Particularly good or bad films for scanning

I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.

Anyway, I'm looking around for suggestions for films that work particularly
well (or badly) when scanned. I'm cross-posting this to rec.photo.digital
and rec.photo.equipment.35mm, after some trepidation, because I think the
query legitimately fits the descriptions of both groups.

I don't have strong feelings about negative vs. positive film. I have the
overall impression that negative films can cope with a greater dynamic range
in the subject, which means that there is more opportunity to correct
exposure problems during scanning. Of course, it is better to expose
correctly in the first place, but there is not always a single definition of
correct, and it may not be possible to find the optiumum except in
retrospect. Nevertheless, if there is a positive film that produces
particularly good results, I'm all for it.

I have heard good things about Provia 400F, but haven't tried it. Is it
worth an experiment? (An automatic "yes" isn't helpful, because there are
so many films out there that if I don't decide which ones to try first, I
may never finish)

Other suggestions?

"Andrew Koenig" wrote:
I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be
that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.

Yup. ISO 400 films look pretty gross scanned if you look too closely. Hold
your nose and print seems to be the right approach.

Try Reala, Provia 100F, and Velvia 100F. Maybe Astia 100F.

You should also try Neat Image on the raw scans. It can help a lot.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Andrew Koenig" wrote in message
...
I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be
that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.


[SNIP]

I have heard good things about Provia 400F, but haven't tried it. Is it
worth an experiment? (An automatic "yes" isn't helpful, because there are
so many films out there that if I don't decide which ones to try first, I
may never finish)

Other suggestions?


If possible, use a slower film - something like Fuji Reala for example.
Also, you don't say what scanner you're using - if you find the grain of
Kodak Royal Gold 400 acceptable on an 8x10 print, grain shouldn't be much
more noticable on your monitor, unless it's suffering from noise or just
isn't doing a very good job of colour-correcting. I don't think the film
could be completely to blame if you're getting good prints but bad scans. If
you get your prints done at a standard high-street lab, it's probably been
scanned and digitally printed anyway.

Chris.

"Andrew Koenig" writes:

I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.

Anyway, I'm looking around for suggestions for films that work particularly
well (or badly) when scanned. I'm cross-posting this to rec.photo.digital
and rec.photo.equipment.35mm, after some trepidation, because I think the
query legitimately fits the descriptions of both groups.

I don't have strong feelings about negative vs. positive film. I have the
overall impression that negative films can cope with a greater dynamic range
in the subject, which means that there is more opportunity to correct
exposure problems during scanning. Of course, it is better to expose
correctly in the first place, but there is not always a single definition of
correct, and it may not be possible to find the optiumum except in
retrospect. Nevertheless, if there is a positive film that produces
particularly good results, I'm all for it.

I have heard good things about Provia 400F, but haven't tried it. Is it
worth an experiment? (An automatic "yes" isn't helpful, because there are
so many films out there that if I don't decide which ones to try first, I
may never finish)

I've had very good results with Fuji Reala for scanning. And in B&W,
XP2.

In general, color negative films scan better on consumer equipment
than reversal films, because the dmax is lower. On a drum scanner or
real commercial equipment of other sorts, this isn't a problem, but it
is on quite a few otherwise quite good home scanners, like my Nikon
ls-2000.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

In general, color negative films scan better on consumer equipment
than reversal films, because the dmax is lower. On a drum scanner or
real commercial equipment of other sorts, this isn't a problem, but it
is on quite a few otherwise quite good home scanners, like my Nikon
ls-2000.


Less so on more up to date scanners with 16 bit/channel sampling,
providing Dmax in excess of reversal film density. Despite that,
yes, drum scanners do do even better.

16 bit per channel gives effectively log10(2^14.5)=4.36 (take 1.5
bits as 'noise') for Dmax. This is in excess of any claim I've
seen for reversal film Dmax.



--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
"Andrew Koenig" writes:

I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be
that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.

I've had very good results with Fuji Reala for scanning. And in B&W,
XP2.

Reala yes, XP2, no. I basically see Provia 100F as the standard, and then
rate a film based on how much worse it is. Reala is just a tad worse, and
XP2 is a major disaster by comparison.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be
that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.

I've had very good results with Fuji Reala for scanning. And in B&W,
XP2.


Reala yes, XP2, no. I basically see Provia 100F as the standard, and then
rate a film based on how much worse it is. Reala is just a tad worse, and
XP2 is a major disaster by comparison.


XP2 has always scanned well for me, very little post processing
required. All the AGFA neg films are exceptional to scan, particularly
Ultra 100.

The only neg films I've had issue with are the Fuji 4th color layer
films. The raw scans have a horrendous green cast that is easily
corrected in PS. The only film (to date) that I have had terrible
results with is Kodak T400CN. Very blah.

RP©

"Rich Pos" wrote:

Reala yes, XP2, no. I basically see Provia 100F as the standard, and then
rate a film based on how much worse it is. Reala is just a tad worse, and
XP2 is a major disaster by comparison.


XP2 has always scanned well for me, very little post processing
required. All the AGFA neg films are exceptional to scan, particularly
Ultra 100.

I suspect that your "scans well" and my "scans badly" are talking about
different things. I don't want to see grain (or dye clouds) in a 300 dpi
print of a 4000 dpi scan.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Andrew Koenig wrote:
I am not satisfied with the overall quality of scanned images from 35mm
Kodak Royal Gold 400--even though 8x10 prints look fine, the same images
look too grainy when displayed on a monitor. Part of the reason may be that
my monitor is about 12x16 inches.
...
I have heard good things about Provia 400F, but haven't tried it. Is it
worth an experiment? (An automatic "yes" isn't helpful, because there are
so many films out there that if I don't decide which ones to try first, I
may never finish)

Other suggestions?
...

I tried negative Konica Impresa 50 once and got impressively good
results in terms of grain in 4000dpi scans. If you don't mind the low
speed of this film, it might make sense to try it.

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:00:43 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:

I suspect that your "scans well" and my "scans badly" are talking about
different things. I don't want to see grain (or dye clouds) in a 300 dpi
print of a 4000 dpi scan.

OK, I'll rephrase that. The scans are very good at 2400dpi / 24bit
(the max. res. of my scanner). If my exposure is correct I see very
little to no grain at 100%.
Normally printed 9x6 @ 300dpi (c14MB file) and occasionally
interpolated with genuine fractals to 12x18 @ 300dpi (c60MB file) then
printed on a Epson 1280, usually on Epson heavyweight matte. So far I
am pleased with this combination. But like you mentioned above, we may
have different standards
XP2 is my favorite c41 b+w with Portra a close second. XP2 being
considerably cheaper than Portra is another factor in my rating. After
shooting about 25 rolls of each, I'd say the two are equal and I am
very happy with the scans and prints.

Here is a low res example of xp2...
http://www.pbase.com/image/21780360
I know it doesn't prove anything but the prints look better than this
and are very consistent in all the xp2 stuff I've done. Very little
grain, even in the under-exposed areas.

Maybe you're seeing more grain due to the higher scanning resolution
(??)

BTW: Last week I purchased 10 rolls of xp2 from B&H and was
disappointed to find the cartridges wrapped in foil... not in
containers. Oh well, for 2.99 / roll I won't complain much.

Cheers,

RP©