Scanned Fuji 400H negatives seem grainy

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm making a return to using film after a few years of messing around with a D80 and have a question about scanning negatives.<br>

I had a roll of Fuji 400H processed at a lab here in Hong Kong and the prints came out alright - nothing special in particular - I had the negs scanned as well and they look *very* grainy onscreen at anything over about 25% which I suppose would be roughly equivalent to the prints in size.<br>

Regardless of technique, I think enlargements by any means would look grainy.<br>

So, is it me or the film, or, that particular film?<br>

Looking forward to hearing back from someone.<br>

Thanks for reading.<br>

Regards,<br>

Spencer.</p>

<p> </p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>It's not you, it's not the film, it's the scanner. Probably. Minilab scanners can really crank up the contrast, sharpening, etc so the scans looks pretty awful. </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>What type of lab?<br>

What is the scan resolution in dpi?<br>

I assume this is 35mm.<br>

The best I've seen from 1 hour processor scans is a 4x6 print. Too high a dpi scan can introduce noise and/or exaggerate the film grain.<br>

Can you post an example?</p>

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

Thanks for the quick replies!<br>

The film was processed at a cheapo lab but were scanned at a pro lab: http://www.colorsix.com/ and the scans are 1200 x 1800.<br>

I've quickly opened a flickr account so that you can have a look at two samples.The shots are not processed in any other way - as you can see there is some grain!<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spenceri/5536346131/<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spenceri/5536924636/<br>

Thanks again for your help.<br>

Regards,<br>

Spencer.</p>

<p> </p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>That file size isn't particularly high res. The first image looks to have underexposure then brightened up in the scan, which will emphasize grain. The second looks fine on my laptop at least</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well film has grain it's supposed to be there. Make some test prints and see how they look if the prints look fine then don't worry about it. If the prints are too grainy then consider if the scanning is the problem or if the film or film format is not suitable for the size prints you want to make.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>I agree with Chris. Minilab scans that try to compensate for underexposure OR frames with a lot of black in them tend to be grainy and muddy looking like your first scan. Either get someone different to scan them with the right black level or adjust the scan at home in Photoshop. And of course avoid underexposure.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Underexposure, and even darker areas in a frame that is on the whole properly exposed, make the grain more visible. Combine that with typical minilab scans (did your pro lab merely run the film through a minilab scanner?) where the contrast is increased too much and there's too much sharpening and they will look grainy. But I suspect that you will find that in general 400-speed film has more grain than otherwise-comparable shots from your D80 have noise.</p>

 

[randall_pukalo]

<p>The white "noise" in the dark shadow areas is common to expired, or soon to be expired negative films over iso 100. Always buy super fresh negative film - I always look for at least a year and preferably two, before the expiration date.</p>

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Thanks everyone for the responses - looks like there are a lot of interested people on this forum.<br>

I'll find out how the lab does its scans and watch for exposure.<br>

All the best!<br>

Regards,<br>

Spencer.</p>

<p> </p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>Commercial lab max resolution for a print is 300dpi. Higher resolution has little or no visual improvement to the average person at normal viewing distance. Divide your 1200x1800 scan by 300 and you get 4x6. Divide your scans by 8x10 print size and you get 150x180 which for most snapshots will be ok. <br>

Have the film scanned at the maximum resolution you plan to have prints made or the largest print size you want to be able to have printed. A 11x14 scanned for 300dpi print resolution will be 3300x4200dpi. Pro scans of this size get expensive, a dedicated 35mm film scanner that is capable of good quality scans pays for itself quickly.</p>

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Thanks Charles - knowing this allows me to ask for the right type of scan - that's very helpful. I probably won't do enough to justify my own scanner - a dedicated negative scanner is probably a bit out of my league.<br>

Thanks again for your help.<br>

Regards,<br>

Spencer.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Fuji 400H: little grain if correctly exposed and scanned.</p>

<div></div>

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Thanks - is there a 'best method' for this film?</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Agreed with other posters - it is probably your lab. Our lab has two levels of 'entire roll' scanning. One is a 300 dpi 4x6 jpg, and the other is around a 300 dpi 8x12 tif. The tif scans take much longer (and thus cost much more), so most customers opt for the jpgs. Many minilabs work this way.</p>

<p>If it's a one-hour lab (and not a professional lab), there is also the very strong possibility that the film developing machine is out of calibration, or that the chemicals need to be replenished or even replaced. This could exaggerate your film grain and contrast, which the scanner would then pick up on.</p>

<p>In the 35mm format, pixel-peepers won't need to zoom in to 100% to see grain from 400H. You should at least be at 50% or 66.7% before it's too noticable though.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

This is easy. Meter for shadow to low midtone valures, at iso 160 - 200. Have Richard Photo Lab in LA do a high rez scan and process. They mail back ur negs. U download scans via ftp. Done. Beautiful results. You will reach for the DSLR rartely after seeing your scans!

[spencer_isaachsen]

<p>Thanks Dave - I think I'll try and stick with labs in Hong Kong. I'm too impatient for post to LA :)</p>