SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I'm disappointed at T-Max. Every time I scan a print, negative or slide (yes, from dp5.com labs), it shows a kind of obtrusive grain. Same applies for the Kodak X-Pan 125. In contrast, only a few of my Scala shots show discernible grain, but buying it and getting it processed can be, say, a bit expensive.
Any ideas about other kinds of film, as easy to find as T-Max, but with smaller grain? Are the Fuji B&W emulsions less grainy?
Any ideas about other kinds of film, as easy to find as T-Max, but with smaller grain? Are the Fuji B&W emulsions less grainy?
Last edited:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
There's one big cross-shaped red grain, Francisco. It's quite ugly, indeed
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I just replaced the image above your reply with another even grainier.
Here's the one Pherdinand saw and replied to so quickly.
Here's the one Pherdinand saw and replied to so quickly.
Last edited:
GeneW
Veteran
Franciso, what scanner are you using and what DPI are you scanning at?
It could be that what you're getting is something called 'grain aliasing' -- an effect where scanners exaggerate the grain on film. This is usually seen when scanning at 2700dpi and on faster iso 400 type films. The same frames, when enlarged in a darkroom, tend to show finer, tighter or almost no grain.
Sometimes bumping resolution up or down helps -- 1300dpi or 4000dpi or higher. The type of light the scanner has also plays a factor. Flatbed scanner lights are more diffuse and usually soften the grainy look. Some of the newer scanners have a softening filter ('grain dissolver' is one name) that can be invoked to cut down on the grain aliasing effect.
Gene
It could be that what you're getting is something called 'grain aliasing' -- an effect where scanners exaggerate the grain on film. This is usually seen when scanning at 2700dpi and on faster iso 400 type films. The same frames, when enlarged in a darkroom, tend to show finer, tighter or almost no grain.
Sometimes bumping resolution up or down helps -- 1300dpi or 4000dpi or higher. The type of light the scanner has also plays a factor. Flatbed scanner lights are more diffuse and usually soften the grainy look. Some of the newer scanners have a softening filter ('grain dissolver' is one name) that can be invoked to cut down on the grain aliasing effect.
Gene
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Granted, I used the PS Sharpening tool for the Daley Plaza Fountain shot, but not in the second.
I guess I'll try shooting & scanning the Fuji Acros Richard has been using lately...
I guess I'll try shooting & scanning the Fuji Acros Richard has been using lately...
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Gene, I have a HP 4570c flatbed scanner. Usually, I scan at relatively low resolutions, as most of my scans are destined for the web and not for printing. We're talking scans at dpi 200 to 350. There was a time when I was scanning at 1200 and then resizing the image down to 88 (again, for web posting).
Should I try scanning in high and low dpi values then?
Should I try scanning in high and low dpi values then?
P
plexi
Guest
Don`t blame the film, the grain you`re seeing is the result of a poor scanner or poor post-processing....
Here`s a portrait with T-MAX 100, no grain in sight....
Scanned with a Minolta Dual Scan III
Here`s a portrait with T-MAX 100, no grain in sight....
Scanned with a Minolta Dual Scan III
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
As much as I love Acros I kinda have to agree with Amund that Tmax is not a very grainy film and it may be that the culprit here is in post-processing.
I scan on a flatbed scanner like yourself (Epson 3200 with transperency adapter) and I normally scan at about 2400 dpi and do the "50-percent-process" - meaning I;
1) Load the file into PS. Apply level and curves while I have as 'many pixels as possible'. Apply a fairly high unsharpening sharp value (about 3 if the file is 80meg or more, 2.5 if 60-80meg) with a threshold value of 4.
2) I change the pixel-dimensions (in "Image size) for the width so that the projected file size is 50% of what it is.
3) I apply sharpening again (now at lower values, maybe 1 or 1.3).
4) I change the pixel-dimensions (in "Image size") for the width so that the projected file size is 50% of what it is.
5) I apply sharpening again (now at lower values, maybe 0.4 or 0.6)
And I keep going like that until I reach a pixel width of about 6-700 which is the size of an image that I like for posting on the web. At this point the file size will be about 100-200K when saving at image quality 10 with the baseline optimized method.
We all have our 'digital workflow'. As boring and repetitive as mine sounds it has worked pretty well.
I scan on a flatbed scanner like yourself (Epson 3200 with transperency adapter) and I normally scan at about 2400 dpi and do the "50-percent-process" - meaning I;
1) Load the file into PS. Apply level and curves while I have as 'many pixels as possible'. Apply a fairly high unsharpening sharp value (about 3 if the file is 80meg or more, 2.5 if 60-80meg) with a threshold value of 4.
2) I change the pixel-dimensions (in "Image size) for the width so that the projected file size is 50% of what it is.
3) I apply sharpening again (now at lower values, maybe 1 or 1.3).
4) I change the pixel-dimensions (in "Image size") for the width so that the projected file size is 50% of what it is.
5) I apply sharpening again (now at lower values, maybe 0.4 or 0.6)
And I keep going like that until I reach a pixel width of about 6-700 which is the size of an image that I like for posting on the web. At this point the file size will be about 100-200K when saving at image quality 10 with the baseline optimized method.
We all have our 'digital workflow'. As boring and repetitive as mine sounds it has worked pretty well.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Try Acros!
Todd
Todd
P
plexi
Guest
My postprocessing on the image posted was. scanning at full resolution on the SD III(2820 DPI) In PS I just did "image resize" to about 700x500, and finally USM. Rich`s three-step sharpening sounds a little overkill, but that may be the best way with a flatbedscanner, I have only experience with my Minolta...
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Oh and forgot: "Try Acros!"
P
plexi
Guest
Let me triple that :try Acros!
Best 100 ISO B&W film I`ve ever tried....
Best 100 ISO B&W film I`ve ever tried....
P
Peter
Guest
Just making a comment here. Is grain really that bad?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Peter: sometimes i do like grain, but in this case, at the first pic posted, i also dislike it.
And it looks a bit like some of my neopan 1600 frames (although i scan print-on-flatbed), which is indeed strange for tmax...
Sorry about the fast reply, Francisco i just couldn't resist. I probably checked the thread while you were replacing the pic.
And it looks a bit like some of my neopan 1600 frames (although i scan print-on-flatbed), which is indeed strange for tmax...
Sorry about the fast reply, Francisco
i just couldn't resist. I probably checked the thread while you were replacing the pic.
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
It's bad when you don't want it.
It's good when you do want it - or can't get around it (1600/3200 speeds).
The thing is it should be the photographer making the decision - not the film
It's good when you do want it - or can't get around it (1600/3200 speeds).
The thing is it should be the photographer making the decision - not the film
P
plexi
Guest
Peter said:Just making a comment here. Is grain really that bad?
When using 100 ISO B&W film, you usually don`t want grain, but personally I love the look of Tri-X, and don`t mind the grain at all. I also have started to use Neopan 400, great film!
back alley
IMAGES
i'm with peter, grain is not the enemy that most think it is.
one of the 'perks' of 35 mm film is easy grain.
not that i'm against creamy & smooth either...
one of the 'perks' of 35 mm film is easy grain.
not that i'm against creamy & smooth either...
R
Rich Silfver
Guest
Amund - funny. Neopan 400 is my other favorite film.
I have 'oficially' abandoned all Kodak b&w films for some time and am using only Fuji Acros 100 and Fuji Neopan 400 - they are amazing when it comes to low grain and ability to control highlights. Love 'em.
(I really should be paid endorsement money...)
I have 'oficially' abandoned all Kodak b&w films for some time and am using only Fuji Acros 100 and Fuji Neopan 400 - they are amazing when it comes to low grain and ability to control highlights. Love 'em.
(I really should be paid endorsement money...)
P
plexi
Guest
Rich, I`ve stopped using TMX after trying Acros too, TMX seems to block up in the shadows way too fast.
Acros is way easier to control, and I like the smooth look of it too.
Fuji is really making amaxing B&W films these days, I`d LOVE to try Acros on my 4x5 Crown Graphic!
Acros is way easier to control, and I like the smooth look of it too.
Fuji is really making amaxing B&W films these days, I`d LOVE to try Acros on my 4x5 Crown Graphic!
GeneW
Veteran
Franciso, try scanning at the maximum resolution, then downsizing it in your image editor to something like 600 or 700 pixels along the longest edge at 72dpi.
When you apply sharpening, it will also increase any grain or grain aliasing but it may be less noticeable when you start with a large image.
Depending on the image, you can also elect to do selective sharpening. Instead of applying overall sharpening, use the sharpen tool (on a layer preferably so you can discard it if you go too far) and sharpen the key, in-focus elements of the image such as a person's face.
When using USM (unsharp mask) a little can go a long way. You can experiment with lower numbers to get just enough sharpening to overcome the slight softness that always occurs when scanning.
Sharpening is an art and I'm sure we all do it differently. Lots of articles on the web on sharpening techniques. And every scanner has its idiosyncracies ...
Gene
When you apply sharpening, it will also increase any grain or grain aliasing but it may be less noticeable when you start with a large image.
Depending on the image, you can also elect to do selective sharpening. Instead of applying overall sharpening, use the sharpen tool (on a layer preferably so you can discard it if you go too far) and sharpen the key, in-focus elements of the image such as a person's face.
When using USM (unsharp mask) a little can go a long way. You can experiment with lower numbers to get just enough sharpening to overcome the slight softness that always occurs when scanning.
Sharpening is an art and I'm sure we all do it differently. Lots of articles on the web on sharpening techniques. And every scanner has its idiosyncracies ...
Gene