Grain or noise?

pokerplayer269

Member

Joined

Dec 18, 2008

Messages

17

Location

Needham, MA

Format

35mm

• Mar 26, 2009

• #1

'Allo! I just got back my first roll of normally processed slide film from the lab! w00t! Most of the shots came out pretty good I think. I wasn't super impressed with the scans though. Besides having very dull and dark colors compared to the slides, there was quite a bit of noise/grain. I can't tell though if it was the scanner or just the film. Here's a 100% crop of one of the scans: http://i40.tinypic.com/f4r2i9.jpg

The film I used was Fuji Velvia 100 so it seems odd that there would be that much grain, which is why I'm thinking that the lab's scanners are at fault.

 

archphoto

Member

Joined

Dec 14, 2008

Messages

960

Location

Holland and

Format

4x5 Format

• Mar 27, 2009

• #2

I would check your film first with a magnifier. I ran your picture twice through Noise NInja and it still didn't look right.

Peter

 

aparat

Member

Joined

Sep 5, 2007

Messages

1,177

Location

Saint Paul,

Format

35mm

• Mar 27, 2009

• #3

It seems that the picture was underexposed. Scanners struggle with shadow detail, and noise increases quite a bit. I would say that chroma noise is more visible than grain in the shadows.

 

Shangheye

Member

Joined

Jul 26, 2007

Messages

1,092

Location

Belgium

Format

Multi Format

• Mar 27, 2009

• #4

I agree that it looks more like noise from trying to scan an under exposed slide. K

 

Lopaka

Member

Joined

Apr 1, 2006

Messages

757

Location

Michigan

Format

Multi Format

• Mar 27, 2009

• #5

The lab scans that are provided of the entire roll as part of the processing are very low resolution to start with and generally poor quality. Getting a quality high res scan is not cheap. Pricing generally starts at around $10 if under 10 Mb. A full resolution high quality scan of ta 35mm slide generally goes around $50 at custom labs. If getting good scans of any quantity of slides is your goal, then you should consider investing in a dedicated film scanner. You can get better results from dense shadow areas with multiple pass options on these machines.

Bob

 

Christopher Walrath

Member

Joined

Dec 30, 2005

Messages

7,175

Location

Milton, DE USA

Format

Analog

• Mar 27, 2009

• #6

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

$50. Holy crap!

 

BetterSense

Member

Joined

Aug 16, 2008

Messages

3,151

Location

North Caroli

Format

35mm

• Mar 27, 2009

• #7

Indeed. This is not the place to discuss such matters but scanning is really one thing that holds back film, IMO. If it was easy and cheap to get high-quality high-resolution files along with your negatives it would be easier for people to embrace film, because they would give up no options. As it is, film is actually inferior to a digital camera if you must work digitally in post. I think it is a conspiracy by companies that have a foot on both sides of the dark side, to sell digital cameras.

 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber

Joined

Jan 18, 2007

Messages

50,372

Location

Southern California

Format

Multi Format

• Mar 27, 2009

• #8

BetterSense said:

As it is, film is actually inferior to a digital camera if you must work digitally in post.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I can scan my negatives at 4000 dpi or I can have it scanned professionally higher dpi. Neither have been a problem for digital post processing. The low resolution CD, which are now provided with film processing, however, make very good drink coasters and Christmas tree ornaments.

Steve

 

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Joined

Dec 14, 2005

Messages

7,429

Location

PNdub

Format

Medium Format

• Mar 27, 2009

• #9

BetterSense said:

As it is, film is actually inferior to a digital camera if you must work digitally in post.

Click to expand...

Entirely untrue. Depends on many factors.

In this case, the scan is introducing noise. Get thee to hybrid photo for a full discussion.

 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber

Joined

Jan 18, 2007

Messages

50,372

Location

Southern California

Format

Multi Format

• Mar 27, 2009

• #10

JBrunner said:

Entirely untrue. Depends on many factors.

In this case, the scan is introducing noise. Get thee to hybrid photo for a full discussion.

Click to expand...

What he said!

Steve

 

Prest_400

Member

Joined

Jan 1, 2009

Messages

1,438

Location

Sweden

Format

Med. Format RF

• Mar 28, 2009

• #11

Christopher Walrath said:

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry9000/4.6.0.167 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/102 UP.Link/6.3.0.0.0)

$50. Holy crap!

Click to expand...

Heck, for that amount of money if I already had a darkroom and colour enlarger, I'd just start doing Ilfochrome printing.

Prints from negs do also suffer this when underexposed (my lab does scan-print, as 95% or more labs do today). It can be an interesting way to see when the photo has underexposure. I did underexpose a bit one exposure and all was noisy noisy, colour was bad. But well.

 

JBrunner

Moderator

Moderator

Joined

Dec 14, 2005

Messages

7,429

Location

PNdub

Format

Medium Format

• Mar 29, 2009

• #12

I think we have established that this is a scanning issue, and I would encourage all interested to visit HybridPhoto.com for discussion of issues related to scanning film.