Scanning Negs: Fuji vs. Canon

[matthew_delphenich]

<p>Hi all, I'm sure this sounds pretty similar to plenty of posts here but I couldn't find exactly the information that I was looking for so I thought I'd ask my own question. Yesterday I received and scanned 4 rolls of Fuji Pro 400H (120) that I had shot over spring break. I had always used Portra (160 and 400) and was happy with my results, but the salesman at Calumet convinced me to give the Fuji a try, saying that it was "designed for scanning". The results seem generally fine and generally even sharper than the kodak (which could be due to better scanning) but I notice that the shadows have pretty significant grain. I rated the film at ISO 200, so the shadows should be dense enough to avoid this, but the grain creeps into just about all of my shots, even well into the higher mid-tones in some. What I'm trying to figure out now is whether there is a better way to scan them (V750, Epson Scan software) to get better results, or if the Fuji is just inherently grainier than the Kodak? I would consider many of the shots verging on "unacceptable" even though my exposure looks fairly accurate. I'm beginning to think that whoever said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" was onto something! Thanks in advance!</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>If you like the Kodak and the results you get from it than stick with it. Some films scan differently from others and film all look different so maybe you prefer the Kodak stock.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>There's always Vuescan, which lets you do more precise calibrations for different films. However, I don't really see a reason to go to Fuji if you already like the Kodak film. Really, these days, all C41 films are made for scanning - most people stopped doing color optical printing several years ago and Kodak and Fuji know that. The current generation of Portra, and Ektar and BW400CN, are all scanner films.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Kodak has revised the Portra films one or two times (depending on the film) over the last 3 years. Fuji has renamed their professional C-41 films once over the last 3 years, and is now discontinuing most of them. Kodak has out-invested Fuji in this market, and it shows in the market results.<br>

There are certainly some real features in the Fuji films. The fourth layer does help with nasty mixed lighting situations. But adjusting one's workflow to a discontinued film (only 400H survives for now) seems a bad idea.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>With negative film, its all about the expiration date. I avaoid any neg that is not fresh for at least another year. Looks like you may have gotton film that is expired, or close to expiration. It should not be that grainy, especially as you shot it at 200.</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>The limited DMAx of the Epson scanner will produce noise output where the negative is too thin for it to handle (in the shadows). I think you have a combination of grain and scanner noise.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Randall, this issue has nothing to do with expiry of the neg film. I've got NPS and NPH negs from 11 year batches that scan just fine. What you're seeing is not grain, but scanner noise.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Dave is right. Are the negs "thin"? If there isn't enough exposure in the shadows, the software will try to compensate by amplifying the values it reads, which will amplify any noise from the scan. You often see this in underexposed negs or shadow areas.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>I doubt it's scanner noise. Unless you grossly underexpose the negative when scanning, your scanner shouldn't have much noise at all.<br>

Grain in underexposed negs is in the negative itself. You can test it yourself by scanning at different exposures and seeing if it will go away. Can you post a crop of the offending image?<br>

Here is a sample of scanner noise and also some techniques to deal with it. You can perform similar tests with your scanner.<br>

http://jingai.com/scanningguide/slide%20noise%20reduction.html</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>One other point- the underexposed parts of negative film (shadows) are close to clear. Scanner noise is found when scanning dense areas, which should be the *highlights* of negative film, not the shadows.</p>

[xxloverxx]

<p>That looks like digital noise to me. I shoot 400H (in 35mm though) and Portra 400NC (in 35mm again) and both scan fine without any scanner noise. It should be noted that I don't scan myself; the lab does it all for me. I also ask them to give me straight scans without any editing at all (which gives a few colour casts, but I just fix that myself)</p>

<p>I find the grain of both 400H and Portra to be pretty fine (better than Superia anyway!) and almost equal (haven't compared them side-by-side, nor have I shot the same subjects in the same lighting with them. I just shoot.)<br>

It may just be me but Portra might have slightly finer grain than 400H.<br>

If I had to choose one, I'd go with Portra. Unfortunately it's very difficult to find in HK (I've only seen 160VC)</p>