web.</li>

<li>You say you didn't go to a mini-lab. Well the Frontier pretty much<strong><em> is</em></strong> a mini lab, irrespective of where you found it. These machines are essentially there so a lab owner can output large volumes of smallish prints quickly and cheaply without a lot of manual intervention. For the price you paid for the scans no-one is going to spend time checking each one. The machine will either do it well or badly, and frankly it's possible that no-one will ever know till you. I know you said pro lab, and I'm sure they offer good quality labour-intensive products at a price. But the Frontier isn't it, and its purpose is different. The scanner has long been regarded as the Frontier's weakness, and in any case it is most likely optimised for prints from neg film. Its entirely likely that you could take a roll of Reala or whatever in there and come out with a decent set of prints and a much nicer set of scans.</li>

<li>We can't see the original slide, but I'd bet that it isn't too far from Greg Peterson's estimation, with blown highlights and deep black shadows with no detail. Velvia doesn't cope well with contrasty scenes like this without a lot of help. Even that wouldn't work too well in this case because of the complexity of the light/dark patches. Meanwhile many colour neg films could have coped with your scene much better. I have little doubt that the nasty scan you have is because the scanner has tried to give you detail in areas where there is none, and settled for noise instead. What you see isn't grain, its noise.</li>

<li>Other scanners might have failed a little more gloriously and more expensively but if your transparency has big areas of black shadow and some areas of burned out highlight then no scanner can make up what isn't there. The basic problem here is that you started off with a poor photograph for Velvia; or that if you must make that photograph then a poor film choice for it. So it all starts there and gets worse.</li>

</ul>

<p>I really think you should review your objectives and methods here. You'd likely find it a lot easier to get a decent quality print and scan with neg film or indeed with a dslr. If you continue to use slide film then you will need to accept that you need to control the contrast much better and that scanning is rarely a way of making a poor image good. You might also consider whether scanning everything you take, rather than just the good ones that you either intend to put on screen or print, is a great idea. If your heart's desire is 36 decent prints and a CD of decent but low cost scans, then I think you should be thinking hard about whether Velvia is a good place to start.</p>

 

[peter_korzaan]

<p>"What you see isn't grain, its noise." AKA... there's nothing there to scan ... da, that makes sense.</p>

<p>David.. you and the others have given me new incites and understanding of what I'm trying to do. Which is functional, but I'm not going about it incorrectly.<br>

I take two camera bodies with me. First year of taking up photography, both had negative film in them, Walgreen's 200, to learn the camera's and techniques. Hey, I'm using classic manual Nikons. Then moved up to one camera body with Walgreen's and the other with Fugi Superia Reala, some Kodak with PortraVC, which I like the best, and now Extra.<br>

This year I started loading one of the camera bodies with slide film, and the other, still, with the better quality negative film. Been shooting Fugi Provia, which I like, Vellia 100, one role only of 100f, and now vellvia 50 in the slide camera body. Shooting similar scenes with both camera's and getting my exposure down tighter with the slide film, so that the exposures have been more 'successful', and beginning to really love slide film.<br>

The question as you have shown, is not about scanning, but what kind of scene I am shooting. Then choosing the correct film, negative or slide, which would be best for it. Not, as I have been doing, shooting with both, for comparison. But being new to Velvia 50, and slide film on a whole, I'm learning it parameters, and beginning to get a better perspective. Vellvia 50, as advertised and have read about, is a great film, but has its limitations. Da.. reading about them, and experiencing them, seems to be two different things. ;-)</p>

<p>Thank you.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You can get at the very most five stops of brightness range onto Velvia 50. Some would say 4 . Its a hard film to expose unless you have some means of assessing the actual brightness range of your scene. Best of luck</p>

[peter_korzaan]

<p>Well I got in contact with the lab, and he was able to look at the scan, (they have a copy) and he stated he could see what I was talking about and to send the slides back and they will redo them, even though there mounted now.<br>

Thanks for your input I've learned alot.</p>