Eddgge From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 123 posts, RR: 5 Posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1470 times:
I have a Nikon F-501 SLR body, a Nikkor 78-210 mm lens and a HP Photosmart S20 filmscanner.
I have tried to use both slide and negative films (Sensia 100 and Superia 100). When I scan these pics I always get a very grainy result (mostly on the sky and grass areas) and I always get my pics rejected here at a.net. I always try to photograph in good light conditions (sunny days).
So my question is, will some kind of filter help me? What filters are recommended? Or can it be something else that is wrong (the lens maybe)?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
Looking at the example provided, I'm guessing part of the problem is slight underexposure (perhaps 1/2 stop) as there is very little detail in the shadow areas. Scanning underexposed film will always accentuate any grain. But I also think "noise" from the scanner another part of the problem - this is generally most apparant in the blue channel (ie. the sky!). All scanners generate noise, but this can be made worse by having the scanner too close to other equipment, poor power supply etc. Sometimes repositioning the scanner helps.
In the example provided, the effect has been made more obvious through sharpening - it appears you have sharpened the entire image. You could try selectively sharpening only parts of the image - for instance, masking out the sky would significantly reduce the visible graininess.
Apart from paying attention to exposure, I see no problem on the camera side of things - I can't image a circumstance in which the lens can increase or reduce grain, nor are there any filters.
Eddgge From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 123 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1416 times:
Many thanx for Your answer Colin! I will try to move the scanner (it´s placed just beside my monitor) and to set the camera to another exposer time.
What about using a filter on the lens? I have heard that this may make better and more natrual colors on eg the sky, is this true? And what filter may be the right one to buy?
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1398 times:
Filters - a UV filter can help reduce distant haze, but has no other effect on colours - some like to keep one on the lens permenantly as protection from scratches.
A Skylight filter is similar, but has a very slight warming effect
81A and 81B are stronger version of the above, and have a distinct warming effect - useful on dull days, or to take the blueness out of shadows in noon-day sun.
Polariser - for stunning blue skies with puffy white clouds - BUT - only works at certain angles to the sun, and requires 1 1/2 - 2 stops exposure compensation. Useless on dull days.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1388 times:
Polariser - for stunning blue skies with puffy white clouds - BUT - only works at certain angles to the sun, and requires 1 1/2 - 2 stops exposure compensation
Just like to contend the exposure compensation thing on polarisers Colin... Might have been true when cameras didn't have TTL meters and everyone was toting a hand-held meter, but these days most modern SLR TTL meters should deal with a polariser without the user having to set any exposure compensation on camera. What is true of polarisers with moderns SLRs is that they will reduced the EV by 1 1/2 to 2 stops, effectively meaning a slower shutter speed or wider aperture.
[PEDANT MODE OFF]
One other thing to think about if anyone's contemplating a polariser - they come in linear or circular forms. Make sure you buy the one that's right for your camera's metering system, as the wrong one will wreck the exposure setting calculated by the camera's meter - most modern AF cameras need a circular polariser, which sadly are usually a bit more expensive than linear polarisers.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (11 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1371 times:
Andy - you're right of course, what I should have said is that you loose 1 1/2 - 2 stops. Must have been having a "senior moment".
But further cautions on polarisers - does the front of your lens rotate when focusing? If so, polarisers are a REAL pain. The polarisor works by your rotating one element of the filter over another - the correct amount of rotation is dependent on the angle of the light. If you set this up just right, and focusing then realigns the whole assembly, you have to start over again!
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2001, 123 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 211 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 4161 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
){kind=link}
){kind=link}