Grainy scans - how to improve?

[Benny Stevens]

Dear all,
I am not known for being a great specialist in film scanning. So, reluctantly I scanned some recent b/w negs on my Epson Perfection 1240U flatbed scanner today. It's TPU (transparency unit) is the only way I have to scan MF negs, my other 'real' scanner being 35mm film only (a Konica Minolta Dimage Scandual IV).
First one below is a scan of a Pentax 67 neg on Ilford FP4 in HC-110 (dil.B, 6 minutes), the second is one of a Bronica RF645 neg on Tri-X, also in HC-110. I scanned both at 1200dpi as 'color neg' because that gives less 'dirty' and less grainy results on the flatbed.
The only tweaks in PS Elements 2.0 were : conversion to greyscale, auto levels, slight luminance & contrast tweaks and finally some sharpening (unsharp mask).
Besides that I think the pics are not really sharp, they are grainy and dirty.  I was wondering now if this had to do with a bad film/developer combination, a bad scanner or a bad workflow.
I had the same bad results last time I tried with 35mm negs on the KM Scandual IV, but that might have been because of the HP5/Rodinal combination (1+50, 15min.), this developer being famous for grainy results? See third scan for this.
Ideally I shold print each of these negatives in the enlarger and compare the prints with what I got on the computer screen, but my wet darkroom is in boxes... Thanks for any input and ideas on what is the problem here.


Pentax67 (FP4 in HC-110)


Bronica RF645 (Tri-X in HC110)


Nikon FM2n - HP5 (35mm) in Rodinal

[Mike Kovacs]

First idea - if the scanner has digital ICE dust/spot remover (infrared scan) turn it off. It doesn't work with B&W white.

Second idea - turn off all automatic sharpening and scan it as a colour positive.

Third idea - when you convert from B&W to colour and invert the negative, experiment with the channel mixture. Often one of the 3 colour channels is sharper and less grainy than the others.

[Benny Stevens]

Hi Mike,
Neither the Epson, nor the Dimage have ICE. But experimenting with one of the color channels had also occured to me. I thought that it was only useful when converting digital color pictures to b/w, but I will certainly look into that this weekend. Thanks for the tip.
I am slowly getting disillusioned by using film (especially b/w) and scanning the negs and was wondering if my investment in film cameras was wrong (cfr. my recent purchase of a Bronica RF645) and should have gone digital instead after all, since the results are always disappointing as opposed to my experience in the wet darkroom many years ago... It seems there is no decent way to convert b/w film into good digital images/prints, unless I need to splash out for a decent and expensive MF scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000 or perhaps an Epson V700.
Rgds, Benny

[BillyBob]

It seems there is no decent way to convert b/w film into good digital images/prints, unless I need to splash out for a decent and expensive MF scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000 or perhaps an Epson V700.

We seem to see pretty decent results from folks here using various scanners - and I know that I've seen good results from an Epson V500 (which is a lot cheaper than the V700).

The scans from the following post were done on a V500.  30 year old Plus-X, and a 50 year old Ricohflex - and me behind the camera.  All told I wouldn't say that they're unacceptably grainy.

http://nelsonfoto.com/SMF/index.php/topic,21565.msg193549.html#msg193549

Edit: those scans were done by a colleague; I've no personal experience with the V500.

One thing that I did when I first started using my Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV (like yours), is take a neg for which I have a lab scan, and then work from the default scanner settings - or zero everything - and see what I have to do to equal the lab scan of the same neg.  It might be worth paying for pro lab developing and scanning for a couple rolls (any format) to set a benchmark, and then work with the same neg to see what it takes to equal the lab scan.

Or just take a neg from which you've successfully made wet prints - a neg that you know is good - and use that as your benchmark while you climb the learning curve.

I'm just starting to learn scanning myself.

Merry Christmas!!
Bill

[LarryD]

Only secret I know is that you have to play with and understand your scanner and the software. Sometimes I found I had to use unsharp in scanning to get less grain and other times I had to shut it off. I am now to the point with B&W film that I can give good sized scans from even pushed film as it is not all in the original scan but the Post Processing as well with special attention to mid-tones in shadow, contrast and highlights..

[Benny Stevens]

Bill, Larry, Mike,
Thanks for all this. I will definitely give this another try over the weekend and show what I could come up with. I will try to get the last from the Epson scanner and see where I end up before buying a third scanner. Perhaps I also need to avoid shooting wide open (or almost wide open) with the Zenzanon lens on the RF645. I did have better results a year (or two?) ago with scans from a roll with the Rolleiflex :


I just can't remember how because I did not take notes, thinking I would not forget. Truth is : I don't scan (read : 'shoot' enough) !  But I'm working on that.
Having a roll scanned profesionally and use that as a benchmark is a good idea. I thought about that, but will need to find a good lab. Instead of wasting my time browsing on evilbay as usual I could indeed grab an old negative and try to obtain similar results as the wet print from it.

[epatsellis]

I use "vintage" scanners, just like my cameras. Some things I have found that help greatly:

Scan at the highest *actual* resolution the scanner is capable of, typically stated as the "optical" resolution in documentation. You want to avoid resampling in your software whenever possible. Scan in color slide or positive mode.

Wet scan if at all possible, it makes a huge difference in reducing apparent grain, increasing dynamic range and overall higher image quality. You don't need a fancy wet scanning adapter, google wet scanning negatives to get an idea of how simple the DIY approach can be.

If you software will allow you to tweak exposure, and view the raw data histogram*, maximize the dynamic range by getting as close to 0 and 255, without exceeding either!!! *(If not, get Vuescan and spend some time learning it, well worth the $49 investment and works with many scanners)

If you're not going to print optically, expose and process for a CI of around 1 to 1.05, and expose up the curve, avoiding the toe if at all possible. As an example, I use HP5 in my RB, my film testing has determined an EI of 200 for a zone 1 density of .1 over Fb+Fog density. I place my shadows on zone 3 or 4, and allow the highlights to fall where they may, typically around zone 7 or 8. Processing is D76 for 6:30 @ 68 degrees F. Yielding a zone 8 density of 1.15 over Fb+Fog. (or a contrast index (CI) of 1.05). this ensures I'm well within my scanners linear range. When I scan, my exposure is set so the raw data just clips at the film base density and gain is increased until the darkest areas of the negative are around 240 or so.

Scan in 16 bit mode whenever possible, as level adjustments require as much dynamic range as possible to ensure not having posterization.

One other thing I will recommend, after inversion, check your levels and ensure you're almost clipping both ends, adjust as neccesary. After inversion, use the curves function to tweak the reproduction to your liking. When you find a general curve you like, save it and then you can apply it for every image. I went the route of shootign a step tablet, processing the film, then scanning using my standard workflow and linearizing the response by creating a curve that is the opposite of the errors. Once I apply this curve, I've essentially linearized the film/process/scan chain. From there, I can then apply curves for aesthetic reasons.

I hope this isn't overwhelming, I can answer specific questions if you have any after reading this.

I can ensure you that scanned film is the least expensive route to high resolution digital capture, My Dicomed FieldPro is wonderful to use, and the 6k x 7.2k captures are stunning, but I can get higher resolution, lighter weight (the FieldPro and laptop weigh in at around 17#!) and better ability to handle wide dynamic range with film, hands down.

[Benny Stevens]

Now that is going to require a serious study, but certainly worth digging into. Much appreciated!
I will go through this hands on and step by step. Looks like there is certainly room for improvement in my scanning method and good results to be had. I hope I can come up with something better soon, based upon the negatives I already posted above. Should be interesting to compare old and new trials next to each other. Will let you know. Thanks to everyone and stay tuned.

[Benny Stevens]

So I tried another scan of the same negative by setting the scanner software to 'colour neg.' and then checking in Photoshop Elements 2.0 if I could play with the channels. After checking the prices as well as the test comments on Epson V500, V700 and some other scanners, I decided to give the old Epson Perfection 1240 some more credit.  Maybe buying Silverfast or Vuescan software and use that instead of the Epson Twain 5 that came with the scanner?
Also, since Elements 2.0 does not have the 'channel mixer' possibility (I think), maybe upgrading that too would be useful?  Still a cheaper way to do with what I already have...
Thanks for your comments on this. And best wishes to everyone for 2011 !!
Benny