Why some films and not others?

Coffee Shop

Coffee Shop

  • 1
  • 0
  • 193
Lots of Rope

H
Lots of Rope

  • 0
  • 0
  • 284
Where Bach played

D
Where Bach played

  • 4
  • 2
  • 632
Love Shack

Love Shack

  • 3
  • 2
  • 1K
Matthew

A
Matthew

  • 5
  • 3
  • 2K

Forum statistics

Threads
199,809
Messages
2,796,912
Members
100,042
Latest member
wturner9
Recent bookmarks
2

remegius

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Rohnert Park
Format
35mm RF
I'm new to this group and would like to see if I can finally understand something. I'm having a bit of a problem wrapping my mind around why it is that some films lend themselves to scanning, while others do not. Apparently, it has to do mostly with the way that scanners handle (or don't handle) grain. My primitive understanding has it that film/developer combination's that result in pronounced grain result in aliasing taking place when scanned, but I'm not sure just how that manifests itself, and just how deadly that is to begin with. Anyway, if anyone out there can enlighten me about this issue I would be most grateful. BTW, the final output for me are prints from an HP B9180.

Cheers...

Rem
 

pellicle

Member
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
1,175
Location
Finland
Format
4x5 Format
Hi

well, within a groupd (E6, C-41, Black&White) they all seem quite similar to me ... what differences are you meaning?
 
OP
OP

remegius

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Rohnert Park
Format
35mm RF
Well...I am picking up on a point made by Cardwell that scanners have a hard time interpreting grain. This results in the phenomenon of aliasing, which are the artifacts that are created because of film grain when an image is scanned and then printed. Obviously, this would never happen in the wet print process, so the suggestion is that it is virtually impossible to get a print via digital processing that compares with prints created in the darkroom. At least with certain films. However, this aliasing affect seems to be very small with some fine grain films such as Acros 100 and C41 films, and this results in more accurate scans, and therefore prints.
 

nsouto

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
627
Location
Sydney Australia
Format
Multi Format
The biggest difference in perceived grain you will see between film scans has to do with the smoothness of the emulsion side of the film and the nature of the scan light used.

Some films have a "rough" emulsion side. If you shine a light on these, you'll see a kind of "frosty" look in that side.

These will scan with excessive apparent grain in any scanner with a "hard" light source, such as most dedicated film scanners.

The phenomena is called "scan aliasing" and is the cause of many of the claims of "large film grain" in the past. It is not true film grain. It is just the scanner catching the roughness of the emulsion side and making it look like grain. There are a few websites that go to great lengths explaining what it is and why it happens, no need to go into it here.

Flatbed scanners usually have a softer light source, typically like a fluorescent light. These tend to generate a lot less scan-aliasing "grain".


In the days of widespread use of enlargers, you used to see a similar effect between hard-light condenser enlarger heads and softer ones, usually called "cold-cathode". Similar effect and similar results. Back in those days ALL films had a very rough emulsion side, so the problem was a lot more visible. Cold-cathode enlarger heads were great to minimize surface defects on film such as scratches. Same reasons.



Most modern -by that I mean batches less than 3 years old - colour negative films have the emulsion side "shiny". To the point where it becomes nearly impossible to discern which is the emulsion side, unless one uses the markings on the edges of the film to establish which is which. These films scan with almost no scanner-generated "grain".


Typical examples: any of the latest batches of Fuji Superia and Xtra, Fuji NPS and NPC films. Also Kodak BWC400N (b&w chromogenic) and the latest Ilford XP2 Super batches. Most of the remaining Kodak colour negative films are like that as well, at least the latest batches. I don't know about the new Ektar, haven't seen it yet in Australia. But I suspect it will have a very smooth emulsion side.

In the colour reversal films - colour slides - you get the latest Fuji Velvia 50, very recent batches of Astia and the very recent Provia 400X. Kodak Ektachromes are also very smooth and not prone to this problem.

Most traditional b&w films and older colour films are almost without exception in the "rough emulsion" camp. They need special post-processing when scanned with hard light sources, or the use of a flatbed scanner with a "soft" tube light source.
 
OP
OP

remegius

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Rohnert Park
Format
35mm RF
Thank you...and one further question.

The biggest difference in perceived grain you will see between film scans has to do with the smoothness of the emulsion side of the film and the nature of the scan light used.

Aha! Excellent exposition. I now have a pretty good handle on this issue, and would like to ask one more question: among traditional B/W films which ones lend themselves most agreeably to the scanning process? Hopefully Acros 100 would be among them, as it is a film I really love.

Cheers...

Rem
 

nsouto

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
627
Location
Sydney Australia
Format
Multi Format
Acros100 is definitely one of the smoothest, but from memory the latest batches of Tri-X are also very good. I'll look up some of my b&w strips and let you know which have the smoothest emulsions.

Kodak has done a lot of unnoticed and undocumented work in the last few years to make their films scanner-friendly. Fuji took a bit longer, but they mostly caught up now. Ilford is a bit behind the times with their Deltas but XP2 is now ok.

Please note that as I said, this is most relevant when dealing with "hard-light" scanners: dedicated film scanners, particularly the ones with LED light sources like the Nikons.
The 9000 is a notable exception: it has a "smoothed" sleeved LED light source that does not cause this problem as much. When I scan older films, I prefer its results.
With flatbeds such as the Epsons with their fluoro tube light sources, this is not as much of a problem.

Note also that this has nothing to do with Ice and D-Ice: rough emulsion is not the same as scratches, although a soft light source also helps in getting rid of scratches.
 
OP
OP

remegius

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
5
Location
Rohnert Park
Format
35mm RF
With flatbeds such as the Epsons with their fluoro tube light sources, this is not as much of a problem.

I am currently using an Epson V500 which is, well, adequate, especially considering the fact that I am mostly scanning MF negatives. Also, my developer of choice is Rodinal. The top scan is TMAX 400, the other TMAX 100.

Cheers...

Rem

hotel_web.jpg


steamers2.jpg
 

nsouto

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2005
Messages
627
Location
Sydney Australia
Format
Multi Format
Neopan 400 Pro is the other one with the shiny emulsion side.
Latest Plus-X from Kodak is not half bad, but nowhere like Acros or Neopan.
I have not tried TMax. Those look sensational.
Didn't know good ole Rodinal worked so well with the TMAX stuff, thanks!
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom