Jump to content

Scanning and the debris uncovered!


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm using a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite to scan Fuji Pro 400 H film using 5400 resolution and 8 times multi scan to produce a 233 mb Tiff file. I know, it's a large file.

 

When I use actual pixels in Photoshop to remove any dust spots etc. I find spots, tiny scratches, what can only be tiny holes in the emulsion and myriad negative-orange-coloured specs all over the scan. Using the clone stamp and spot healing brush it takes 30 0 50 minutes to clean each photograph! I'm sure that others are not enduring this. I don't want to lower the resolution of the scan as I'd rather know that, if I need a very large print in the future I don't have to start scanning again. I've not turned ICE on as it slows the scanning time and it already takes about 15 minutes per scan. Any help? Will Noise Ninja remove the orange specks? I'm ready to go digital!

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe your file size is overkill.

I scan slides or negatives using a Nikon 8000 at 4000, 8 bit, single pass to get files of 6 about 60mb and haven't been limited in enlarging up to A2.

I would try scanning at 4000 or 5400 single pass with ICE on and then making a trial print.

 

Maurice

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe your file size is overkill.

I scan slides or negatives using a Nikon 8000 at 4000, 8 bit, single pass to get files of 6 about 60mb and haven't been limited in enlarging up to A2.

I would try scanning at 4000 or 5400 single pass with ICE on and then making a trial print.

 

Maurice

 

Thanks Maurice, I'll give it a go. If this will enlarge to A2 I'm sure that will be fine: this is the information that I require. My present scanning technique shows the cellulose base!

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I began noticing an overall dusting of fine white(er) specks in negs when I upgraded from 2700ppi scanner to 4000ppi (both Nikons). Much finer than even the "grain", which was visible in the 2700 scans.

 

I suspected something was getting into my or my lab's wash water or chemicals, or in the drying process - it being the era when "Colorado was burning" with several big wildfires and I wondered about ash getting into our water supply reservoirs or just the air. I got much more vigorous about filtering chems, using one-shot chems with distilled water, sealing the drying environment better. No change. Even tried pro labs for some B&W. Still no change.

 

Finally, I decided it was basically the same thing as the "pepper grain" that was an issue in scanning Fuji slide films 6-7 years ago as the higher-res scanners came on the market

 

Luminous landscape

 

...which turned out to be bubbles in the plastic film base. Too fine to show up in classic optical enlargement (and therefore something film makers had never thought to worry about) but red meat for high-res scanners. And reversed to white specks when scanning negs. Something that ICE won't pick up anyway, since they are "air" and thus transparent to infrared.

 

Generally speaking, they can be swept away with an aggressive use of Photoshop's "Dust and scratches" filter, set to 1 pixel and a low threshold (10 - 25 or so - YMMV).

 

At 1 pixel, in 4000ppi-5400ppi scans, the filter won't affect real image detail - unless your camera lens is resolving 160 to 200+ lppm, unlikely given the dye-cloud structure of color negs. But it's one of those filters with a window that allows you to see the image magnified as you adjust the settings, so you can keep an eye on "real" image detail while playing with the threshold - just to be sure.

 

The other question would be, do you have/use the "grain dissolver" diffuser Minolta provided or sold for their scanners? It might help to knock down the grain and these other specks/spots.

 

This is the third-party equivalent from Scanhancer: Official Scanhancer Site

 

_______________________

 

Off the main topic, but multi-scanning is really designed for picking up more, smoother detail out of the dense shadow areas of SLIDE film. For color neg film, which is MUCH less dense, it may be mostly a waste of time.

Edited by adan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to Andy’s comments, I confirm that the Minolta 5400 incorporates the "grain dissolver". "Grain dissolver" is switched on automatically when selecting ICE in the Dimage Scan software (the icons are linked). If I remember correctly, Vuescan enables to use ICE without the "grain dissolver", but I don’t see the point of doing so.

 

With colour negative film, I use ICE/grain dissolver routinely in one pass, and hardly ever have to make any spot healing in PS. The film grain is another issue, if needed I use NeatImage for large prints.

 

Caveat: ICE is not compatible with Kodachrome or with B&W negs.

 

Compared to the Nikon Coolscan 5000, the Minolta 5400 has a higher resolution (5400 vs. 4000), but is less capable with high densities. However, only colour positive film (slides) contain high densities to be scanned. By its nature, a negative colour film cannot contain high density areas (even in washed-out skies).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

O.k. thanks again for your help gentlemen. I've ran a few tests and here are the results.

 

Scan 1 - 5400 resolution, 8 times sample no ice or grain dissolve - 244 mb file full of tiny holes and pepper grain as mentioned in original post. Scan time, about 20 mins.

 

Scan 2 - 5400 resolution, 2 times sample with ice and grain dissolve - 244 mb file NO HOLES OR PEPPER GRAIN! Scan time about 20 mins.

 

Scan 3 - 5400 resolution, 8 times sample with ice and grain dissolve - 244 mb file no holes or pepper grain. Scan time just over ONE HOUR!!!

 

Scan 3 - 5400 resolution, 4 times sample with ice and grain dissolve - 244 mb file no holes or pepper grain. Scan time about 30 mins.

 

So, ice and dissolve works, what's more, it doesn't visible affect sharpness even at Actual Pixels in Photoshop. Of all the scans made, the best is the 2 times scan as the grain is marginally sharper than at 4 times scan. What I call a result! Thanks again.

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, how do the various tests translate in terms of cups of tea? :D

 

I’m sure you will use the Minolta in full confidence after that study. You haven’t tried single pass? It could shave off a few more minutes.

 

Yes Max, lots of tea!

 

With my obsessive-compulsive nature I think I'm doing well with a two-pass scan.

 

Thanks again for your help.

 

 

Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, I'm sure that you will be pleased with the results. I was at my wit's end and wondering wether I had made the right decision to return to film. My (usual) method of not reading the instructions, not testing and running everything at (supposed maximum) made a LOT of work.

 

Thanks to the gentlemen who responded to my post, I'm able to use film and scan to digital - a process that I believe to be the best, as prints still show their analogue heritage.

 

I was sceptical at first (8 (or even 16 times sample MUST be better than 1 or 2, right?) but the results speak for themselves.

 

Enjoy!

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike - If making prints at 300 dpi, and if viewing files at 100% on a 72 ppi screen, bear in mind that you are assessing the noise and crap revealed by the scan at over 16x the print size. I used to make large file scans from my rollfilm negs, and to see how the detail of an [unretouched] large file might print at a large size I did an A4 section print from the file. I was amazed to discover that the file which appeared to need a couple of hours of laborious retouching at 100% lost a great deal of that crud to the eye when printed. Do the test for yourself; it might cheer you up with regard to how much retouching is needed from large file scans.

 

................... Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...