![]() For instance, Mendel�s attachment above shows that Minolta chose default contrast to be rather strong, so if there is any grain it will be more pronounced and image will be _perceived_ as having more grain (due to higher overall contrast).Īt the same time I want make it clear - I am not saying that VueScan is not worth the money. Images scanned with VueScan may _appear_ to have less grain because of different default parameters it uses. I think the statement that VueScan _reduces_ grain in scan outputs comparing to Minolta�s software is not correct � I too use VueScan, but so far I have no evidences. Whoo boy, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on any of the numbers. If you're printing your scans at 8x11 and seeing terrible grain, then that's a whole other issue, I'm way off base, and the previous posts will probably be more helpful to you. In a nutshell, I guess what I'm saying is that the grain isn't as bad as you might think from what you're seeing onscreen, depending on how you're viewing it. Matter of fact, it would probably look as grain free if not more so than the 4圆 wet-prints you're comparing to. Still using screen resolution of 72ppi, that would be the equivalent of looking at an 8x11 print. You would definitely see horrific grain in a print that size, viewed that close up, from a 35mm neg.Īssuming your negs were properly exposed, I'll bet that if you re-size that 3684*5682 scan to 800圆00, and keep your face 12-24 inches from the monitor, that the grain disappears. Using a screen resolution of 72ppi, viewing that scan at 100% onscreen (so you only see a small part of the whole picture without scrolling around) would be the equivalent of enlarging and printing your negative at a size of 51"x79" (3684/72 * 5682/72), and then sticking your face right up to it. Once you've made your scan at the maximum resolution the scanner is capable of (assuming 4000dpi), you'll have a huge file. And I'm also going to assume your scanner is 4000dpi since I'm not familiar with it. Since you say you've only been scanning for a month, I'm going to assume that you're still relatively inexperienced, and still learning. I'm going to take a different approach as to why you're seeing "horrifying" grain. When saving raws of color negatives, make sure "Input|Media Type" is set to color negative, it varies the proportions of red/green/blue in the raw file output. I believe with your scanner, you can choose to export the raw with ICE applied (by choosing to save the raw "with scan"?). Note, with Vuescan, I initially save a "raw file", then just work with that. Save 48 bit rgb tiff, open in photoshop, run levels with:Īutolevels (clipping per channel, no snap neutral midtones) (This should yield quite flat, dark image) With colour negatives, I settled on a hybrid Vuescan/Photoshop approach as follows:Ĭolor|Color Balance: None (alternately try AutoLevels, but doesn't seem as good) Also, leave sharpening off (it is off, by default, in Vuescan). Then bring it back up in tiny increments. In Vuescan, try reducing clipping (white point in particular) to 0 percent, to see if that helps. ![]() ![]() But some settings can accentuate it, unduly. It's relatively pixelated and low-res, to retain memory for processing the image. scan, and view that, independent of Vuescan program? Vuescan's portrayal within the program tends to look much more blotchy than it's output. You say Vuescan's preview window showed grain. Minolta's oem software attempt at scanning colour negative film was THE precipitating factor that tipped me to Vuescan.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |