At higher scanning resolutions like > 3200 for 35mm TriX I find grain is more pronounced (depending on the image, large sky areas vs cluttered close focus). If that's combined with heavy sharpening in the scanning process its worse. Judging from the post looks like heavy sharpening of the grain clumps. I couldn't scan something that poorly if I tried...which suggests some problem with their process.
So you work in LAB instead of RGB?yes agreed but if sharpening is on at time of scan real bad things can happen... Sharpening is best done in PS in the Luminosity channel.
I can't say I've noticed excessive grain when digitising FP4+, but then I use a DSLR rather than a scanner. The grain is there, but quite subtle; certainly nothing like as bad as some of the examples posted in this thread. I can post some examples if people wish.
I would like to see a few examples if you do not mind.
Sure. Here a few from one roll, shot at box speed and developed in DD-X. There are the full frames and then 100% crop portions from each. The 100% crops only have minimal sharpening applied (as they were digitised using RAW, so require it).
...
Yes, sorry forgot to mention. Shot with a Hasselblad.
Your scans are done by a lab, correct? If so, do you know how they apply sharpening, and how much? If an inappropriate and/or overly aggressive sharpening algorithm is used it can artificially exaggerate the grain.
I really would like to see them and inspect one up close.Can you share the details of your process, please?I can't say I've noticed excessive grain when digitising FP4+, but then I use a DSLR rather than a scanner. The grain is there, but quite subtle; certainly nothing like as bad as some of the examples posted in this thread. I can post some examples if people wish.
I can't say I've noticed excessive grain when digitising FP4+, but then I use a DSLR rather than a scanner. The grain is there, but quite subtle; certainly nothing like as bad as some of the examples posted in this thread. I can post some examples if people wish.
That is what I am thinking, and with Ted Baker's observations this makes sense. I just shot a couple of rolls of FP4 at ISO 125, had them developed and scanned to 4000 dpi by The Darkroom. I am very happy with some of the images, but was a little shocked by some of the grain. I still have not gotten the negs back yet, so maybe I under exposed some. Here are some samples I have uploaded. https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Ilford FP4
I did very little post processing, but I did play with the dynamic contrast (In ON1 2018). Basically, I dropped the lowest scale quite a bit to de-emphasize the grain structure (but perhaps also killed some of my micro-contrast in Zeiss and other lenses), then bumped up the medium and large scale contrast for the overall image. I am considering standardizing on Ilford films given that Acros is practically gone (I have a few rolls of 35mm still), but may also look at Kodak Tmax.
The shot "Tree on a hill" really shows the grain. https://www.flickr.com/photos/157638541@N07/46038088421/in/dateposted-family/
"hillscape" does also, but here the grain is nice and works well with the scene. https://www.flickr.com/photos/157638541@N07/32167865318/in/dateposted-family/
What is "lowest scale" and why would you sacrifice "grain structure" (if you see it in prints) to the look of Tmax?
I really would like to see them and inspect one up close.Can you share the details of your process, please?
GLS,
Can you say what DSLR you use, and are you shooting the negative ontop of a light box? I'm thinking about going this route. I have a FF DSLR, but a crappy scanner HP Scanjet 4050.
Thanks
No problem, I'm happy to share the method. It surprises me there aren't more people doing it, as the results from what I've seen are clearly superior to flatbed scanning (and much faster once your setup is sorted). I guess people become set in their ways and don't want to change, and the DSLR method doesn't seem to get discussed much online. Anyway.
Here's a rundown of the method I use:
- DSLR + a good macro lens capable of 1:1 (I use a D810 and Tokina 100mm macro);
- A sturdy copy stand, which the above is mounted to (I use the Kaiser RS2XA);
- A diffused LED lightpad as light source, on the bed of the copy stand (I use a MiniSun LightPad, but any LED which provides even, daylight balanced light will do);
- An appropriately-sized glassless negative carrier from an enlarger, which holds the film flat whilst "scanning" (this sits on top of the lightpad)
- Rocket blower to remove dust from film
- Cable release
So, DSLR/macro on copy stand, pointing straight down at the film mounted in a glassless negative carrier on top of an LED lightpad, which provides even illumination. I did initially play around with other methods of holding the film (card frames weighted down, ANR glass sandwiches etc) but none gave as good/sharp results - or as rapidly - as using the negative carrier. I got a 6x7 carrier off ebay, which works for both my 6x7 and 6x6 formats. I set the height of the DSLR on the stand such that when focused on the film it is almost filling the digital frame on the shortest dimension; for my medium format work I just take a single shot like this, then crop, rather than multiple 1:1 shots + stitching as I find with the resolution of the D810 it really isn't necessary and just adds a ton more work. Large format film would however benefit from this approach I'm sure (as would DSLRs with smaller resolutions), and obviously if digitising 35mm film you would need the 1:1 capability if you didn't want to crop. You could use a non-macro lens in a pinch, but it won't give you as good results as the lens won't be optimised for close focus, nor be as flat field as a macro. You must also ensure that the camera sensor and film are on the same plane (I use a spirit level to check this), or you will get uneven sharpness acros the frame. I use a cable release to autofocus on the film grain (the cable release is important, as touching the camera in any way to engage focus moves the camera enough to throw the focus off once you let go of the camera again!). Once focus is thus set, I turn off the shuter release focus coupling in the camera menu, so using the cable release won't engage the focus again. Finally, I use mirror lock up to take the shots . In terms of exposure I use RAW in manual mode, with ISO 64 and f11 and a shutter speed which ensures I get an exposure as far to the right as possible without clipping any of the colour channels; if necessary you can always bring down the exposure later in RAW, but this way you get the most tonal information from the film. Negatives can then be inverted in the software of your choice. Slides can be a bit trickier to get them looking like they do on the lightbox; I've found that I have to crank the shadow recovery quite a lot from the RAWs (especially with Velvia, having so dense a base). Again, the D810 excels in this area, so other DSLRs having a lower dynamic range may struggle here (for e.g. requiring two blended exposures).
I hope this helps.
Have you tried enlarging lenses? I see them recommended because they tend to be flat field in nature
No, but it may work OK. I just went straight to the macro (in fact I bought it for this purpose) as it was the obvious choice.
I found Nikon scanners to be almost unusable for B&W negs. With the exception of XP2 of course. I can get scans from my V750 Pro that beat the Nikon scanner hands down. Grain, grit, whatever you want to call it was always the issue when using the Nikon scanners. Seemed to really accentuate it for some reason.
yes agreed but if sharpening is on at time of scan real bad things can happen... Sharpening is best done in PS in the Luminosity channel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?