|
|
Post by gray1720 on Sept 24, 2024 7:38:45 GMT
I bought Vuescan when I updated my PC as the Epson drivers for my V500 wouldn't work anymore. I realised last night that everything I've scanned since, neg wise, has been very grainy. Given my lack of standardisation of film and developer, this could be coincidence, but I'd like to rule out the scanner, especially as the last film was 25 ISO and developed in 1:100 Rodinal. I know Rodinal can be grainy, but I'd have expected the slow film and high dilution to negate that. So... if anyone else uses Vuescan, can you share your settings, please? I'll try those and compare with the "box" settings and see if there's any improvement. These two shots are from the same camera, and the difference in grain and sharpness is just nuts. I can check the film for the older pic, probably same developer but no way of telling now. flic.kr/p/2qijKtQflic.kr/p/pAV1gq |
|
|
|
Post by John Farrell on Sept 24, 2024 8:20:29 GMT
Here's a picture taken on Kentmere 100, developed in Rodinal 1:50, negative scanned on a Canon 8800F using Canon's software. It was taken with a Spotmatic F, with the 50mm f1.4 lens.  |
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Sept 24, 2024 8:31:05 GMT
That just adds to my suspicions that something aint right with my setup! I'm going to dig out the roll with the Stinson photo on, and rescan to see what they come out like.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 24, 2024 8:44:29 GMT
That just adds to my suspicions that something aint right with my setup! I'm going to dig out the roll with the Stinson photo on, and rescan to see what they come out like. Is it yer dpi? I used to find if I tried too many dots the pictures were guff, so I scaled back. |
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Sept 24, 2024 9:11:28 GMT
I may be having the oposite issue as my scans are quite small, but worth a try. I'll contact Vuescan as well, seeing as you seem to be able to talk to the people who wrote it there.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Sept 24, 2024 9:42:40 GMT
I haven't used vuescan for negs - the Epson software seems OK. I tried vuescan once but it didn't work that well with the filmstrip holders that allow multiple 35 mm frames to be scanned at once. I don't see why the software would introduce grain, not that I thought that the two linked images were particularly grainy but then I used to use HP5. I scan 35 mm negs at 2400 dpi - gives me 8 x enlargement at 300 ppi.
My version of vuescan is quite old as I haven't abused the "update" facility since they changed their terms and conditions (I had the pro version with indefinite updates). Curiously it still works on my mac. I ported everything to the new machine which is apple silicon so the intel version of vuescan is being run through a byte-code interpreter.
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Sept 24, 2024 10:29:17 GMT
I am a total fucknupple (there's one John should know)!
I realised today when I was fussing over what was wrong that the film I developed was on a 120 spool, so cannot have been from the 620 Kodak. I think it may have been from a Coronet box camera, though I doubt I'll find out for sure, which would explain the lack of quality. Of course, I've already posted all over here and a Kodak Arsebook group, haven't I?
Pillock.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 24, 2024 10:37:09 GMT
I haven't used vuescan for negs - the Epson software seems OK. I tried vuescan once but it didn't work that well with the filmstrip holders that allow multiple 35 mm frames to be scanned at once. I don't see why the software would introduce grain, not that I thought that the two linked images were particularly grainy but then I used to use HP5. I scan 35 mm negs at 2400 dpi - gives me 8 x enlargement at 300 ppi. My version of vuescan is quite old as I haven't abused the "update" facility since they changed their terms and conditions (I had the pro version with indefinite updates). Curiously it still works on my mac. I ported everything to the new machine which is apple silicon so the intel version of vuescan is being run through a byte-code interpreter. When I started using W11 laptop, I updated vuescan and it works reasonably well-known I haven't used it in anger yet, just to confirm basic exposure/ focus |
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on Sept 24, 2024 17:08:17 GMT
There is a grain reduction setting in Vuescan which can be varied in intensity.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveandthedogs on Sept 24, 2024 17:49:14 GMT
Tried Vuescan, prefer using the Fuji x-t30. Quicker and easier.
S
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Sept 24, 2024 19:02:29 GMT
There is a grain reduction setting in Vuescan which can be varied in intensity. I'll have to have a fiddle with that, thanks. Looking back carefully, I have scanned negs since I updated that are OK, so I was obviously annoyed enough to talk balls. Getting the camera wrong, thinking it was from a much better camera than the one I'd actually used doesn't help... |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Sept 24, 2024 19:42:16 GMT
There is a grain reduction setting in Vuescan which can be varied in intensity. I'll have to have a fiddle with that, thanks. Looking back carefully, I have scanned negs since I updated that are OK, so I was obviously annoyed enough to talk balls. Getting the camera wrong, thinking it was from a much better camera than the one I'd actually used doesn't help... Been there etc. |
|
|
|
Post by zx9 on Sept 25, 2024 19:16:16 GMT
I use Vuescan and did get the appearance of excessive grain clumping when scanning a linear output, I now scan as one of the Kodak B&W negative presets which puts in a film like curve, then drag the max and min densities to just outside the levels on the raw scan. 35mm APX 400 pushed to 1600 ASA in Xtol.  Cambridge Heath 2024-05-02-0005 by Keith Hudson, on Flickr |
|
