Neg scans (grain with FP4+)

[RalphLambrecht]

I know little about scanning B&W negatives; that's why i Had my FP4+ negs scanned by a pro-shop but, the results where horrid(grainy). Is that normal?

 

[Richard Man]

Definitely not. Assuming your negs are with good exposure wise, FP4+ scans just fine... let me dig up some examples...

 

[Richard Man]

Sorry, not an inspiring image or anything. I mostly shoot Tri-X on B&W but I know I shot some FP4+ last year. Unfortunately, I don't mark the film type on the neg sleeves so I just rummaged and found this. I haven't even scanned it in since it's not that great, but at least this serves as an example. This is done on a Flextight but I have used and owned MANY scanners and they should all scan decently.
p.s. I offer scanning services. See my sig.

 

[Adrian Gabor]

I know little about scanning B&W negatives; that's why i Had my FP4+ negs scanned by a pro-shop but, the results where horrid(grainy). Is that normal?

You should show us some examples first.
I find that in general people tend to underestimate how grainy film can be, especially coming from digital or even color negative.

 

[awty]

What resolution did they scan at?
Low resolution will show more grain.

 

[Svenedin]

I don't scan very often and I only have a flatbed Epson V800 (not a pro drum scanner) but the scans should not be "horrid". My scans (including FP4+) are not excessively grainy either. It sounds like the settings used were not optimal.

This is an FP4+ scan, 35mm. You can see the grain but personally I don't think it's a problem. I used this scan as an example as it contains a lot of (blue, cloudless) sky. (this picture would look better with some of the superfluous sky at the top cropped out).

 

[Ted Baker]

I know little about scanning B&W negatives; that's why i Had my FP4+ negs scanned by a pro-shop but, the results where horrid(grainy). Is that normal?

Not sure what your normal is...

A film scanner is not anywhere near capable of resolving the particles of silver on film, combine that with fact that many scanners use a technique called pixel shifting, along with re sampling and sharpening operations. Those last points combine with the natural patterns creates the grain pattern you see on the scan, and as you point out it is not necessarily the same pattern you would see on an optical print.

So both physical sampling size of the sensor and the subsequent processing of the scan, will make a difference.

For example drum scans can typically adjust the aperture size, and even though this is too large to actually resolve the particles, it does affect the appearance of the grain pattern in the image.

 

[Les Sarile]

What scanner was used and post examples to show the grain as one person's horrid grain may not be so bad for others.
Since it's b&w, you can visually verify if the film itself has horrid grain and whether the scan over exaggerated it or not.
It's been my experience that all minilab scans tend to exaggerate apparent grain due to over sharpening and JPEG compression.

 

[jim10219]

Most of the time, it's not grain that you see, but scanner noise. It's pretty hard to get actual grain in a scan, especially with consumer level equipment. And most film processing labs don't own high quality scanning equipment. They're using scanners built for high volume/high speed, so they're not spending all day doing a single roll of film. I can resolve the grain with my DSLR and a macro setup, but that requires magnification ratios so high that I'm having to stitch together multiple shots and files sizes in the gigabytes. It's not really worth the time or space.

 

[removedacct1]

I used to get neg scans done at local shops, and I never got results that were as good as what I learned to do myself, once I bought an Epson V750.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Definitely not. Assuming your negs are with good exposure wise, FP4+ scans just fine... let me dig up some examples...

they were exposed at godspeed and I would call them on the thin-side of perfect; there is no problem wet-printing them at grade 2.5!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Sorry, not an inspiring image or anything. I mostly shoot Tri-X on B&W but I know I shot some FP4+ last year. Unfortunately, I don't mark the film type on the neg sleeves so I just rummaged and found this. I haven't even scanned it in since it's not that great, but at least this serves as an example. This is done on a Flextight but I have used and owned MANY scanners and they should all scan decently.
p.s. I offer scanning services. See my sig.

I'd been very happy to get something such as this.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

You should show us some examples first.
I find that in general people tend to underestimate how grainy film can be, especially coming from digital or even color negative.

I'd post examples but the files are too big for APUG.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't scan very often and I only have a flatbed Epson V800 (not a pro drum scanner) but the scans should not be "horrid". My scans (including FP4+) are not excessively grainy either. It sounds like the settings used were not optimal.

This is an FP4+ scan, 35mm. You can see the grain but personally I don't think it's a problem. I used this scan as an example as it contains a lot of (blue, cloudless) sky. (this picture would look better with some of the superfluous sky at the top cropped out).

View attachment 196222

this looks fine;I'd be happy with that.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What scanner was used and post examples to show the grain as one person's horrid grain may not be so bad for others.
Since it's b&w, you can visually verify if the film itself has horrid grain and whether the scan over exaggerated it or not.
It's been my experience that all minilab scans tend to exaggerate apparent grain due to over sharpening and JPEG compression.

I'm not aware of the detailed technical details but gave the negs to another lab to get them scanned again.They are using an Imacon scanner;We'll see how this turns out.

 

[MattKing]

I'd post examples but the files are too big for APUG.

Resize them down to 800 pixels on the longest side.

 

[Richard Man]

I use a Pakon for fast/bulk scan and the Flextight for high quality scan. The image I show is from Flextight since it's medium format and the Pakon only does 35mm. In any case, the FT obviously produces much more detailed scans with higher dynamic range but even on 35mm, the Pakon's scans hold up quite well against FT. In other words, if your negs print well enough, I think it was an operator error if the scans you got is too grainy.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Resize them down to 800 pixels on the longest side.

OK

 

[Ted Baker]

Do you have a similar size crop made scanned from a print?

 

[Richard Man]

OK View attachment 196260

Ralph, is that a crop or fullscan? If you want, email your file to me at richard@richardmanphoto.com. It's 20 megs or less, it will not be a problem.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Do you have a similar size crop made scanned from a print?

sorry, not yet.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph, is that a crop or fullscan? If you want, email your file to me at richard@richardmanphoto.com. It's 20 megs or less, it will not be a problem.

for what purpose?

 

[Richard Man]

for what purpose?

SInce you have problems uploading, and sending a crop of unknown size, I am offering to help to see if I can diagnose the problems, but never mind.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I would first ask the lab this simple question,,,, Did they use sharpening when scanning and wait for the response... for all good quality work the sharpening should be turned off ... I have a Imocan and input sharpening at the scan stage is the kiss of death...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ralph, Here're some 120 samples of Tmax 100 processed in Xtol scanned with an Epson V600. Tmax scans well, the T grain film is made for that. I scan flat and do all processing in post with LR. It takes a while to develop a process. Be patient and work at it. Alan.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157642492618713