What does your scans look like up close?

GeneV · 06-26-2011, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by artobest

It certainly looks grainy, but whether it is real grain or introduced noise is difficult to tell. The first thing to do to help eliminate the latter possibility is to multi-scan at the highest level your scanner allows, which removes most random scanning artifacts. I'm certainly seeing what may be digital chroma noise in that scan - I would expect true film grain to manifest itself as luminance noise.

Ultimately what matters is what appears in the final print (or screen). And a bit of noise, of whatever origin, can actually be helpful in increasing perceptual image sharpness.

Perhaps I need to get out a loupe again and refresh my memory, but the patterns look like what I used to see decades ago when I would try to blow up an ISO 400 negative to 16x20. However, we are looking at the ever-popular 100% crop which shows more than we ever need. On a print of any reasonable size, I don't think these patterns would be objectionable. I know that on an A4 print, that negative shows no grain.

It is an interesting question what we are even seeing with a loupe, because it would seem to take at least 10x to get the fundamental particles (crystals, dye clouds) to get into the realm of visibility.

GeneV · 06-26-2011, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

The issue is that the scanner "perceives" the grain in ways that are different than the eye's native perception.

On one hand, this is a quality issue since we all want scans that are pleasing to the eye. On the other hand, this opens a whole can of worms regarding negative/slide scanning as an acceptable alternative to traditional optical prints. We may be better off making optical enlargements followed by a relatively low resolution reflective scan.

Steve

I think this is the issue with detail in general with digital reproduction. Reproducing fine detail requires that some form of sharpening take place to form, for example, distinct lines from pixels. Sharpening produces artifacts that may represent detail differently from the eye, but it is the brain that ultimately makes this a photo or recognizes a detail, whether as "grain" or something else.

The longer I am involved in digital reproduction, the more I wish I still had my wet darkroom. We haven't even gotten to the guesses that the equipment makes to turn those pixels into prints.

BillM · 06-26-2011, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

I wish I still had my wet darkroom

Ive had these thoughts too,till its time to clean up....

Interesting point Steve brought up about the theoretical.Take nyquist,delve into
proportional,integral,and derivitive terms of PID equation that might be used
in design,data is somewhat subjective in nature,to me,in a lighthearted way its
'my way or the hiway' as the implementation of the hardware goes.To that
extent,I do miss the 'old ways',but not the cleaning up part.

GeneV · 06-26-2011, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by BillM

Ive had these thoughts too,till its time to clean up....

Interesting point Steve brought up about the theoretical.Take nyquist,delve into
proportional,integral,and derivitive terms of PID equation that might be used
in design,data is somewhat subjective in nature,to me,in a lighthearted way its
'my way or the hiway' as the implementation of the hardware goes.To that
extent,I do miss the 'old ways',but not the cleaning up part.

As one of the articles pointed out, grain is a subjective function of the brain as well as the dots on the film anyway.

I never minded the cleanup that much. It is funny how you can look around and think this house is really bigger than I need, but I can't find the place for a shop, darkroom, etc.

06-26-2011, 09:59 AM	#32
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by stevebrot The issue is that the scanner "perceives" the grain in ways that are different than the eye's native perception. On one hand, this is a quality issue since we all want scans that are pleasing to the eye. On the other hand, this opens a whole can of worms regarding negative/slide scanning as an acceptable alternative to traditional optical prints. We may be better off making optical enlargements followed by a relatively low resolution reflective scan. Steve I think this is the issue with detail in general with digital reproduction. Reproducing fine detail requires that some form of sharpening take place to form, for example, distinct lines from pixels. Sharpening produces artifacts that may represent detail differently from the eye, but it is the brain that ultimately makes this a photo or recognizes a detail, whether as "grain" or something else. The longer I am involved in digital reproduction, the more I wish I still had my wet darkroom. We haven't even gotten to the guesses that the equipment makes to turn those pixels into prints. Last edited by GeneV; 06-26-2011 at 03:05 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Are my equipments safe through scans?	NecroticSoldier	Photographic Technique	11	06-21-2010 12:50 PM
poor prints from scans	Sluggo	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	03-29-2010 08:43 AM
Misc B&W - Scans of Tri-X	ve2vfd	Post Your Photos!	7	12-23-2009 04:32 AM
First 67 scans	knumbnutz	Pentax Medium Format	23	11-26-2009 11:12 AM
Question on lab scans	Pentastic	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	12	11-09-2009 09:46 AM

06-26-2011, 09:54 AM	#31
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by artobest It certainly looks grainy, but whether it is real grain or introduced noise is difficult to tell. The first thing to do to help eliminate the latter possibility is to multi-scan at the highest level your scanner allows, which removes most random scanning artifacts. I'm certainly seeing what may be digital chroma noise in that scan - I would expect true film grain to manifest itself as luminance noise. Ultimately what matters is what appears in the final print (or screen). And a bit of noise, of whatever origin, can actually be helpful in increasing perceptual image sharpness. Perhaps I need to get out a loupe again and refresh my memory, but the patterns look like what I used to see decades ago when I would try to blow up an ISO 400 negative to 16x20. However, we are looking at the ever-popular 100% crop which shows more than we ever need. On a print of any reasonable size, I don't think these patterns would be objectionable. I know that on an A4 print, that negative shows no grain. It is an interesting question what we are even seeing with a loupe, because it would seem to take at least 10x to get the fundamental particles (crystals, dye clouds) to get into the realm of visibility.

06-26-2011, 03:15 PM	#33
BillM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ferguson, Mo. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,348	Originally posted by GeneV I wish I still had my wet darkroom Ive had these thoughts too,till its time to clean up.... Interesting point Steve brought up about the theoretical.Take nyquist,delve into proportional,integral,and derivitive terms of PID equation that might be used in design,data is somewhat subjective in nature,to me,in a lighthearted way its 'my way or the hiway' as the implementation of the hardware goes.To that extent,I do miss the 'old ways',but not the cleaning up part.

06-26-2011, 04:14 PM	#34
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by BillM Ive had these thoughts too,till its time to clean up.... Interesting point Steve brought up about the theoretical.Take nyquist,delve into proportional,integral,and derivitive terms of PID equation that might be used in design,data is somewhat subjective in nature,to me,in a lighthearted way its 'my way or the hiway' as the implementation of the hardware goes.To that extent,I do miss the 'old ways',but not the cleaning up part. As one of the articles pointed out, grain is a subjective function of the brain as well as the dots on the film anyway. I never minded the cleanup that much. It is funny how you can look around and think this house is really bigger than I need, but I can't find the place for a shop, darkroom, etc.