Nikon Coolscan5

[BMbikerider]

Is there a way to reduce the appearance of grain when I use my CoolScan5. With B&W it is really objectionable and with colour neg, I can reduce it to almost acceptable levels by scanning at 2000dpi instead of 4000. but that is not the way I want to do it.

I am using the original software and scan into a thoroughly reliable XP laptop and save on a memory stick, then transfer the data via the stick to my desk top and process via photoshop CC. I always save the scans into the memory stick using RAW (NEF). The scans are always 14bit

I do not wish to go to alternative after market software such as Silverfast, because I am used to the one Nikon provided.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've found with B&W 35mm there is a difference between modern films like TMAX or Delta and traditional emulsions like HP5+, to the advantage of the former.

 

[Les Sarile]

What film & developer are yiu using and do you have examples of 100% crops to show this?

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi Bikerider, some ideas, based on conversations I had with Adrian, who often posts here, and other experienced practitioners:

1. Scan at the scanner's optical resolution. It may be 4000 dpi on that Nikon, but check.
2. No sharpening during the scan. Do that later, if you wish, with another software package.
3. If you want less grain, a modern T-grain film will probably be your best bet. Another option: Fuji Acros film.
4. If you use a traditional cubic grain film, you can use fine-grain developers (like the old Microdol-X), but you risk some loss of detail.

Final hint: accept the grain as being proof that you used film. Be one with the grain. Enjoy!

 

[BMbikerider]

1. Yes the scanner resolution is 4000 dpi
2. I always scan with the sharpening turned off.
3. I don't use T Grain/Delta but I have some older negs where I used T Max but I have never scanned them
4. My normal developer is ID11/D76 but recently I have been using Microphen..

That is the B&W sorted, now for the colour so I will continue scanning at 2000dpi. I can still get a decent A3 print. Most of my prints any way are traditional silver wet prints but it is the odd one that I feel will be easier to scan and print with my Cannon printer I also find the grain is no where so dominant when I size a scan to be projected (1024 resolution)

Thanks for your take on the matter.

 

[Les Sarile]

Just to be sure I understand, when you scan film - b&w as well as color negatives, the grain of the film is objectionable at A3 print sizes? No doubt everyone has different taste when it comes to film grain and that's why I ask for 100% crops just to determine if what you are seeing is typical of what can be had from Coolscan and film type.

My normal workflow scanninf any film type on my Coolscans is to always scan @ 4000dpi with all Nikonscan features off - except ICE for color films. If I find the "appearance of grain" objectionable, then I apply grain reduction in post before my final output to screen or print. Normally, the grain does not show on prints that small unless I am using super glossy. Any other stock - like matte or satin finish, looses so much detail that grain reduction is never needed. I've directly compared my inkjet prints to ones I made in the darkroom as well as optical prints up to 20" X 30".

I have many TMAX 100 & 400 and TRI-X 400 that I've scanned with the Coolscans @ 4000dpi so I have many to compare to if you decide to post 100% crops for discussion.
I also have many others from all the other films I've used such color negatives and slides.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Vuescan delivers softer scans than NikonScan from what I can remember. You might want to give that a whirl.

 

[Scott Murphy]

The 5000, like my 8000 ED is a very capable and discriminating scanner and it will show up any grain in the negative. I might suggest using a program like Topaz DeNoise to reduce grain in the image.

Btw, what developer/temp combination are you using?

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Hi Bikerider, some ideas, based on conversations I had with Adrian, who often posts here, and other experienced practitioners:

1. Scan at the scanner's optical resolution. It may be 4000 dpi on that Nikon, but check.
2. No sharpening during the scan. Do that later, if you wish, with another software package.
3. If you want less grain, a modern T-grain film will probably be your best bet. Another option: Fuji Acros film.
4. If you use a traditional cubic grain film, you can use fine-grain developers (like the old Microdol-X), but you risk some loss of detail.

Final hint: accept the grain as being proof that you used film. Be one with the grain. Enjoy!

+1

I’d do this for both BW and color. Don’t evaluate the grain at the scan resolution, or even your post production working resolution, evaluate it at the output resolution after you’ve scaled it down and prepped it for the output. For prints, that would be 240-300 pixels per inch, so an 8x10 print would be 2400x3000 pixels. Once you’ve scaled the original scan down to that, You’ll probably find that a significant amount of the grain has a tendency to go away or be significantly lessened.

 

[jtk]

Because most photographers use diffused enlargers they are surprised by the high detail resolution typical of inkjet prints.

 

[BMbikerider]

When I print B&W I use a condenser equipped enlarger (Leitz Focomat) and the grain from FP4, Kentmere 100 or Foma 100, all developed in either Perceptol or ID11 will enlarge up to 12x16 with very very little grain visible at normal viewing distances. With scans there is no real escape, although I have found if I alter the GEM setting there is a marginal improvement.

With colour film I have little choice when printing, I have to use my LPL7700 with diffusion head. All colour developers are more or less the same (Generic?) printing on RA4 paper grain is virtually invisible at least up to 12 x 16. I have also found that controlling the depth of colour/exposure in the sky tones when printing digitally the grain is noticeably less but still visible and more than a chemical print.

I am working out ways to defeat the grain bug. When I want to upload an image for viewing on say a forum or Flickr, I will print a darkroom image at the most to A4 or A5 and at that scale grain is not a problem, then scan on my flatbed.usually at 400 dpi so there is room to slightly enlarge if necessary. (And correct any imperfections)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Hi Bikerider, some ideas, based on conversations I had with Adrian, who often posts here, and other experienced practitioners:

1. Scan at the scanner's optical resolution. It may be 4000 dpi on that Nikon, but check.
2. No sharpening during the scan. Do that later, if you wish, with another software package.
3. If you want less grain, a modern T-grain film will probably be your best bet. Another option: Fuji Acros film.
4. If you use a traditional cubic grain film, you can use fine-grain developers (like the old Microdol-X), but you risk some loss of detail.

Final hint: accept the grain as being proof that you used film. Be one with the grain. Enjoy!

+1

Many photographers suffer from a sickness that they self induce by insisting on scanning at the highest resolution possible, then afterwards, zooming in and taking a position on scanning based on looking at the grain at a scale a multitude higher magnification than they’ll ever see it on a print. I call it the sickness of looking way too close. Yes, resolution and sharpness matters, but only to a point.

go ahead and scan it in at the highest resolution you have available to you. Don’t sharpen the original scan, as all you’ll be doing is sharpening the grain.

when you go to print it, make a copy of the original scan, crop it for the print, then resize it down to 240-300 pixels per inch you intend to print. Sharpen that scaled down version for the print, though if you’re scanning it in at 4000dpi, you’ll find that sharpening is usually not needed on a picture that is in focus. A 12x18 inch print of a 135 format frame needs 3600x5400 pixels, or about 3800 dpi if printed at 300 pixels per inch. The reality of the matter is, the bigger the print does not always equate to more resolution simply because you tend to see it from much further away. 8-10 megapixels looks just as good on a big 65 inch diagonal print hanging up on a wall as it does on an 8x10 that you can hold in your hand. Heck we all think 1080p on a 50 inch TV looks good and that’s only 2 MP. Imagine a print that size on your wall, but instead of 2MP, it’s 8-10MP.

also, how you post process the raw NEF file will effect the appearance of the grain. You can definitely make it worse depending on what you do after the fact.

as you’re probably discovering, scanning at high resolution usually results in far more grain than an optical print, and significantly more grain than what you’d see if you shot the same thing digitally. Many people call it grain aliasing. Even though that can happen (or it’s perceived to happen, but is actually usually caused by post processing problems), the reality is what they’re really seeing is significantly more resolution than what they’re used to seeing via whatever analog path they have access to, or they’re comparing it to whatever they see via shooting digitally, which tends to be pretty clean compared to even high resolution film.

the fact of the matter is if you can manage to maintain 50LP/Mm through your analog optical chain from camera to print you’re doing pretty good. 50LP/mm works out to ~2400dpi for a 135 format frame. Oddly, the same rough approximate resolution of most film scanners. Imagine that.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

When I print B&W I use a condenser equipped enlarger (Leitz Focomat) and the grain from FP4, Kentmere 100 or Foma 100, all developed in either Perceptol or ID11 will enlarge up to 12x16 with very very little grain visible at normal viewing distances. With scans there is no real escape, although I have found if I alter the GEM setting there is a marginal improvement.

You’re shooting 35mm right?