Grain or Noise?

[kanephotos]

Hi,

I got a few scans back from my lab but they're pretty grainy or noisy. Does this seem to be a scanning issue? Or my exposure on the negs? I get the negs next which which may answer slightly but given the spots are in colour I'm thinking noise? They were taken with an Olympus XA on Portra 400. Thanks for any help.


Week 5 - Rainy Day Alt by Kane, on Flickr


004199060002-1 by Kane, on Flickr


004199060023-1 by Kane, on Flickr


004199060033-1 by Kane, on Flickr

 

[FishyFish]

It's probably a combination of Portra 400's grain and the sharpening used at the scanning stage.

 

[kanephotos]

It's probably a combination of Portra 400's grain and the sharpening used at the scanning stage.

Thanks Nige. It's a Noritsu they're using - you'd be happy with this quality?

 

[zx9]

I don't think that the scans would have been overly grainy, possibly more to do with your processing of the files. I think that they could do with upping the 'exposure' a bit plus adding a bit of a curve, yes the sky detail would be reduced but I feel that it has been overly held back which increases the apparent grain clumping of the dye clouds.

To add that I have far more experience with scans from conventional silver halide B&W negatives so I may be a bit off with my way of handling colour negs.

 

[FishyFish]

Thanks Nige. It's a Noritsu they're using - you'd be happy with this quality?

They're maybe a bit grainier than I'd expect, but it depends on a number of factors, including the exposure of the negatives and if they've had to brighten them. The grain is more pronounced in the first image, but that's mostly because it's a crop and therefore zoomed in compared to the others.

Sharpening is also likely to cause more noticeable effects on the grain on smaller sized scans, I think.

For comparison, here's a Noritsu scan of one of my pictures (scanned by Filmdev). It's not on Portra 400, so not a fair comparison, but you can see how the grain looks on this one.


FILM - City Hall steps by fishyfish_arcade, on Flickr

 

[kanephotos]

I don't think that the scans would have been overly grainy, possibly more to do with your processing of the files. I think that they could do with upping the 'exposure' a bit plus adding a bit of a curve, yes the sky detail would be reduced but I feel that it has been overly held back which increases the apparent grain clumping of the dye clouds.

To add that I have far more experience with scans from conventional silver halide B&W negatives so I may be a bit off with my way of handling colour negs.

Thanks Keith, I shot the film at ISO 335 hoping to increase the exposure a little that way. Perhaps that wasn't the best idea. I have done a little editing on these, but not much at all - mainly straightening, small curves adjustments.

They're maybe a bit grainier than I'd expect, but it depends on a number of factors, including the exposure of the negatives and if they've had to brighten them. The grain is more pronounced in the first image, but that's mostly because it's a crop and therefore zoomed in compared to the others.

Sharpening is also likely to cause more noticeable effects on the grain on smaller sized scans, I think.

For comparison, here's a Noritsu scan of one of my pictures (scanned by Filmdev). It's not on Portra 400, so not a fair comparison, but you can see how the grain looks on this one.

Thanks Nige, lovely picture! I see a bit of colour in the noise in the shadows on the buildings right hand side so seems similar.

The place is super fast (this was a four hour turn around) and does dev, high quality TIFFs & contact sheet for just under £8. But I just wanted to get another view. There was some dust on one but otherwise seems really good.

 

[excalibur2]

Looking at the negs are they thin (underexposed)?

 

[kanephotos]

Looking at the negs are they thin (underexposed)?

I'm away at the moment so haven't nipped back to grab them. Will do Tuesday and get back to you.

 

[excalibur2]

I'm away at the moment so haven't nipped back to grab them. Will do Tuesday and get back to you.

This is a well underexposed shot:-

 

[ChrisR]

It's probably a combination of Portra 400's grain and the sharpening used at the scanning stage.

I always ask the lab for no sharpening, I'd rather do it myself as needed.

 

[kanephotos]

Not quite Tuesday but a phone photo of the negs below. Exposure looks maybe a little under to me?


Film by Kane, on Flickr

 

[excalibur2]

Not quite Tuesday but a phone photo of the negs below. Exposure looks maybe a little under to me?


Film by Kane, on Flickr

Well Kane the first picture had the worst noise then the 2nd, I would check those as this picture of the strip of negs shown seem OK looking at them.....copied the picture (of the strip of negs) to photoshop and enlarged but the picture breaks up and didn't tell me anything. IMO neg film prefers over exposure and sometimes I add one stop on tricky shots.
If all the negs don't look thin, then Nige is correct in that who ever did the scan might have over sharpened.
AAMOI copied the first picture into Photoshop and selected "despeckle" and it improved the picture.

 

[kanephotos]

Thanks Brian, the first pic is on that strip - but its a crop. I've not used 'despeckle' so I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the tip.

 

[excalibur2]

Thanks Brian, the first pic is on that strip - but its a crop. I've not used 'despeckle' so I'll take a look at that. Thanks for the tip.

Despeckle does improve it..what do you think? Also cropping reduced the shot to 1024X1024 px which won't give you the best picture and if you had it printed you would be limited to a small print. If you are going to do crops you will need a higher initial scan.