meandihagee
Well-known
I gave some 35mm negatives for a "hi-res" scan. the image quality is better and I have more detail on them versus some cheapo scans I got at a local lab (or scans on my V500).
However, there seems to be more grain and it's pretty obvious on some of the pics (the ones with white walls...)
They were scanned at 4000 tiff. Could it be that some option like "noise reduction" or something might have been turned off with the nikon 9000? Or is it that with bigger scan the grain also becomes more detailed?
I'm clearly missing something. Any thoughts?
However, there seems to be more grain and it's pretty obvious on some of the pics (the ones with white walls...)
They were scanned at 4000 tiff. Could it be that some option like "noise reduction" or something might have been turned off with the nikon 9000? Or is it that with bigger scan the grain also becomes more detailed?
I'm clearly missing something. Any thoughts?
JHenry
Established
I'd love to know the answer to this as well. I just scanned several rolls with my Nikon 5000ED, and think that there is more grain in these scans than previous scans. Would it be crazy to think that as the scanner gets more use the sensor picks up more grain?
For what it's worth, I've found the new LR4 Beta to be great for scans of negatives and slides, as the noise reduction is even better than LR3.
For what it's worth, I've found the new LR4 Beta to be great for scans of negatives and slides, as the noise reduction is even better than LR3.
Lovesong
Member
There's nothing you're missing. The noise (grain) is a function of the better scanner picking up grain that is inherently on the film. The reason for the lower amount of noise in cheaper scans (like ones from a V500), is that the scanner cannot out resolve the film, and it blends the grain into a soupy mess.
There are several ways around this. The best/ most efficient method is to do wet scanning. This is of course assuming that you aren't sending out your films to labs (like you are) and don't mind sticking glass sandwiches of naphthalene into a $3000 scanner. In your case, noise reduction can be done in post processing. Noise ninja is a great little plug-in, which allows you to reduce the noise per channel (most of it should be in your blue channel, in PS press CMD-5 (mac) control-5 (PC) to view). Short of noise ninja, you can "despeckle" the blue and green channels (it's under the filter menu), and try fading them (under edit) to an acceptable level between noise appearance and sharpness.
There are several ways around this. The best/ most efficient method is to do wet scanning. This is of course assuming that you aren't sending out your films to labs (like you are) and don't mind sticking glass sandwiches of naphthalene into a $3000 scanner. In your case, noise reduction can be done in post processing. Noise ninja is a great little plug-in, which allows you to reduce the noise per channel (most of it should be in your blue channel, in PS press CMD-5 (mac) control-5 (PC) to view). Short of noise ninja, you can "despeckle" the blue and green channels (it's under the filter menu), and try fading them (under edit) to an acceptable level between noise appearance and sharpness.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Look at your previous scans as if they came to you with a healthy amount of Gaussian blur added after scanning. 
Your new scanner is better in that it can resolve more detail. That means you have more info - what you do with that added information is up to you.
Your new scanner is better in that it can resolve more detail. That means you have more info - what you do with that added information is up to you.
Oren Grad
Well-known
Actually, it's more complicated than that. The Nikon 9000 is not capable of resolving film grain. Instead, it generates a coarse pseudo-grain that's not terribly pretty.
Yes, I have a 9000. I'm not thrilled with what it does to B&W negatives. It does hold up better in scanning color negatives; to my eye, up to a point, dye clouds degrade more gracefully than silver grains do when scanned with inadequate resolution.
To be clear, this isn't unique to the 9000, which is as good as a consumer-grade dedicated film scanner gets. No consumer-grade scanner is capable of resolving film grain.
More about this, if you're curious:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/gigabyte-film-scans.html
Yes, I have a 9000. I'm not thrilled with what it does to B&W negatives. It does hold up better in scanning color negatives; to my eye, up to a point, dye clouds degrade more gracefully than silver grains do when scanned with inadequate resolution.
To be clear, this isn't unique to the 9000, which is as good as a consumer-grade dedicated film scanner gets. No consumer-grade scanner is capable of resolving film grain.
More about this, if you're curious:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/03/gigabyte-film-scans.html
literiter
Well-known
Scans from my CS 9000 will show film grain especially when I use the glass carrier.
Prints from my enlarger, when well set up, will also show grain.
Prints from my enlarger, when well set up, will also show grain.
mdarnton
Well-known
Thanks for the great link. I remember getting "grain" even with my PhotoSmart S20 and 1100, and now with my Nikon D300 copies at around 2800, but I have realized all along it's not real. It adds body, though.
sahe69
Well-known
See also: http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm