FP4+ Mushy Grain

[GregY]

Somehow I missed that he also looked at the negs with a loupe. TBH I am somewhat confused what to suggest here, because grain appearance matters when looking at the final product which in this case is a scan. "Mushy" only makes sense in a context of a given magnification. The image by @GregY above demonstrates this perfectly. There is not a hint of grain in a digital equivalent of a 2.5-inch print.

All films will begin showing monster grain eventually as you keep increasing magnification. But the thing about low resolution scanning is that it makes grain look ugly even on screen-sized JPEGs or tiny ink prints. That's why I suggested that his experiments with films and developers are premature, he needs to have an equipment capable of 35mm film scanning. V850 can't do it.

"That's why I suggested that his experiments with films and developers are premature, he needs to have an equipment capable of 35mm film scanning. V850 can't do it."
Thank You!

 

[SodaAnt]

he needs to have an equipment capable of 35mm film scanning. V850 can't do it.

Please be more precise in what you mean. The V850 is obviously capable of scanning 35mm negatives—this thread is an existence proof of that. Do you really mean it’s incapable of scanning 35mm at a quality level appropriate for my stated use? What kind of scanner would you recommend (short of a $75,000 drum scanner)?

 

[albireo]

Please be more precise in what you mean. The V850 is obviously capable of scanning 35mm negatives—this thread is an existence proof of that. Do you really mean it’s incapable of scanning 35mm at a quality level appropriate for my stated use? What kind of scanner would you recommend (short of a $75,000 drum scanner)?

A $300 Taiwanese dedicated film scanner would be a large improvement already.

https://www.adorama.com/icdp8100fs.html

 

[Steven Lee]

Please be more precise in what you mean. The V850 is obviously capable of scanning 35mm negatives—this thread is an existence proof of that. Do you really mean it’s incapable of scanning 35mm at a quality level appropriate for my stated use? What kind of scanner would you recommend (short of a $75,000 drum scanner)?

I offered a caveat above that it's important to define what is good enough, otherwise it's easy to waste silly money on equipment upgrades. Based on your own words, you believe the grain coming out of V850 is "mushy".

This means you need to upgrade your scanner to a model which will deliver non-mushy grain. If you do not need to scan 120, then the answer is easy. A good value 35mm scanner would be the Plustek 8000-series. They are all the same, only software supplied with the more expensive variants has extra features. IIRC it goes for about $300-400.

If you don't mind spending some more, I would recommend a camera-based scanning rig. But selecting a good macro lens is critical. Sigma Art macro line is excellent, and combined with a 40MP+ sensor will give you results comparable to the Plustek, but it will be much faster and you'll be able to scan medium format with it (with multi-shot stitching).

The V850 that you have is pretty good at 6x7 and above, in my humble opinion. I used to own this scanner and no matter what, I just couldn't accept its 35mm scans, even for web-only purposes.

 

[250swb]

Please be more precise in what you mean. The V850 is obviously capable of scanning 35mm negatives—this thread is an existence proof of that. Do you really mean it’s incapable of scanning 35mm at a quality level appropriate for my stated use? What kind of scanner would you recommend (short of a $75,000 drum scanner)?

That is essentially what is being said and is also true, a V700, V750, V850 (essentially all the same scanner) are all terrible at scanning 35mm while scanning medium format they are almost good. It's a similar conundrum with a cold cathode head on an enlarger, great for medium format and tonality but for 35mm the light source is too diffuse, and with the V850 the the basic resolution poor anyway so both diffused light and resolution combine for the 35mm scan to be poor. Micro adjusting focus etc. will never get over the basic fact.

 

[albireo]

If you don't mind spending some more, I would recommend a camera-based scanning rig. But selecting a good macro lens is critical. Sigma Art macro line is excellent, and combined with a 40MP+ sensor will give you results comparable to the Plustek, but it will be much faster and you'll be able to scan medium format with it (with multi-shot stitching).

I think before going down that rabbit hole he'd need to understand if exposure and development choices are having an impact at all on what he's describing. The negatives would tell at least a part of the story.

 

[pentaxuser]

SodaAnt, if your scanner is incapable of showing the grain as it actually is with 15X loupe and is not something you can improve with that scanner then the only answer seems to be a better scanner or sticking with TMax100 which is an improvement as is to be expected

However mushy grain per se is surely not what you look at or keep or send to others. Your real interest presumably lies in what you do with your reversed neg scans and scans you might post in the Gallery or send to others or make inkjets prints of prints of

Until you do that I am unsure how you will know if FP4+ meets your requirements

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

@albireo Makes a great point. Really easy to waste money not knowing where to stop. Maybe find a local lab with a good scanning service to see what good looks like? I am lucky to have access to a Flextight X5 nearby. They offer TIFF scans and this really helps with understanding the upper ceiling on scanning 35mm. Just make sure to ask them to turn off sharpening.

 

[retina_restoration]

That is essentially what is being said and is also true, a V700, V750, V850 (essentially all the same scanner) are all terrible at scanning 35mm while scanning medium format they are almost good.

This is my experience also (V750 Pro from 2012). It does not give good sharp results from 35mm scans without sharpening the results in post. Straight out of the scanner, image grain is "mushy".

Also, there are adjustment feet on the Epson film holders that allow for tiny shifts in the vertical position of the film holder, and these make a big difference to how sharp your results are too. Make sure you've tested with the adjustments made.

Also worth noting: the amount of bend in the film is going to make a difference. I find that if a scan with the film oriented emulsion side up in the film holder isn't sharp, I flip the film over and try again. Almost always, one is better than the other. Of course, if you scan the negative emulsion side down, you'll have to flip the image in your photo editor. Film flatness is a big factor in how good your scans will be, so for years I have been limiting myself to 35mm films that lie completely flat once dry. These days, that's Ilford Delta films. (Tmax films are very flat too, but they are no longer within my budget)

This is an example photo made from a scan of 35mm Ilford Delta 400, which demonstrates - to my mind - the best I can get from my V750 scanner. And yes - there has been some post-processing sharpening done to "clean up" the grain.

 

[SodaAnt]

A $300 Taiwanese dedicated film scanner would be a large improvement already.

https://www.adorama.com/icdp8100fs.html

Thanks for the link. Is its listed 7200dpi resolution real, or a figment of an ad writer’s imagination?

 

[DREW WILEY]

With most amateur equipment of any variety, you need to factor the BS marketing coefficient, and divide by that.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Thanks for the link. Is its listed 7200dpi resolution real, or a figment of an ad writer’s imagination?

It’s not real, but I remember reading it tested higher than the Epsons.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

& look at the print results from viewing distance as well. Tonality often has a great effecter on print quality than does grain size, just as lens character has as much or more impact than pure sharpness. I have to say if i were limited to only one film, I'd choose FP4+. It is a superb film.

me too. In fact, that's all that is left in my fridge today

 

[SodaAnt]

& look at the print results from viewing distance as well.

For picky photographers, viewing distance is only limited by the length of their noses.

 

[retina_restoration]

me too. In fact, that's all that is left in my fridge today

Another vote for FP4. I use this more than any other emulsion.

 

[Vaughn]

For picky photographers, viewing distance is only limited by the length of their noses.

And one of the reasons to use glass in the frames...

 

[SodaAnt]

And one of the reasons to use glass in the frames...

Indeed.

 

[GregY]

Indeed.

keep the loupe from marring the print surface...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here is the answer to all your problems:

 

[SodaAnt]

Here is the answer to all your problems:

View attachment 349140

I must have seen that graphic about a thousand times by now in various forums!

XTOL is on my list of developers to try. Will do so as soon as the 10,000mL graduate I have on order arrives.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have the Plustek 8000i. I can’t say what it’s real resolution is, but it’s plenty for online full-screen viewing. I think it is very good for its price.

It takes quite a lot of adjustment to make the scan look close to a darkroom print, and the darkroom print is always better. But that’s normal.

 

[250swb]

Also, there are adjustment feet on the Epson film holders that allow for tiny shifts in the vertical position of the film holder, and these make a big difference to how sharp your results are too. Make sure you've tested with the adjustments made.

I've used the Epson with a Betterscanning holder that not only uses ANR glass to keep negatives flat but also offers micro adjustment for height far better than fiddling around with the 'work or not work' feet of the Epson holders. And I can still say that an Epson V700 > V850 are rubbish at scanning 35mm compared with the only new alternative for 35mm a Plustek scanner.

And for those looking at a dedicated scanner with 7200 dpi resolution, this is a marketing figure achieved by interpolation, adding bogus pixels to bloat the file size for printing larger prints. It doesn't improve the image, in fact the native resolution of a Plustek is around 3600 dpi.

 

[pentaxuser]

XTOL is on my list of developers to try. Will do so as soon as the 10,000mL graduate I have on order arrives.

Wow a 10L graduate! How big and expensive is this and are you sure this is not overkill?. All I do when making 5L of Xtol is to measure out 5L of water with a 2L jug that is marked reasonably accurately into a 5 L translucent bucket you get in a supermarket for bulk items and mark the 5 L level on its side as that's accurate enough for 5L which is then decanted into bottles or two wine bags

It's down to you and its your money but I'd buy 1L of Xtol from Adox instead, as you may not find that the scan of the mush is appreciably better so if Xtol is not the developer that solves your problem of mushyness you haven't then wasted as much money

pentaxuser













llemarklmeslerkmjg tall is this and

 

[Anon Ymous]

llemarklmeslerkmjg tall is this and

Really?

 

[MattKing]

XTOL is on my list of developers to try. Will do so as soon as the 10,000mL graduate I have on order arrives.

Cancel the order and get yourself a cheap pail!