Blotchy, Unsharp, Grainy Colour negatives... Need Advice.

[william_p]

<p>As of recently, I've began to shoot street photography on colour film. However, I haven't been impressed by the results I've been getting out of the film.</p>

<p>My Image:<br>

Kodak Portra Iso 400 - Developed at Max Spielman<br/>

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gwp90/25314742506/in/dateposted-public/ </p>

<p>Flickr Example:<br>

Kodak portra 400<br>

 

</p>

<p>My image has been scanned at 4800dpi, using vuescan, a canon 9000f and then post processed in photoshop and lightroom. I've been locking the expose and the film base colour, before I scan, to get accurate colour reproduction. However, the images lack saturation and have a colour cast (when scanned), the sky is blotchy and the grain is very noticable.<br>

The example image, of mine, was shot using a minolta x300 and 28mm 2.8 minolta celtic lens. I'm not sure what the settings were at, however I do know it was a small aperture around f11-f22 and the focus was preset (to get the foreground and background in focus) and the camera was set to aperture priority. I was in Spain, around mid day, in summer, my main reason for using a narrow f stop was simply because 1/1000 shutter speed wasn't fast enough to allow me to shoot wide open in the sun, I only had one camera body and it had iso 400 in it, so I couldn't shoot iso 160, and I'd left my nd filter in the uk. I had the settings balanced, so the aperture priority could select shutter speeds where I didn't need a tripod to shoot in the shade (to prevent camera shake) and it didn't overexpose in the sun (because the shutter speed couldn't go any faster.)<br>

First off, I have two minolta bodies and I see the same issue arise with both (It's also happened with a pentax spotmatic, with 55 1.8, I used for a little while). I only use well regarded prime lenses (24 2.8, 28 2, 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.4, 100 2.5, 135 2.8, 200 f3.5). I preset focus and tend to shoot at f8 with everything in focus from 5m - infinity. (I have no issues with this on my digital camera)</p>

<p>I've ruled out defraction as the cause for the unsharpness, because I don't always shoot narrow apertures.<br>

I've ruled out preset focus, as I don't always use it, especially when I need to shoot wide open in low light.<br>

I've ruled out my scanning technique, because I get sharp results out of Black and White film. (and I shot some negativess with a macro lens, on my dslr, to make sure they weren't alot sharper than I was getting with the scanner).<br>

I've ruled out shutter speed, because I always keep one eye on my exposure.<br>

I've ruled out any faults with my gear, because I use a wide range of gear and get the same results.<br>

I've ruled out film type too, because I don't always shoot kodak portra 400. Even my portra 160 had noticable grain, blotchyness and is unsharp. The fuji stuff I shot years ago, in uni, has the same issues.</p>

<p>This is an image I shot years ago, when I was teaching myself to develop my own colour film.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gwp90/25048010250/in/dateposted-public/<br>

It was shot on a mamiya rb67, with a 180mm lens, on a tripod, on kodak ektar iso 100. I know it will have more resolution, better tonality and will reproduce colours better, simply because of the format size. However, I see a noticable improvement? that I can't help not attribute completely to format size. I stopped developing my own colour negatives, because I wasn't shooting enough colour film and the quality control needed was sucking the fun out of developing, for me.</p>

<p>So... Finally... My question...</p>

<p>Can Blotchy, Unsharp, Grainy Colour negatives be a result of bad developing? The only thing I haven't changed since university, is the film lab I go to, to get my negatives developed. It's convenient, reasonably priced and fast...</p>

<p>Or is my technique not good in areas?</p>

<p>Thanks, if you've managed to get to the end of this post. Sorry for its length. I hope you can shine some light on my issue and I can learn something from it :)</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Can't readily get to your sample, but in decades of film work, I never saw a camera produce blotchy and grainy, that pretty much has to be the processing. At the f stop/shutter speed combination you describe if unsharp, it would almost have to be the camera unless it was a subject too close to the lens. I would try the best lab you can find with a roll meticulously exposed with data recorded. Best of luck!</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>Can Blotchy, Unsharp, Grainy Colour negatives be a result of bad developing? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. "Blotchy" is the result that should raise processing (or storage) concern. That said, the images you linked look underexposed. Try a ring-around test, with a person in bright sun holding a Xrite color chart. Use box ISO and if using an in-camera reflective meter, meter from a Kodak Gray Card. Expose normally and under and over three stops in 1/2 increments. Examine the negs with an 8x loupe (not scans). Look for the best exposure on the chart. Check the neg for uneven development. A properly exposed and processed neg should show minimal grain. If blotchiness and graininess persists, repeat test with a different lab. </p>

<p>Take care how you store color film. Do not store it in high heat/ humidity locations. Always buy fresh film.</p>

<p>A controlled test is the best way to pinpoint problems. Portra 400 is wonderful, fine grained film. </p>

 

[william_p]

<p>Thanks, I'm actually looking into doing this atm. I've got some fuji superia 400 35mm and kodak portra 160 120 at home. It should be a nice selection of films to compare afterwards. I'll go out with my Sekonic and nail the exposures and hopefully that will have been the issue. We have a professional lab in the north east, that everyone seems to love, so I'll hopefully have the issue resolved after a visit to them. If not, then I'll have to send some film out to be professional scanned and see if that's where the issue lies. Hopefully I'll be getting beautiful results soon. It's so fustrating having a nice image that doesn't turn out :(</p>

<p>Thanks :)</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Meters vary...often widely. Use the meter you plan to use for all cameras. Camera shutters vary as well...often widely. When you calibrate your imaging system keep in mind that it is indeed a complete system. Good luck, William.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I see the lack of sharpness in the first picture but not the second (except near the edges - which is probably a function of the lens), which suggests to me that the lack of overall sharpness may be related to the scanning process and flatness of negative or lack of proper focus on the scanner. Louis' suggestion is a good one to try to nail down the other issues. BTW - when you examine the negatives themselves with a loupe, do they still appear unsharp? If so, you really have to examine the camera and lens. You can easily do this by putting a piece of ground glass across the film rails, open your lens to its widest aperture....focus with the VF and then examine the image on the ground glass with a loupe....it should be perfectly focused, if not you have an issue with the camera, your eyesight (may need a diopter on the eyepiece), or the lens. I've sometimes found that with older bodies, sometimes the screws on the mounting flange have loosened slightly causing misalignment, or that the film pressure plate has been jarred providing uneven or insufficient pressure on the film as it passes over the rails. </p>

[User_1172872]

<p>I wouldn't expect a bona fide 4800 dpi from a flatbed scanner. Not surprised your result from the RB67 is superior. Suggest you check the Vuescan settings. If the grain reduction is set too high and the scan is over-sharpened, you may get the results that you describe.</p>

[william_p]

Sorry, I've been a bit confusing with the images. The first 35mm shot is mine and it's not sharp, the second one is just a

frame I found on Flickr, to show a comparison with mine and then the 3rd link is from my rb67, to give a comparison of

two different ways in which they've been developed. (I never developed any 35mm colour at home, so had to use

medium format as the example).

 

As it stands, I pretty much know it's not my gear. I'm thinking exposure or development is where the issue lies. I've seen

an article where someone has under exposed portra 400 by 3 stops and over exposed it by 6 stops, the results were very

good from -2stops to +5stops. I have a holiday in tomorrow so I will go out and shoot a roll, with my light meter, and then

hop on the train and get it developed. Hopefully I can update this thread, with good news, by the weekend :)

[john_shriver]

<p>That blotchiness looks like humidity damage. Did you possibly put it in the refrigerator or freezer without having it in the air-tight Kodak film can it came in?</p>

[kmac]

<p>Your first image apparently is a JPEG according to it's EXIF data. I gave up on JPEGs I get from my digital shooting, it's one reason I went back to film. My film scans are uncompressed TIFFs at high file size for important shots, anywhere between 150-300mbytes, and 50-100mbytes for everyday less important shots</p>

<p>Vuescan discourages editing JEPG files because of data losses ... JPEGs are for saving space on your hard drive</p>

<p>"Use Tiff for Editing in VueScan" <br>

https://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc10.htm#hintsandtips</p>

<p>There's a good chance the "unsharp" effect in your first pic was caused by loss of data and pixel corruption from post processing that JPEG and any compression it might have endured</p>

<p>For reduction of noise and grain, change to TIFF at high quality and try "Size Reduction" in "Output", it's set on "1" as the default, so make it "2". This consequently reduces the file size by half but does something magic to the pixels and produces more acceptable scans. Try it and judge them. Vuescan claims this is better than simply reducing the resolution of the scan. This option is only in the professional version though </p>

<p> </p>

[roman_p]

<p>I’ve also got Canonscan 9000f Mark II and those blotchy images look familiar to me. Basically I have same issue with most of C-41 emulsions (included Chromogenic) especially in the areas with uniform colors and contrast, similar to what William has. I cannot suspect film by any meaning – I brought same negs to my local prolab and they scanned using Fujifilm Frontier. All images came out clean and crisp. Once I read that using Vuecan might solve this issue. However as William mentioned he is using Vuescan also and it looks like it’s not helping much. Pretty much sure that this is Scanner/Software issue and has to be addressed directly to Canon (but not sure how).</p>

[garethspics]

<p>That's about what I would expect from a flatbed scanner on 35mm. I have an Epson V700 and a Nikon Coolscan IV. The Nikon is way superior even thought it "only" 2900 dpi.</p>

[zoltan_arva_toth]

<p>The 9000F is a flatbed scanner so you cannot expect miracles from it.<br /> This is one of my better Kodak Portra 400 scans, made with a Plustek OpticFilm 8100 - which is a dedicated film scanner, although not a high-end one by any means (for one thing, it lacks adjustable focus):<br /> <a href="

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I have an Epson 4990 flatbed, which was the top of the line when it was new. I used to use it for 35mm but I don't anymore because it doesn't provide the detail I require. It works fine with medium format because the image size is so much bigger. But now, for 35mm, rather than buy an expensive, dedicated scanner, I use my Sony NEX 7 and a duplication rig I've cobbled together that has a 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor at its heart. I can use the negative inversion routine in Photoshop and get good results. More importantly, my NEX 7's 24.3 megapixel sensor provides me with 6000 x 4000 pixel images, same as with one of the more expensive Nikon Coolscans. I get a decent Dmax using this method too.</p>

<p>Whenever I get a grainy C-41 negative, the first thing I check for is exposure. I've learned from past experience that C-41 does not like to be underexposed, but that it loves a bit of overexposure. I can overexpose most flavors of C-41 with no ill effects. A couple of the benefits of overexposure are better color saturation and smaller, tighter grain. Usually I reduce ISO by about 1/3 of a stop, sometimes more. E.g., ISO 400 reduced to ISO 320, ISO 200 to ISO 160, or ISO 100 to ISO 80. I was surprised at just how much most C-41 emulsions will benefit from just a 1/3-stop of overexposure.</p>

<p>So I recommend that you double check your camera's meter and your handheld meter against a known standard. Double check that your camera or hand-held meter is set to the correct ISO. On a bright sunny day, point your camera or hand-held meter toward a section of blue sky, well away from the sun. Use the "Sunny f/16 Rule" to check for accuracy: the reciprocal of the ISO as shutter speed at f/16. EG, if you're shooting ISO 400 film, the closest shutter speed will be 1/500. Check to make sure the aperture is set to f/16 and then take a look at the meter readout. If the meter is accurate, it should match this value, or be very close to it.</p>

<p> </p>

[william_p]

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/gwp90/26045397862/in/dateposted-public/<br /> Just updating this, incase someone finds it useful in the future.<br /> I ended up buying a plustek 8100, as my canon 9000f decided to die. Definitely a marked improvement on the sharpness and blotchiness of the images (there's scratches on the negative that the plustek can pick up, that I didn't even realise were there on the canon). The colours and contrast seem a little off, but that could just be me, I'm fairly new to scanning colour film. Though, I forgot to mention this, the negatives were clearly rushed through development, when I picked them up in June 2015, as every roll had a kink (more like a fold) in them and a lot of the frames had chemical stains on them.<br /> Anyways, I finally got around to jumping on the train to Newcastle, last week, and tomorrow I will be heading back through to pick up my negatives. I'll upload an image at some point. If it's not good, then the issue will clearly be me as everything has been changed (film brand, film scanner, from consumer lab to pro lab, built in light meter vs sekonic). haha. Fingers crossed...</p>

[william_p]

<p>Here's a scan from the negatives I collected today. I'm pleased with the results. I think there were a few things I actually needed to over come, and I still need to working on post processing negative scans, but there results are far better than I was getting.</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/gwp90/25547088524/in/dateposted-public/</p>

[kmac]

<p>It's much sharper. It needs "Levels" adjustment for less contrast, make it brighter, and bring out detail in the shadows</p>

[william_p]

<p>Thanks! The more images I've scanned, the better I'm getting. Starting to be able to pull the detail out of the shadows and I'm also getting better colours. :D</p>