Muddy Scans from 135 film, can't figure it out.

twalsh341 · Feb 4, 2012

Hello Everyone,

I'm new here and to film, but I've don a lot of work with graphics programs on computers and scanners in college.

My current problem is really confusing me, I just developed my second roll of film some exposures came out a little overexposed, but sharp. We stuck it in the enlarger and it looks fine. When I scan in on an Epson V700 in the stock carriers I'm getting incredibly muddy images. ICE was on at first, and turning it off helped, The film is a little curly, but I'd expect that to effect the focus. I've read and seen 100% crops at 2400 DPI and they look amazing, what could I doing wrong here?

The first image of the face, was from a 1200DPI scan it is 100% crop. It's way underexposed I know, could that be part of my problem?

The second image is from an 800DPI scan, it is 100%, both of these are from the same scan setting.

All I can say is HUH?

Les Sarile · Feb 4, 2012

From what I can discern in the first image, it appears to be ICE with true b&w film anomaliy. If it is true b&w, then turn ICE off as there is no ICE - with any known scanner, that works with it. Of course this should have also been the case for image number 2 if ICE were on so perhaps you didnt enable ICE on the next one?

twalsh341 · Feb 4, 2012

I had problems with ICE originally, the second image was much worse...

These two crops do not have ICE. The first one just sucks, which I don't understand because the second one, on the exact same settings produced a sharp image. The first negative was more exposed than the second, which is the only variable I can discern.

Les Sarile · Feb 4, 2012

What film is this?

The first image above is distinctly "pointilize" effect that is typical of ICE used on true b&w film or to a lesser extent Epson ICE on Kodachrome.

twalsh341 · Feb 4, 2012

The film used is Arista EDU 400.

pschwart · Feb 4, 2012

It's way underexposed I know, could that be part of my problem?

Scanning is not going to recover a negative that's way underexposed.
Turn of all the auto corrections in your scanning software and try scanning a negative that's correctly exposed.

chuck94022 · Feb 5, 2012

Concur that you should double check that ICE is OFF. ICE does not work with silver based film, because the silver grains are not transparent to infrared, so the scan software will think it is dust and try to erase it. So your image will be all screwed up.

A second thing to try is to tell the scan software that your negative is a slide (a positive). Then it won't try to invert it for you. You can then invert it in Photoshop yourself, where you have full control of image processing. But be sure when you do that to keep the ICE off!

Good luck!

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.333125,116.805918

twalsh341 · Feb 5, 2012

I just exposed a roll of 120 Tmax400, Hopefully I'll get to attempt some scanning on Tuesday. I wanted to get the exposures/development dialed in so I bracketed most of the shots. They look good as negs so I'm corssing my fingers.

artobest · Feb 6, 2012

I agree with the earlier poster who suggested scanning as positive. Use the Professional mode on your Epson software and make sure the black and white points on your histograms are set properly, ie outside of the histogram.

Incidentally, the Epson does a great job with underexposed negs, it can pull out a lot of detail that other scanners may struggle to find.

Doug Fisher · Feb 6, 2012

Are you going into total manual mode to crop and also set your white and black points? If not, you need to start there to eliminate any problems the auto features might be introducing.

Doug
---
Custom film holders for Agfa, Microtek, Canon and Epson film scanners.

twalsh341 · Feb 6, 2012

Much more sucess today, I scanned a few exposures from a roll of 120 I just finished, full manual controls, as a positive then adjusted in photoshop. They look much better, though I'm not sure if the scans are a sharp as they could be. Do I have unreal expectations, or is this pretty good? Scanned at 6400 DPI the full images are about 20" on the long side at 300 DPI.

gmikol · Feb 6, 2012

twalsh341 said:
Scanned at 6400 DPI the full images are about 20" on the long side at 300 DPI.

Not sure on your math, here.

36mm / 25.4 = 1.417 inches
1.417 inches * 6400PPI = 9071 pixels
9071 pixels output at 300 PPI = 9071 / 300 = approx 30" (not 20)

Depending on how big those crops are, I'd say your results look reasonable. Most people (and I'm one of them), seem to think that the V700 (and V750) "real" resolution is about 2000-2400 PPI. Better to scan at 3200 (since it's an integer divisor of the hardware resolution, 6400 dpi). 2400 PPI still allows for very good quality prints up to 8x12".

I've also found that a straight scan from the Epson benefits from some fairly heavy sharpening. For 3200 DPI scans, I typically apply a "Smart Sharpen" in PS of between 100 and 150% at a radius between 1 and 1.5. This doesn't seem to cause any halos, enhanced grain, or start to make the image look "etched". I hope you get what I mean when I say "etched".

--Greg

artobest · Feb 6, 2012

gmikol said:
Not sure on your math, here.

Most people (and I'm one of them), seem to think that the V700 (and V750) "real" resolution is about 2000-2400 PPI.

--Greg

Not me - 2000 ppi is too low. At least 2400 ppi is closer to the mark, with some users reporting higher - a definitive figure is impossible to achieve because set-up is subtly different for each unit. In real world use, the resolution of my machine seems to be comparable to that of a 3200 ppi Konica-Minolta film scanner.

Having said that, I agree with you, these scans look like they will sharpen up nicely. Smart Sharpen works well, especially with Lens Blur/More Accurate selected.

twalsh341 · Feb 6, 2012

Ooops, I did scan at 3400, according to my math that would then be 25.5" full size. I also worded that a bit funny, I meant that the crops were 300px square.

Good idea with the sharpening, I didnt think to do that.

gmikol · Feb 7, 2012

I don't use EpsonScan, so I don't know what kind of sharpening options there are available (i.e. how much control the user has), but if it's not excessive, doing some sharpening right at capture time might be a good idea.

Good luck!

--Greg

artobest · Feb 7, 2012

It's basic - USM. No masking options, no deconvolution - and no undo. Much better to leave it to Photoshop. I recommend the Photokit Sharpener plug-in. Alternatively, Schewe and Fraser's book Real World Image Sharpening, to give you the technical confidence to do it yourself using PS's tools.

You can start by sharpening on a separate layer set to Luminosity blend mode. That at least gives you the option of adjusting the amount down the road.

Les Sarile · Feb 8, 2012

If the data is on the film, you can realize more details at the highest resolution settings of the V7XX as shown in the examples below.

Larger version of -> V700 scan of Fuji RVP

Larger version of -> V700 scan of Kodak Ektar 100

Keep in mind that this does not mean you are actually achieving 6400dpi of detail.

artobest · Feb 9, 2012

@Les, care to relink that first image? I'm just getting the small version.

Les Sarile · Feb 9, 2012

Fix the link

Larger version of -> V700 scan of Fuji RVP

Muddy Scans from 135 film, can't figure it out.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency