Scanning B&W film is grainy

[peteraitch]

<p>I've dug out my old Minolta Scan Elite II, originally to do some (very) backlog scanning. At the same time, I decided to run some Kodak 400TX through my venerable Canon A-1, to check things out. But not everything is going quite to plan...</p>

<p>The scanner was initially temperamental - it had a dodgy OEM power supply, which was tricky to work out since the d.c. output was fine but finally I realised it had loads of a.c. superimposed. Not good, especially when the first 3rd party replacement was duff - but I digress. The camera was easier - checked against my D700 and F80 in centre-averaging mode, it was about 1/3 stop over. I can live with that. The film - well it's about 7 years out of date, kept cool-ish but not cold. Black and white, T-Max, so probably OK. Shot some tests working through the apertures on my three FD-fit lenses and sent the film off to the lab. Peak Imaging have mostly been good in the past but on return the images were thin (problems at my end) and somewhat stained (problems at their end).</p>

<p>For scanning, I've moved to VueScan, since I need something which is natively supported on Windows 7 - virtual machines running XP are a PITA. Not really my ideal choice: I had invested lots of time and become pretty good with the Minolta software; even though it was painfully slow it always got good results in the end. Vuescan is faster, but the results aren't quite as good to my eye. Checked the scanner with some old transparencies - seems to be working OK (although IR dust removal is rubbish compared to the original software).</p>

<p>The Kodak scans are strange - the film is thin, so I would expect dark-ish positives, which is the case with the scans as they appear on-screen - but insanely grainy. Then they suddenly become very bright and are still grainy, grainy, grainy. Once the black point and mid point levels are adjusted, they start to look better, although still quite high-key. Still very grainy, though. I wasn't expecting this level of grain from this film - any suggestions?</p>

<p>Oh, and every now and again the images look as if there has been an information meltdown on the data bus - smeared, ghostly and with bits missing or the frame displaced. The actual real-time scans for these images, as they appear on the screen, are dark and grainy but fine. Only seems to happen with this film - never seen it on colour negatives or positives.</p>

<p>Apologies for the ramble - but there are so many variables it seems best to get them all out there. All comments welcome.</p><div></div>

[peteraitch]

<p>Example of grain at higher magnification (rotated scan section):</p><div></div>

[wogears]

<p>How are you scanning the b/w neg? As b/w? As RGB? What you show is not unusual for ISO 400 film--you are looking at an enormous print with your 100% crop.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>One should not "send film to a lab". If you want b&w developed correctly, you should know what developer they use, and work with them on how long it should be developed. In the old days labs used overly active developers to save on time and these were quite grainy. I doubt Peak does that, but what did they use? It matters. It one uses XTol, for instance (usually excellent) and you go past a certain time, the gran explodes. D-76, ID-11 and HC-110 are very mediocre developers, which are quite common. Rodinal is exceptionally grainy...<br>

If you move yourself down to ISO 100 you will find much tighter grain and you will be happier. Then, move up a size or two. A 6x7 neg has 5 times the area of a 35mm. Mamiya 7 II weighs the same or less than your Canon... A lightweight 4x5 is a wonder, and much more fun. It would work nicely for a shot like this...</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That's normal grain for Tri-X when exposed and developed using the same techniques we'd normally use for optical enlargements. It's practically unavoidable.</p>

<p>For finer grain and easier scans I'd suggest switching to a finer grain film, or modifying your exposure and developing technique for your favored film. For Tri-X try EI 200-320, tops, and a fine grain developer. ID-11 and D-76 aren't bad when used as straight stock solution.</p>

<p>T-Max 100 scans very well. So does FP4+ when exposed at EI 64-80 and given appropriately less development to avoid excessive contrast and grain. Delta 100 seemed okay but I tried only a few rolls before sticking with TMX.</p>

<p>Of the various ISO 400 films I've tried T-Max 400 and Delta 400 do pretty well, but still require some modifications in exposure and development for optimal scans. Often the same techniques suggested for exposing and developing film to suit condenser head enlargers works well for consumer grade scanners.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I've got the Minolta Software running on Windows 7, 32 bit.</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>I also find that Ilford XP-2 chromogenic film scans well and shows little grain.</p>

[peteraitch]

<p>Thanks all - Lex, maybe the grain is just worse than I remember it...</p>

<p>Les - I scanned as B&W KODAX T-MAX on VueScan.</p>

<p>Lenny - I used to have access to a darkroom and did most of my own developing (and some printing, although I was never "expert"). In those days (a decade ago) sending "to the lab" WAS a good alternative, but things seem to have gone downhill somewhat. I notice the film is not especially flat, so I might try Ilford's service next time. The thought of setting up chemicals, a tank, cylinders, thermometer and a dark loading bag at home just for the odd film doesn't really appeal and won't be cost-efficient, despite the undoubted extra control it would grant me. I won't be allowed to keep developer or anything else in the refrigerator, that's for sure!</p>

<p>Mendel - I found the link to the new .inf file since posting here, whilst searching for something else connected with my scanner. Will probably install in the next couple of days. Thanks. It will at least allow A/B testing with VueScan.</p>

<p>Glen - I agree about about XP2 - one of my faves, but seems to apply to chromogenic film in general. I've got some Kodak T400CN loaded right now, for comparison purposes.</p>

<p>Incidentally, I found some Ilford HP5 shots from a while back. Somehow the grain seems better - might just be the subject.</p><div></div>

[peter_langfelder]

<p>If you have a thin negative, the range of densities on the film is very narrow. To get a full contrast image, vuescan (or any other software) will stretch the curves to increase contrast, which also accentuates grain. You other image was probably exposed well and developed normally, and would have had a large range of densities (the white parts lit by the sun must have been very bright). Thus, the grain would show much less.<br>

<br />I also agree with other posters that ISO 400 classic B&W films were quite grainy when scanned (I personally used a Minolta 5400 scanner and mostly used Neopan 400). ISO 100 T-grain films (including Fuji Acros) were much better, although Fuji Neopan 100 SS (which was an old-style film) was still very grainy when scanned.</p>

[peteraitch]

<p>Peter, thanks - this is consistent with what I saw on the levels histogram when reviewing the scans. Interestingly, both images were shot under similar weather conditions, early afternoon in bright Sun, during late May/early June in locations only a few miles apart, with the same camera (A-1) and lens (50mm f1.8 FD). So, two different ISO 400 films, with no intentional pushing or pulling during exposure or development, exposed approximately a decade apart. The Tri-X was always kept in a freezer until about 18 months ago, so should not have aged too badly.</p>

<p>My favourite film used to be FP4+ but I've used Acros and found it to be very fine-grained indeed - a big selling point at the time, if I remember correctly. Eventually I moved to ISO 400 film in B&W because I found it more flexible, given that the speed was fixed for all 36 exposures, hence the HP5, Tri-X and chromogenics. (For colour, ISO 200 was a good compromise between grain and speed but I hardly ever use any now, only the odd roll of E-6 ,where Velvia 100 became my preference, even though it could be surprisingly tricky to scan).</p>

<p>Currently, I'm planning to work through the rag-bag of films I still have left, other than the C-41 stuff (which will have to go to a good home) and a roll of Delta 3200, expiry 2006, which has already gone in the bin!</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Peter, not suggesting you have to do it yourself, my point was that you should have a conversation with the lab about what they are using. I am a scanning professional and I've done a lot of research on this. What I can tell you is that the best film to scan with is Ilford's Delta 100, TMax or TMY2 (or ISO 25 traditional films). The best developer for these is either Xtol, or a Pyro variant.</p>

<p>HP5 is not even in the running, Rodinal is not recommended and chromogenic b&w doesn't have the range of a normal b&w film. What one is looking for is a full range of tones, very tight grain, and lots of it. That takes away solvent type developers, and over active ones, like Rodinal, as well as starting with film with large grain. There is a way to succeed here.</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Me like XP-2, too.<br /> Here's a crop from an XP-2 shot with a Nikon 2020 at 100% crop. The inset is the original.</p>

<p>There's texture, but pretty incredible to me. We're a long way from Verichrome Pan, aren't we?</p>

<p>Scanned on Canoscan 4000 (now deceased) at 4000 ppi.</p><div></div>

[peteraitch]

<p>Lenny, thanks for your expert input: your suggestions will be really useful next time I have some film developed. Incidentally, the shot above used "old" HP5 rather than HP5+, which some people say is much less good. Like JDM, I still have a soft spot for XP2, probably because it is so easy to scan, although it clearly has a rather different "look" to traditional B&W films.<br /> <br /> Once I've used up my small stock of expired films (including those 3 rolls of SFX!), I'll probably give TMY a go. If I can get that more "traditional" look, plus low grain and excellent scanning, I'll be very happy.<br /> <br /> I'm aware there is a tension between "traditional look" and low grain, but hopefully people will understand what I mean.<br /> <br /> Oh, and apologies to Glenn for the typo in his name!</p>

[Glenn McCreery]

<p>Peter, no problem misspelling my name. I have friends from over 50 years who consistently or inconsistently misspell it.</p>

[hank_morris1]

<p >"<a name="00cd6s"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=517754">Mendel Leisk</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 06, 2014; 10:08 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I've got the Minolta Software running on Windows 7, 32 bit."</p>

<p>How did you do that please? :-)</p>

 

[david_l3]

<p>What hasn't been mentioned is scanner noise from the CCD sensor. The second high magnification photo shows it in the dark section which should be smooth black. Noise factors in more with older scanners with older CCD technology. Also there's grain aliasing that sometimes causes extra big grain in scans but which does not exist in the negative. Aliasing is a characteristic of the scanner's native resolution, and the lower it is the worse typically. Grain aliasing happens mostly with large smooth areas, like an expanse of clear sky. Where there are many changes in tone and edges of details aliasing is less of a problem. I have dealt with these image quality issues often enough to appreciate how hard it is to get a good scan with certain combinations of film and subjects. For the curious, search grain aliasing and Nyquist frequency. </p>