Grainy Portra 400 scans

[april_holtan]

<p><br />I'm a wedding photographer who has shot digital exclusively and I'm playing around with film. I bought a used Canon EOS 3 and shot two rolls of Kodak Portra 400. It was developed and scanned at North Coast Photographic Services and I guess they don't say what kind of a scanner they use. Is this kind of grain normal? I know this question has been asked before, but I guess I'd like a specific answer. Did I just horribly underexpose it and they lightened it? If so, I would've rather just had it as silhouettes. . . Do labs just automatically correct your scans? Is it the scanner quality? I had a roll of black and white done, too, and it seems just as bad. Here's a scan as well as the same image shot with my 5DII. ISO 1000, 1/500, 2.5<br>

http://www.blueskyphotographs.com/p837625074<br>

<br />Thank you so much for any input! I was pretty excited about the possibilites with film and now I'm not so sure. I feel like all the images were really soft, too. I understand film isn't digital, but I had some prints done off an old canon T7 and they came back much sharper than these scans. And minimal grain.</p>

<p> </p>

[wblynch]

<p>Film is funny. It needs light to work.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, those must be underexposed.</p>

[april_holtan]

<p>Thank you for the response! I understand the concept taking a photograph, whether it's on film or digitally. I was looking for some specific answers to my questions. Is film automatically corrected by the lab? Does the scanner quality contribute to grain? What about the overall lack of definition--in all my photographs, not just this one. I understand that film isn't as 'sharp' as digital, but as I stated before, the prints I had done previously are not lacking definition. I was hoping to gain more dynamic range by shooting film--more detail in the shadows, highlights that are not as blown out--especially when photographing in full sun. Is this not possible? Will I sacrifice quality to achieve this?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

There are too many variables to give a specific

likely reason for the results you got.

 

Was the film fresh?

 

Was it properly exposed?

 

Was it correctly processed?

 

How was it scanned? I've seen indifferent labs

turn out poor scans from excellent negatives.

 

If you have the negatives, let another lab take a

shot at scanning and/or printing them. Even

during the heyday of film when there were

minilabs on every block we'd get dramatically

different results from the same negatives.

Nowadays there are even fewer labs with real

expertise.

[wblynch]

<p>Sorry :)</p>

<p>Well the scanner used, and techniques employed affect the outcome drastically. A rescan may give you better results. </p>

<p>Most labs make crappy scans that are good for only up to 4x6 prints. They think it's faster and they want an excuse to charge ytou more for higher resolutions (super scans!).</p>

<p>In reality the only difference is which button they push at save time. Sure, when they were printing 10,000 film photos a day, the speed might have meant something but now there is no excuse.</p>

<p>You should get scans at least around 3000x2000 dpi from 35mm negatives for a respectable quality.</p>

<p>Also, yes, the labs and scanners compensate for missed exposures. They use automatic settings that emphasize too much contrast and color saturation. That along with over sharpening can deliver more dynamic looking 4x6 prints (which most people want) but not very usable scans beyond that.</p>

<p>Lastly, underexposed color film will result in reduced contrast & saturation and increased grain (since there is less picture 'mass' available on the image. A compensating scan will try to bring it up but there isn't that much to be brought up.</p>

<p>Portra is a 'soft' film by design so underexposure emphasizes the softness even more.</p>

<p>For a more dynamic look, try Ektar 100 or even Gold 200 or 400.</p>

<p>Many photographers purposely overexpose their color negatives for all these reasons.. It isn't unusual to see someone shooting Portra 400 at 320 or 250.</p>

<p> </p>

[april_holtan]

<p>Thank you both! I'm thinking I'll go with a different lab next time for the scanning. The other roll I took mostly indoors and it seems less grainy. I will also focus on overexposing next time. When I pull these up in PS, they are about 5000px long edge at a resolution of 72. . . . for what that's worth.<br>

I'll give it another try. Now I have a camera and a few more rolls of Portra, anyway. . . maybe I'll try some actual portraits :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Digital <em>noise </em>is analogous (<strong><em>not</em></strong> homologous) to <em>grain</em> in film. The same kinds of errors (underexposure, etc.) do tend to yield greater problems with either.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding improvements in film, ISO 400 is still a fast film so you would on the face of it expect more grain than with a film like Ektar 100. Certainly more noise/grain than with a modern digital camera set at ISO 400.</p>

<p>As said, who does what at the laboratory, depends entirely on the laboratory work flow and is too idiosyncratic for us to give any kind of general answer.</p>

<p>As for</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I understand the concept taking a photograph, whether it's on film or digitally.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What can I say? Craftsmen need to know their tools.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Presuming the left color photo is film, and the right color photo is digital, the film photo looks underexposed, like the meter is trying to make the bright sky a neutral gray. </p>

[wogears]

<p>NCPS uses a good quality Noritsu (Q33) scanner, and their results are usually very good. Not excellent or superb like a drum scan, but quite usable. Underexposed film will "grain up", like an underexposed digital file. If you think your exposures were correct, contact NCPS and ask them what could have happened. I find them polite and competent.</p>

<p>BTW, the scanner model will show up in the EXIF data. (Not in every case, but it does with the Noritsu/NCPS scans.)</p>

[DWScott]

It looks underexposed. Not a big

surprise considering the expanse of

sky in that shot.

 

To reliably and predictably shoot film I

heartily recommend purchasing an

"incident" light meter (the kind with a

white dome.) An incident meter

measures the light falling on your

subject, as opposed to measuring the

light reflected into the camera by

everything in your frame. It is much

easier to get a workable exposure with

tricky frames like this one.

 

In general, I like 35mm film, and I think

NCPS does a good job. But 35mm will

show grain, especially when under

exposed. Work WITH the medium,

embrace its character, and don't sweat

it when it doesn't look like digital.

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Film is funny. It needs light to work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not helpful, Bill.</p>

<p>April, I think it's an open-and-shut case of underexposure, as has been mentioned above. That bright sky would have caused the meter to read one or two stops too high. If the sky were blue you would not have had any problems.</p>

<p>The scan reminded me of a Noritsu (I don't like those scanners!). And sure enough, it probably was, based on the 5035x3339 dimensions:</p>

<p>http://www.northcoastphoto.com/faq.html</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Here's a 1:1 crop from well-exposed sky on Portra 400, dip & dunk processed, scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000 dpi. This is only an eighth of the image in either direction, tight crop. (Please ignore the color balance error in scanning.)<br /> I've really been impressed with the low grain in skies in Portra 400, which none of the three versions of Portra 400NC ever had.</p><div></div>

[wblynch]

Not helpful Karim?

 

Yet your next statement fully supports the foundation I had pointed out...

 

:D

[glen_h]

<p>For color negatives, I think you have to adjust the exposure for the scan. C41 has a low gamma, for a variety of reasons, including big exposure latitude. The scanner has to adjust for the gamma, and also for different exposures. <br>

Slide films have a more usual gamma, and as is well known, are more sensitive to exposure errors. The scanner probably still adjusts for exposure, but would probably work fine if it didn't.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Grain can be emphasized at both during processing and scanning. I've done mostly my own Tri-X processing over the years, but had a few rolls done professionally. The latter seemed like a different film when scanned, much grainer.</p>

<p>Also, the scanner is a factor: a highly directional light source will increase grain appearance. Ask them what they're using.</p>

[arthur_smith1]

<p>Portra 400 is a very finely grained film that scans beautifully. I saw another poster comparing the grain versus digital at the same ISO, and saying it will show more- which is really irrelevant to the discussion. If the lab did the scan, chances are it was done at a lower resolution. While it is true that underexposed images will show more grain on the scan, you'd be amazed at what you can do with a basic film scanner, such as an Epson V500. In every case, my results have exceeded what the lab does. </p>

[Dave Luttmann]

It looks very underexposed. The scanner used at that lab is fine.

[larrydressler]

<p>I am setting up my own darkroom again including RA-4 because of all the trouble I am having with the printer for my first show in 30 years. Though I mostly shoot B&W I do shoot Color and even with my scanning skills I notice that the error is printing.</p>

<p> </p>

[PatB]

Other people have said that already. The shots look underexposed due to camera's metering algorithms. Next time use a light meter or

measure the part of the image you want to be correctly exposed, lock the exposure and recompose, especially if it includes massive bright

areas, like the sky in the photo. Don't be affraid to overexpose with negatives.