What should scanned B&W grain look like? (Tri-X and Delta 3200 especially)

[stevegoldenberg]

I just bought my first home-developer kit and I have been processing Tri-x and Delta 3200 in Ilford DD-X according to standard development times provided by Ilford. So far the negatives look normal coming out of the process. I scan them using vuescan but feel like the images at 100% detail look mushy and soft to my eye. Perhaps it's just that I'm not used to the look of film as much as digital.

Since I'm new to doing this myself I'd love to know what scanned b&w grain SHOULD look like. Would you share?

Here are two Delta 3200 images shot @3200 that I post-processed to a decent point:

 

[David_Manning]

Tricky question. Are you scanning for print output, or screen viewing?

Here's a few Tri-X scans shot at box speed (400) and with grain about how I like it...but, grain is very subjective. It's not meant to be definitive (none of my photography is), but reflects only what I like from the medium...

 

[V-12]

So far the negatives look normal coming out of the process. I scan them using vuescan but feel like the images at 100% detail look mushy and soft to my eye. Perhaps it's just that I'm not used to the look of film as much as digital.

You do need to post process them and apply some sharpening.

 

[venchka]

No Tri-X, but I do have some Delta 3200 in 35mm & 120. Developed in Xtol 1:3.

35mm first. Night. Retail store windows.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/1+hour/T-C+Nocturne/

Next is 120. Morning. Overcast.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backroads/Richmond/

Wayne

 

[kanzlr]

I scan them using vuescan but feel like the images at 100% detail look mushy and soft to my eye.

because they are. film does not have pixels 🙂
An image that you scan that results in a, say, 3000x2000 image does NOT have the same level of sharply defined details as an original 5MP image from a 5MP camera.

That being said, a bit of sharpening helps, but the question is, what do you plan to do with the image. For printing, I apply some unsharp mask, for viewing on screen, I do some sharpening, resize, sharpen again (input/output sharpening, lots of info available via Google).

 

[maddoc]

Delta3200 (Mamiya 7II / 43mm / V700) HC-110 "B"

XPAN / 45mm / HC-110 "B" / V700

Color-Skopar 35/2.5 PII / DD-X 1+4 Coolscan 4000ED

From my experience with Delta3200 it all depends on the developer, concentration, and scanner.

 

[mfogiel]

The basic information missing in your question, is the scanner you use. Unless it is a dedicated film scanner, you are unlikely to see sharp grain anywhere, because flatbeds simply do not resolve the (reasonably) small grain. With a CS5000 or 9000 or equivalent ( about 3800dpi effective resolution), and if you can keep the film flat, you can see the grain ok, and Tri X in DDX is reasonably good, depending on speed of course.

Tri X in DDX, Nikon CS 9000


MF20100412 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[stevegoldenberg]

Thanks everyone. I scan using an Epson v750. I use the stock holders and don't too a tremendous amount to keep the film flat, so perhaps that's part of the issue. I'm scanning at 6400 dpi and reducing to 3200 dpi in Vuescan to get the benefit of the downsampling. I do always post-process the images with local contrast and unsharp masking in Aperture or photoshop. Here are two images at 100% that show what I'm getting from both films (both developed in DD-X at 1+4)

Tri-X

Delta 3200

 

[mfogiel]

This is the problem - I have the v750 too, and it does not resolve grain - the true resolution is max 2200dpi. You can recreate the feel of grain by sharpening heavily, but this will give you a lot of aliasing and edge effect, this scanner is actually good for B&W because it blurs the grain a bit giving a pleasing tonality, particularly in MF or LF.

 

[bonatto]

I've wondered this myself. I have a Coolscan V ED and never quite liked the output from SUPERIA Xtra 400. The grain looks blotchy and "digitally noisy" if that makes any sense.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Yes it's hard to see grain on a flatbed, this Tri-x was with a Minolta scanner:

M4-P 50mm Elmar

On a Flatbed Delta looks tonally quite nice:

But has been 'smoothed' by the scanner slightly IMHO

 

[Noll]

because they are. film does not have pixels 🙂
An image that you scan that results in a, say, 3000x2000 image does NOT have the same level of sharply defined details as an original 5MP image from a 5MP camera.

Funny how perceptions differ ...I've found that my low-end scanner the reason for soft-looking scans, not the film. Looking at negatives with a loupe on a light table, I'm always impressed with the sharpness of film and grain.

That said, I've found using a dslr and macro lens for 35mm can, in some cases, run circles around flatbeds. Though, there may be some noise added, depending on the camera.🙁

All THAT said, I see some nice looking flatbed scans here too.

 

[stevegoldenberg]

I have been experimenting with shooting the negatives with my dSLR (a Canon 5D) and a macro lens (Canon's superb 100mm f/2.8 Macro). It seems to work exceptionally well. However, the setup required to do shots at any volume is a bit cumbersome. Perhaps there is a product to be made and sold to help with this...

 

[stevegoldenberg]

Also, do drum scans - or other high-end, expensive professional lab scans - do any better with B&W negatives and resolving their grain?

 

[venchka]

Drum scans are a whole other can of worms. Stunning to be sure depending on the machine, calibration & operator skill. The Large Format Forum has pages and pages and pages of drum scanning discussion.

This may be of interest...discussion of an 898 megabyte file. Big enough?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?96885-Grainy-drum-scans

Lenny Eiger is The Man when it comes to drum scanning.

Ivan, you did have to plead with me. I thought you were crazy. I'm glad I did it, and I did learn from the experience... I now scan one notch down from my usual standards. It turns out there are things that an LCD monitor does that make it look different than it actually is. Prints are better, and scans are sharper.

Lenny

P.S. Ooops, to the op's point: the resolution isn't the issue with grain, it's the anti-aliasing. On a drum scanner, one can match the grain size exactly to the aperture, and that's the way to go.

Wayne

 

[j j]

Delta 3200

I think what you have here is not grain but digital noise from the scanner (pale speckles). Maybe add a little contrast and/or bring up black point and see if that looks better.

Processing film scans is very different than processing digital files; I think of film pictures as pre-baked compared with more malleable digital pictures.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Delta 3200


35mm version, scanned with a Coolscan 9000



120 version; scanned with an Epson 4450

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Tri-X (souped in Diafine)


35mm, scanned with a Minolta Dual-Scan IV



120, scanned with an Epson 2450


So, it depends on a lot of factors...

 

[rodneyAB]

develop the film, print the film through an enlarger, wet develop the print, then scan the print for a reasonable web image.
the v750 is not good for 35mm film scan, or 120 for that matter, I get OK image from scanning a print. took me a while to learn this from chris101. the print is more satisfying than a web image most of the time,atmo.

 

[ayazdani]

I'm perfectly happy with my 35mm scans from the V700. They are marginally worse (in terms of resolution) than what I was getting from a Nikon Coolscan V. They've printed wonderfully at 8x12 and even higher.

When you have some time, I'll show you my digital workflow. Maybe sometime this weekend? I'm only four blocks away from you 😀