Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.
I'll just add that on top of a film scanner being more "sensitive" to traditional film grain, there's digital noise from the scanner's sensor itself that comes into play, which accentuates the captured film grain.
Due to lots of technical details, that I won't go into now, some emulsions are more prone to this than others. Kodak's traditional emulsions being Exhibit A. There are newer emulsions, like the "HD" and C-41 B&W films that are now "optimized" for use with film scanners.
This is the issue I'm talking about, it seems. It's like digital noise introduced by the scanner, which is a kind of consistent pattern like you'd get off a high iso digi cam, is mixing with the films actual grain. The end result is ultra grain!
I'm using only Fuji NPS (or whatever the new version is called) and over expose by a third of a stop.
Yes, there is grain in the shadow areas like I'd expect, but there seems to be more grain in the highlights. I suspect I don't notice it as much with trannies because of the higher contrast and deeper blacks.
To answer Nikonsweb's question, I'm shooting Negs again because I value the latitude. Although I'm used to using meterless cameras, New Zealand's sun is pretty intense and thus causes some problems, even at dusk. I would love to shoot 100% on Astia or Provia 400x but conditions just aren't ideal for it. Am archiving my last years work now and I must say Astia is my favourite film of all time, followed by 400x pushed.
I also have a V700 but because it doesn't auto-focus, it's next to useless on small negs/trannies.
As to another response, I'm wondering what effect my gear choise has on this process also. I'm using only Leica lenses, 35 Lux ASPH, 50 Cron (latest) and 28 Elmarit ASPH, so all are relatively contrast prone at the best of times.
For those of you with the new Nikon scanners, what did you come from? What are the advantages to your new setup?
Does anyone out there still use a Canon FS4000? What are you used to seeing?