scanning Fuji Reala - strange noise/grain

[johnny.moped]

just compared reala vs. portra 160nc.
the reala-negative was processed by another lab than the ones above.
as you can see the portra-scan is very clean compared to the reala-scan.
so the problem seems to be fuji-related and not scanner, workflow or processing-related.

 

[PaulDalex]

Even more appalling.
It would mean that they are supplying retailers with defective film.
Hard to believe.
How would you explain that?

 

[joachim]

just compared reala vs. portra 160nc.
the reala-negative was processed by another lab than the ones above.
as you can see the portra-scan is very clean compared to the reala-scan.
so the problem seems to be fuji-related and not scanner, workflow or processing-related.

I have a Coolscan IV when changing from Nikonscan to vuescan I noticed that neg-scans were a lot sharper with vuescan than with Nikonscan. The Nikon software seems to introduce some blur.

I have seen such "grain" on non ICE scans as well (this includes some now discontinued Kodak film). Since ICE solves the problem and I am not keen on extended retouching session, I couldn't be asked to investigate further. The explanation of "pepper grain" makes sense to me.

You might be interested whether this still happens if you use the Nikon software.

If you like Reala for it's other properties (I don't like its colour and think it scan's like a pest), I suggest to switch the ICE on.

 

[PaulDalex]

So a solution could be switching to Portra NC.
This raises a question for me, because I think I never tried it.
What about Porta NC vs Porta VC?
I would greatly appreciate the suggestion of anyone familiar with these films

 

[PaulDalex]

BTW for the minolta 5400 I use the original minolta software. I always disable ICE because I am wary of some softening of the image involved in any filtering technique.
However, if someone has experienced that vuescan gives better results on the 5400 I am would certainly buy vuescan

 

[johnny.moped]

spent the whole evening scanning with vuescan, nikonscan, silverfast.
i even tried scanning in slide-mode.
the result: always the same grain.
for now i am pretty sure that it is the mysterious pepper grain as mentioned in the luminous-landscape-article.
looking at a non inverted scan it looks pretty much the same as the provia-scan in this article.

Even more appalling.
It would mean that they are supplying retailers with defective film.
Hard to believe.
How would you explain that?

actually it's not a defect, just a very annoying (in terms of dry-scanning) pecularity of all fuji films (just google for pepper grain and fuji).
wet-scanning or optical printing (without scanning) should not be a problem.

So a solution could be switching to Portra NC.

that's not a solution for me. i love portra vc for portait-stuff, but reala just has the best colors when it comes to landscape/cityscape-photography.



ICE is cool most of the time (especially for smaller prints and web-only-use) but when it comes to large prints i think if have to go with drum-scans (ok, where do i get a drum-scanner? 🙂 ).

by the way, has anybody experienced this product (http://www.scanscience.com/Pages/Film_Scanners.html) on a coolscan V or 5000?

 

[dfoo]

actually it's not a defect, just a very annoying (in terms of dry-scanning) pecularity of all fuji films (just google for pepper grain and fuji).
wet-scanning or optical printing (without scanning) should not be a problem.

Where is it in my scan then?

 

[Gaspar]

I am just going through 20 rolls of reala I bought from a forum member and home developing and scanning on cooscan 4000. I have always been a Kodak Portra fan but in my opinion this film is almost as good for portrait and better for capturing detail.
I have not found it excessively grainy at all, if anything less grainy then the Portra 160
I think you either have a bad batch or a processing problem.

 

[johnny.moped]

Where is it in my scan then?

THAT really is a good question.
but what i experienced this evening is that nikonscan slightly blurs the scans (misfocussing?) and therefore might not catch the layer with the bubbles (causing the pepper grain) that much. my test-scan with nikonscan indeed had less pepper grain but also was not as sharp as the scans with vuescan/silverfast.
putting the image slightly out of focus to reduce (pepper) grain is even mentioned on a very detailed article about grain-aliasing.
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm#solutions
and eventually you accidentally scanned the wrong side of the negative (this is even recommended in the article for the case that you cannot manually override the autofocus of your scanner). sorry for that - i'm just guessing. 🙂

 

[johnny.moped]

I have not found it excessively grainy at all, if anything less grainy then the Portra 160
I think you either have a bad batch or a processing problem.

what software are you using? is ICE switched off?
are you scanning at the highest possible resolution?

i am pretty sure i can exclude a bad batch or bad processing.
i have a lot of reala-negatives from the past two years processed by different labs and this kind of grain can always be found.

 

[dfoo]

THAT really is a good question.
but what i experienced this evening is that nikonscan slightly blurs the scans (misfocussing?) and therefore might not catch the layer with the bubbles (causing the pepper grain) that much. my test-scan with nikonscan indeed had less pepper grain but also was not as sharp as the scans with vuescan/silverfast.
putting the image slightly out of focus to reduce (pepper) grain is even mentioned on a very detailed article about grain-aliasing.
http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm#solutions
and eventually you accidentally scanned the wrong side of the negative (this is even recommended in the article for the case that you cannot manually override the autofocus of your scanner). sorry for that - i'm just guessing. 🙂

I scanned the right side of the negative. Also looking at the scan, it is grain sharp... I really don't know what to say. I never noticed this pepper grain on any of my scans.

 

[aad]

I never get that on Reala-unless there's major underexposure. In fact, it just looks like noise in unexposed film scans. ICE won't help. Noise Ninja might.

 

[amateriat]

BTW for the minolta 5400 I use the original minolta software. I always disable ICE because I am wary of some softening of the image involved in any filtering technique.
However, if someone has experienced that vuescan gives better results on the 5400 I am would certainly buy vuescan

"Better" is a strong word, but I somewhat prefer VueScan over Minolta's driver for the extra level of control it offers me (I use a Minolta 5400 as well). Where Minolta's software scores high is in the automation of certain boring tasks, and I use it once in a while where it serves best in that area; for heavy-duty scanning (when printing for an exhibit, or for another artist's work), VueScan is my go-to app.


- Barrett

 

[angeloks]

I never had problem scanning reala with my Coolscan 5000. You can see this full size scan (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2414895383_b7ccc2d4eb_o.jpg).

 

[PaulDalex]

Barret,
thank you very much indeed. I will try vuescan as soon as I get enough free time (Easter?).
My Italian supplier of film (Fotoamatore) has both Portra's and Ektar, but not the VS. May be I should try the Ektar
What do you think of this film?

 

[johnny.moped]

I never get that on Reala-unless there's major underexposure. In fact, it just looks like noise in unexposed film scans. ICE won't help. Noise Ninja might.

ICE helps - so no underexposure.

I never had problem scanning reala with my Coolscan 5000. You can see this full size scan (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2414895383_b7ccc2d4eb_o.jpg).

thanks a lot, but that image looks so clean that i can't believe that ICE was switched of. what did you scan with?

 

[johnny.moped]

just scanned a Fuji PRO 400H photo without ICE.
though this film is naturally grainier the problem is the same and very much visible.
so obviously it IS related to fuji-films.

 

[dfoo]

This is fuji superia 400 iso. No wierdo grain on that one either 🙂

 

[FA Limited]

maybe something wrong w/ your scanner?
i've only had my V briefly, but on 400H, it was looking good 🙂

 

[johnny.moped]

maybe something wrong w/ your scanner?
i've only had my V briefly, but on 400H, it was looking good 🙂

i would be glad if it was the scanner, but there are a lot reports about this problem. one even with a imacon flextight 848 scanner.
and other brands don't give me that grain (e.g. kodak portra).

This is fuji superia 400 iso. No wierdo grain on that one either 🙂

thanks again. i am scanning superia 200 right now. 🙂