Some B&W films scan differently than they darkroom print.

[StepheKoontz]

I am fairly new to B&W film scanning but I'm starting to notice than the scans from some films, especially "traditional" grain higher speed films like HP5 and ultrafine 400 on 35mm scan way differently than they print on my diffusion enlarger in the darkroom. The scans from silverfast/Epson V600 are super grainy and contrasty, to the point resolution is lost in the grain. Printing these same negs in my darkroom, they look normal and the grain isn't nearly as visible. This seems to be especially true on "thicker" negatives where I am exposing to retail some shadow detail.

Have other people noticed this? Is this a function of the film stock, or that these negatives are more dense and the scanner is having a hard time dealing with that. I haven't noticed this as much using TMY or Delta 100.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I am fairly new to B&W film scanning but I'm starting to notice than the scans from some films, especially "traditional" grain higher speed films like HP5 and ultrafine 400 on 35mm scan way differently than they print on my diffusion enlarger in the darkroom. The scans from silverfast/Epson V600 are super grainy and contrasty, to the point resolution is lost in the grain. Printing these same negs in my darkroom, they look normal and the grain isn't nearly as visible. This seems to be especially true on "thicker" negatives where I am exposing to retail some shadow detail.

Have other people noticed this? Is this a function of the film stock, or that these negatives are more dense and the scanner is having a hard time dealing with that. I haven't noticed this as much using TMY or Delta 100.

I have been trying to track down the reason why some film seems to gain a strong grainy look when scanned. It may be that the objectionable "grain" in the scans is an artifact (if that is the right word) of some part of the software manipulations that happen after the scan (?)

I use an old Minolta film scanner and VueScan for 35mm (mostly HP5+ but also some old Tri-X). I have VueScan set to do almost no processing to the scan file as I do all that in Photoshop. Sometimes I will take scan file of a negative into Photoshop, and when first opened, grain is moderate, but after highlight/shadow recovery steps, it becomes much more of a problem. And sharpening can make it look even worse. I have also found using some presets and third party tools like those in the Nik collection can make the grain-effect much worse.

If you have Silverfast set up to automatically make a lot of adjustments immediately after the scan, I would suspect the effect may be created/accentuated during that step. See if you can get the scanner to deliver a file with as little processing as possible - check to see if the excess grain is present from the very start.

In Photoshop, sometimes applying a slight Blur or Denoise filter up front - before shadow/highlight/sharpening steps - can reduce/eliminate the effect in the final version as long as I don't try to get too heavy handed with the highlight/shadow recovery steps.

More recently, I have just started using a digital camera and a macro lens to copy negatives as an alternative to the film scanner, and my initial impression is that those files are less likely to suffer from excess graininess - but - so far, those have been mostly 120 negatives, where grain is much less of a problem. I have not made enough digital copies of 135 film to say for sure the camera copies are less grainy than the film scanner results. Need to do some side by side comparisons.

 

[Les Sarile]

I am fairly new to B&W film scanning but I'm starting to notice than the scans from some films, especially "traditional" grain higher speed films like HP5 and ultrafine 400 on 35mm scan way differently than they print on my diffusion enlarger in the darkroom. The scans from silverfast/Epson V600 are super grainy and contrasty, to the point resolution is lost in the grain. Printing these same negs in my darkroom, they look normal and the grain isn't nearly as visible. This seems to be especially true on "thicker" negatives where I am exposing to retail some shadow detail.

Have other people noticed this? Is this a function of the film stock, or that these negatives are more dense and the scanner is having a hard time dealing with that. I haven't noticed this as much using TMY or Delta 100.

I am curious how you are comparing the results from scan? Also, how large is the print?

There is a scanner phenomenon called "grain aliasing" that reportedly exaggerates the appearance of grain. Here is an example I have that might be considered grain aliasing from what I consider a particularly grainy film - Rollei ScanFilm CN400 Pro. It is a color negative without the orange mask that supposedly makes it easier to scan but I am not sure if is even available anymore. Since the difference is most pronounced between the Coolscan 9000 and 5000 I would guess that it is the angle/distance of the scanner's internal light source that is causing the exaggerated grain.

Also, when scanning true b&w films, make sure to disable ICE (dust and scratch removal) as that can more then exaggerate the appearance of grain.
Other factors that can contribute to exaggerated grain is sharpening in scan/post or trying to raise exposure levels in the scanner - or post, of an underexposed frame of film.

 

[shutterfinger]

Scanning is like creating a photograph or printing the negative, it takes time and experience.
Scanning is for obtaining the most detail from the negative, image editing software is for making it look as you want.
While you can edit in scan software its best not to as scan software will clip detail to make it look good.
Put Silverfast into Pro/manual mode, auto everything off. Make a 600dpi or 1200dpi scan of a known good negative as your reference. Move one adjustment only in 10% increments until noticeable artifacts show up at 100% in post processing software. Repeat for the next adjustment, repeating until all adjustments have been exercised. Now start using them in pairs making only 5% increment changes, then in in threes. This will take 12 to 18 hours but you will know how to scan with any scanner or software except Vuescan which has its own system that does not conform directly to other scan software terminology. You may find Vuescan better than Silverfast SE.

 

[markbau]

Is digital ICE or other dust/scratch removal features disabled? On my coolscan ICE must be turned off for B&W and Kodachrome film otherwise you end up with a scan that is sort of what you describe.

 

[MattKing]

If you print a negative in several different types of enlargers, the prints will look at least subtly different.
If you scan a negative using several different types of scanners, the resulting scans will look at least subtly different.
If you scan a negative using the same scanner, but a few different types of compatible scanning software, the resulting scans will look at least subtly different.
Do you see a trend? .
Most of the meetings of our Darkroom Group take place at our friends' home, where they have a large darkroom with six different types of enlargers. Lots of choices to be made when we decide to print.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

TMY Tmax film doesn;t use regular grain but is a tabular grain. This may account for it. It's made for scanners.

Also, you cannot use ICE with BW film as Mark mentioned above. Do all spotting in post processing.

PS: I only use Epsonscan software with my V600. So it's possible that Silverfast is adding grain due to some setting you use. Try Epsonscan and see what results you get with it. Shut Off all auto scan functions and scan "flat".

 

[juan]

As Fred Picker used to say different is not the same.

 

[markbau]

As Fred Picker used to say different is not the same.

Fred Picker, there's a name I haven't heard for a long time! He of the "heavy fixer" and "magical cold light" nonsense.