Fuji color films.

DaireQuinlan

I think I'm about done with fuji color film. I've gone through a fair number of rolls of 1600 superia and 800 superia and NPZ pro and I've found that they all have the same problem. Namely that they're next to impossible to scan well. Anyone else have this problem ?

Generally what happens is that the blue channel is incredibly noisy/grainy in the dark areas of the picture. So much so that the image shows bright blue speckles when viewed. The last few pictures in my flickr stream (except for the B&W one obviously !) were all 800 npz, which I was trying as a replacement for 1600 superia on a recommendation. They're all heavily neat-imaged but the noise problem is still definately there.

Theres a couple of shots from a roll of Kodak 800 in the stream as-well (the "new york new york" set) that don't seem to have the same problem, so I don't think its just a scanner fault, I suspect it might be an unlucky combination of film and scanner ( a nikon coolscan V).

Anyone else ever found this ? or have similar problems ?

DotOrg

i used to use fuji 1600 film for concert photography until a couple of years ago when i realised that digital far exceeds colour film at high iso's

my scans of the old films were generally rubbish too, even when done in hi-res in good photo labs

magicbastarder

were they all processed in the same lab?
i don't really use colour print, so i can't comment on the specific films.

DaireQuinlan

No, they were pretty much farmed out amongst a couple of different places, all fuji labs. I'm going to re-try some kodak 800 and see how it works out. It might just be something to do with the fuji emulsion. Maybe also scanning it on my flatbed, although thats not really a solution, I can't imagine that 35mm on a flatbed would be up to much more than web images ...

CrowdedHouse

Daire,I wonder have you tried Vuescan software with the Coolscan V ?

IMHO the Nikon Scan software is pretty poor.

I've attached two scans of a Fuji Provia 400 slide,I think you'll agree the difference is shocking.

Redundo

Does the minilab that develops the negs have an effect on how they come out? I've always been dissapointed with the colour and contrast of negs from my local Fuji chemists, while others done at Sam McCauleys in Waterford seem so much better. I can't understand why there's a difference when the equipment is the same....

On the other hand, I love the colours I get from Fuji Slide film. Velvia 100 scans in beautifully on my mid-range Epson flatbed.

DaireQuinlan

CrowdedHouse wrote:

Daire,I wonder have you tried Vuescan software with the Coolscan V ?

IMHO the Nikon Scan software is pretty poor.

I've attached two scans of a Fuji Provia 400 slide,I think you'll agree the difference is shocking.

Yeah, I bought a copy of vuescan about 10 minutes after wading through the demo version. Its actually -possible- to get identical results in Nikon scan surprisingly enough, just extraordinarily difficult ! Plus I could never ever get Nikon scan to consistently apply whatever adjustments I'd made to make the final scan look like the preview. grrr.

I've scanned superia 400 before with no ill-effects. I think its just their faster films just don't scan well. Just did the same ones on a flatbed and they're marginally better, but only because they're indistinct and un-sharp, masks the grain quite a bit :-(

Its a pity because I otherwise love the colors and the saturation of the fuji films.

magicbastarder

are those scans from the nikon with or without the nikon colour management system on?

pete4130

I've got a canon 9900F flatbed neg scanner the last few years. I'vee suffered the same problem too. Eveen if images are properly exposed but have alot of dark areas, the scanner sees this as being underexposed and tries to compensate and I get alot of noise in the blue channel. This is particularly bad with slide film surprisingly. the colours are never near as true or vibrant as they should be and I always seem to get a blue/purple cast on the images that I have to try to remove later. I used to work in a fuji lab. Their 1600 film isn't the most contrasty or colourful film and I'm not a fan of it at all. I used it once for shooting a gig and the results weren't good compared to B&W film.
I think as neg scanners were starting to get more advanced and developed the digital camera era was taking over and camera manufacturers started to put more time, money, research and development into digital cameras than with neg scanners. Even in proper labs I've never found neg scans to be any better than doing them myself. Sadly I think its something there is little we can do about when scanning negs

I totally agree that certain combinations of film and scanners work better than others. I can only suggest to keep using what seems to work best for your scanner.

Pete.

DaireQuinlan

When I get the chance I plan on picking up a couple of rolls of Kodak Portra 800. I've used other Kodak 800 films before and quite liked them, though they're a little un-saturated. Portra 800 is apparently optimised for scanning, so I'd say its got a clearer base or something. That was one thing I noticed about the fast fuji films, the base seems very dark. Next experiment then is seeing if I can shoot Portra at 1600 and still get acceptable results :-)

Roen

5D tbh

DaireQuinlan

Roen wrote:

5D tbh

uhhh ... that was a bit of a non-sequitor !

Turns out that nowhere (that I found) in the city centre actually stocks it. I even took the bold step of going into that place on grafton street to ask after it. The girl behind the counter looked a little puzzled when I asked her if they had it so I had to explain that it was a film before she cautiously essayed that, no, they didn't stock it ...

CrowdedHouse

DaireQuinlan wrote:

if I can shoot Portra at 1600 and still get acceptable results :-)

What are you shooting Daire - Black Cats in coal sheds