Scanning Issues. Help!

[bzange]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello dear forum members.

I am stuck and need some advice!

 

I purchased a Leica MP last year. The idea was to develop b/w myself, get color developed in the shop and scan the negatives.

I opted for the Nikon Coolscan 5000ED.

I am quite happy with prints I get from the shop as well as the b/w devloping but the scanning is just not working.

All scans (apart from b/w which is extremly grainy) show huge amounts of color noise.

I have tired the Nikon proprietary scan software as well as Vuescan.

The problem intensifies when I use multisampling which is actually supposed to reduce noise.

After experimenting for quite a while I came to the conclusion that there is a problem with the scanner.

I returned it to Nikon. Nikon apparently did some repairs however the problem is still the same.

 

Please see an example below.

img39 is a scan with standard setting done in Nikon Scan 4 from a Porta 160VC negative and img39crop is an enlargement to give a better idea of the noise.

 

Any ideas what is wrong? Is this a user error?

Your help would be most appreciated as I don't know how to proceed.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[j. borger]

I can say something about the grain but not on the colornoise, because i only scan B&W negatives myself.

 

Do you sharpen during scanning? If so .... put it off!!!

Sharpen later in PS in a mask, if necessary. Otherwise you are also sharpening the grain during scanning, making it more prominent.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[andybarton]

Looks pretty typical for scanned C41 film to me.

 

With B&W, I assume that you are using traditional silver based film? If so, you need to make sure that the ICE system in the scanner is turned off.

[bzange]

Thanks guys!

For b/w I do turn of the ICE.

Also, I generally don't "optimize" (sharpen etc) during the sacnning prcess but prefer to do that afterwards in Lightroom and PS.

 

Andy, so you are saying this is how it is supposed to look? When I see scanned pictures from other photographers the results differ quite a bit. As it is it is hardly usable.

Should I use something else than C41?

 

I bought a book on scanning (Scanning Negatives and Slides, Steinhoff), results in there look fairly different. Unfortunately I couldn't find any hints to solve my problem..

[rob_x2004]

Certaily pretty ordinary, and if I was getting that result out of porta ...

I might expect that degree of noise on the file viewed at 100%, but both printed and viewed at web resolution here, it should be near noiseless. Is the full frame image (not the 100% crop) a screen shot of the un post processed file zoomed out, or have you resampled it down to the 960wide in photoshop? A zoomed screenshot is not the same as a resampled, and depending on your software, a very different display.

What size are your original files? There becomes a point where upping the scan size doesnt really gain you anything.

Since scanning is such a black art and affected by your scan routine and your post process routine combined. It is going to take you a while to get the hang of it.

As a start point it is probably worth sitting a neg in the scanner turning ICE on, everythiing else off, and take a number of scans 1pass, 2pass, 4pass, starting at 1200dpi, 1800dpi, 2700dpi etc up to your maximum and examining the results. Find the optimum not maximum, and the time you can afford per scan and the final use size requirements. Theres really not much point in a 240MB file five and a half thousand odd pixels wide if you are only uploading to the web or doing A4prints. Then start looking at your post process routine to refine your "best" scan output. Personally I would put all the books back on the shelf till I understood the options and capacity of the scanner output and you can assess things constructively.

[twittle]

All scans (apart from b/w which is extremly grainy) show huge amounts of color noise.

 

That's not noise, it's grain.

 

Should I use something else than C41?

 

Your only other color option is E-6, which is reversal film (slides). There are some very fine-grained E-6 films by Fuji and Kodak.

Edited January 27, 2010 by twittle

[pleeson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I found that the long discontinued Kodak Supra scanned OK but not as well as E6 reversal film.

Most of the older C41 films looked pretty bad.

So, yes, I'd switch to an E6 film.

[Mike Rawcs]

I had some serious scanning issues which I posted on the post processing forum under "scanning and the debris uncovered".

I received some very good advice here which solved my scanning problems. I also ran some tests and posted the results (worth a look). Basically I was making an 8 times sample scan which was picking up every microscopic flaw in the emulsion of the film!

 

Take a look - hope it helps.

 

 

Mike.

[schn€id€r]

Hi,

 

this picture was taken on Portra 160NC, scanned with the same scanner as yours (but as positive slide with reverse colours, and then converted into real colours with colorneg), first as a complete picture, and then as a 100-%-crop (this seems more blurry than at my screen, but I don't get it better, perhapts due to re-scaling by forum-software). Simple scan, no multi-scanning etc. Just ICE on. No sharpening. It is not the same film, but I get similar fine-grained results even with Portra 400 NC, so that seems to rule out the film as a source of your problem?

 

Best

Michael

 

First:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

crop:

Edited February 1, 2010 by schn€id€r

[gtownby]

Hang in there! I have the MP for shooting Tri-X and, more recently, color. I then scan with the Nikon 9000 after getting the film back from the various labs. (I use a small B&W lab to develop my film and to make exhibition prints but use my Epson R2400 for all things color.)

 

First - The Steinhoff book is excellent! Read it all the way through!

Second - Get used to seeing "grain" -- I'm sure that is at least part of what you're picking up here.

Next, try slide film, as Steinhoff strongly recommends, for less grain and perhaps better colors.

Finally, keep experimenting with different settings, as a fellow forum member suggested.

 

Scanning really does take time. There are a lot of settings to tinker with and different approaches to different films. For example, I follow the advice of something I read here: I scan my Tri-X using RGB and then use Nik SilverEfx Pro to convert to B&W! Sounds way crazy, but the results far exceed scanning in grayscale.

[Mike Rawcs]

For example, I follow the advice of something I read here: I scan my Tri-X using RGB and then use Nik SilverEfx Pro to convert to B&W! Sounds way crazy, but the results far exceed scanning in grayscale.

 

I'm going to try that! Thanks.

 

Mike.

[ai1]

I use both color negative (usually Fuji Pro 160S) and B&W (lately TMax but I have a lot of Tri-X devleoped in many different developers which I also scan) as well as Kodachrome and Ektachrome (and the occasional Agfachrome). I also use a NIkon ED5000 with NikonScan. Note that Digital ICE works well with C-41 and E-6 film, but not at all with traditional B&W. To reduce noise, get some noise reduction software, such as Noise Ninja (which works very well) and use as a PhotoShop plug-in. The noise profiles vary from film to film. Use the minimium noise reduction to get the image to look the way you want. Sharpen after noise reduction. I apply the noise reduction and sharpening in a separate layer so I can reverse the effect if I have to. I typically use a 4x scan at 16 bits -- big files, but at a 12 x 18 print has no noise that matters.

[mdozier]

Regarding the original post my color scans with a 9000 are similar when close-cropped. I have only had the thing a few weeks and am still learning. I've been using the furnished Nikon software (I can't seem to get VueScan to work at all). I had hoped the evident grain or noise was something I was doing or a setting I didn't have correct. I am following this thread intently and hope to learn along.

 

Scanning really does take time. There are a lot of settings to tinker with and different approaches to different films. For example, I follow the advice of something I read here: I scan my Tri-X using RGB and then use Nik SilverEfx Pro to convert to B&W! Sounds way crazy, but the results far exceed scanning in grayscale.

 

Not to get too far off topic but I too use a 9000 after processing my own b+w, I tried scanning the b+w negatives rgb and converting in PS but it didn't look as good as greyscale. I don't have silverEfx is there another option or am I missing something?

[gtownby]

Did I miss something here about file format? I went back and looked at this abstract image of mine as a tiff @ 200 percent: Definitely film grain - no doubt about it. When I looked at the same image as a jpg @ 200 percent: Definitely noise - no doubt about it! (Portra 160 VC.)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[bzange]

Thank you all for giving some great advice!

First of all, as some of you mentioned, being new to film I really had to adjust my expectations in terms of grain and sharpness, especially when doing large scans.

Also Mike's older post "scanning and the debris uncovered" was very interesting.

I am now scanning single pass, ICE and grain reduction on, results look pretty good, even at 4k DPI.

When scanning at 4k but actually saving at 2k I do get very nice results indeed.

I am in the office right now but will try to post an exmaple over the weekend!

Overall I am quite excited with my "film-adventure" now. I love the colours I am getting and

using the MP feels great. I will have to try out some porta NC for portraits soon.