Fine Grain B&W Film

[SolaresLarrave]

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?

[Pherdinand]

There's one big cross-shaped red grain, Francisco. It's quite ugly, indeed:)

[SolaresLarrave]

I just replaced the image above your reply with another even grainier.

Here's the one Pherdinand saw and replied to so quickly.

[GeneW]

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

[SolaresLarrave]

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... :)

[SolaresLarrave]

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?

[plexi]

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

[Rich Silfver]

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.

[Todd.Hanz]

Try Acros!

Todd

[plexi]

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...

[Rich Silfver]

Oh and forgot: "Try Acros!" ;)

[plexi]

Let me triple that :try Acros!:D
Best 100 ISO B&W film I`ve ever tried....

[Peter]

Just making a comment here. Is grain really that bad? :(

[Pherdinand]

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.

[Rich Silfver]

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 :)

[plexi]

Originally posted by Peter
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]

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...

[Rich Silfver]

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...)

[plexi]

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!

[GeneW]

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

[GeneW]

Originally posted by Rich Silfver
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've come to like Neopan 400 very much too, but I don't think it's "better" than Tri-X, just a little different. Tri-X is, I think, slightly grainier and a little sharper. I love 'em both.

Gene

[Rich Silfver]

Tri-X will always have a special place in my heart...that and in some of my cameras where I've forgotten that there's a film loaded :)

[SolaresLarrave]

Wow!! Thanks for the tips on scanning! This is not the first time I hear about that particular approach (scan big, and resize small later). In fact, the guy in charge of scanning here at the university lab told me about it, only he didn't go into that much detail.

I'm going to do it soon. In fact, I may re-scan the same shots I posted and show them to you. Most likely, the grain will not show up as it will be hidden or diminished.

Regarding sharpening... I'm not a big fan of the tool. I've used USM sometimes, and found it makes miracles in some shots while wrecking others, but then, it may be due to my scanning approach.

And, indeed, I'll try Acros! I think I just shot my last roll of T-Max yesterday! :)

[plexi]

Just a little regarding USM, a scanner really robs sharpness from a negative, so some USM is "almost" needed, just don`t use too much, and make it your last step before "save to web".
For a web image (around 900x600) USM settings around : 120%, 0,8 radius and 3 threshold works for me...


Acros is a truly great film, makes the loss of Agfa APX 25 easier...
:)

Here`s an example of APX 25( still have some left in the fridge)

[back alley]

ok i need a photoshop lesson, brief is good.
unsharpmask (usm) to 'sharpen' a pic?
please explain.

joe

[charlesfoto]

Well, I'll go against the grain here(groan) and say that Ilford Delta 100 is, to me, the sharpest, least grainy film I've used. I've had good luck with the scans, and the prints from my pro lab have been excellent.

[back alley]

i used the delta films when i was shooting medium format and liked them very much.
of course 3200 was my favourite so grain was not my major concern.

[plexi]

Originally posted by backalley photo
ok i need a photoshop lesson, brief is good.
unsharpmask (usm) to 'sharpen' a pic?
please explain.

joe

Everything you need to know about USM (http://home.online.no/~carnholm/txt/01usmENG.htm)

[back alley]

thanks amund!
i'll be back in about a week, should have it figured out by then ;)

joe

[SolaresLarrave]

One last question to Richard and Gene: when you guys scan your images... do you set a particular output size? My scanner's software allows that, which means I can scan a small slide into a large image of potentially large size instead of a heavily loaded and large file that renders a small print. My question is, basically, if you scan a high resolution, when you check the file in the Print Preview function in PS, do you see a large file (say, 8"X11") or is it a small print?

I'm fixing to scan some slides this evening and I'll do as you advice.

Thanks! A big lot!! :)

[GeneW]

Originally posted by SolaresLarrave
One last question to Richard and Gene: when you guys scan your images... do you set a particular output size? My scanner's software allows that, which means I can scan a small slide into a large image of potentially large size instead of a heavily loaded and large file that renders a small print. My question is, basically, if you scan a high resolution, when you check the file in the Print Preview function in PS, do you see a large file (say, 8"X11") or is it a small print?

I'm fixing to scan some slides this evening and I'll do as you advice.

Thanks! A big lot!! :)
I never use the print preview function (don't own a photo printer) but here's what my 2700dpi 16-bit TIFF scan looks like in Photoshop. I looked at Print Preview and it gave the same dimensions for length and height.

Gene

[digitalox]

Thanks for that link to USM plexi, that was good stuff. Finally I have some idea of what that is supposed to do. I'll have to go back and experiment with that some more now.

I recently tried NeatImage. A great tool! The results on some images were really good. I'll post some before/after samples later tonight or tomorrow when I get to my laptop.

I've noticed some grain in my tmax too, but don't know if its my shooting, processing, or post-processing. I really need to figure it out. I want to buy some diafine, at least that pretty much pust the processing phase as a no-brainer and I can possibly rule it out.

--
Scott