Grainy images from an Epson 4490

L

lapsang

Messages
38
Name
Christopher
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello everyone

I have had a couple of films processed and have been trying out my Epson 4490 i picked up off ebay. I'm getting very grainy images whatever dpi i scan at. Would this be solved by a film holder? It didn't come with one.

I'm using cheap film but an Olympus OM2n.

disappointed so far :crying:
 
That will be the cheap film I reckon. As much as I and many others in the f&c section extol the virtues of pound land film, it isn't known for its fine grain. Embrace the grain!
 
post up some pics of the scans must admit cheap film has rubbish grain for sure my poloroid 4000 and the poundland vista is classically grainy
 
I use an Epson 4490 myself, although I haven't used it much for 35mm film, as I've mostly been shooting 120 recently.

If you put the negative directly on the glass, you'll get Newton rings and slightly softer images, I find.

I use a Lomo Digitaliza film holder to counter this, so that might be worth considering, as it holds the film flat above the glass.

I've never really found my images grainy when using the 4490, but there can be some scanner noise in some images, especially in the skies.

I have found that using the ICE dust reduction (so it does an infrared scan after the initial scan) seems to reduce this noise a bit.
 
skysh4rk said:
I use an Epson 4490 myself, although I haven't used it much for 35mm film, as I've mostly been shooting 120 recently.

If you put the negative directly on the glass, you'll get Newton rings and slightly softer images, I find.

I use a Lomo Digitaliza film holder to counter this, so that might be worth considering, as it holds the film flat above the glass.

I've never really found my images grainy when using the 4490, but there can be some scanner noise in some images, especially in the skies.

I have found that using the ICE dust reduction (so it does an infrared scan after the initial scan) seems to reduce this noise a bit.
Click to expand...
do you use the epson software or something else?
 
Can you upload some examples, we're really just guessing without something to go from.
 
to be honest that's one of the good ones. i'm afraid that's all i have with me at work. the rest on my home laptop
 
lapsang said:
i downloaded this, this morning, so will have to try it tonight.

did you honestly notice the difference using that instead? feeling disappointed with new camera now :crying:
Click to expand...

I've never used the Epson software before.

I'd already been using Vuescan with my 35mm film scanner, so when I picked up my 4490 for 120 film I just continued using it. One of the big advantages of Vuescan is that it works with many different scanners, so if you were to ever change/upgrade scanner, you can continue to use the same software and don't need to learn to use anything else.

Is it better than the Epson software? I'm not sure and I'm not prepared to say it definitely reduces grain or noise, as there are too many variables involved.

Surely the Epson software allows for an infrared dust removal scan though? Have you tried this?

I think the Digitaliza film holder would probably gain you the biggest improvement in your scans, as film directly on the surface of the scanner is not usually recommended for reasons I've mentioned previously.

After that though, it's a bit of reading and practice to get the most out of your scans.

Remember, scanning is a bit of an art in itself and it will take some time to master it and find a workflow that suits you best.

Keep at it :)
 
Hmmm, have you got sharpening turned on? Even for cheap film, I don't think the grain is that bad.
 
robhooley167 said:
Hmmm, have you got sharpening turned on? Even for cheap film, I don't think the grain is that bad.
Click to expand...

as i said that's one of the best ones. is there any chance that a) my camera is knackered (will post more of the images later) or b) the negatives themselves are grainy? so far boots and snappy snaps 1 hour processing and same results
:(
 
i should mention that i have scanned 35mm slides with no problem whatsoever using the epson software
 
***is there any chance that a) my camera is knackered***

The camera body is just a box to separated the lens from the photographer :) But if the camera is underexposing (very thin negs) or you have dense negs..... that could cause poor results.
 
lapsang said:
as i said that's one of the best ones. is there any chance that a) my camera is knackered (will post more of the images later) or b) the negatives themselves are grainy? so far boots and snappy snaps 1 hour processing and same results
:(
Click to expand...

I think your camera is fine and I don't think that the grain looks all that intrusive for 35mm film.

I'm inclined to believe that the 'grainy' look that you're seeing results from settings dialled in at the scanning stage.

As Rob has hinted at, I think you might want to check to see if you have the sharpening option ticked.
 
I just had a look at the pics I think the grain looks ok.
To be honest they look a bot like some of the pics from my Ricoh Rangefinder
old and characterfull.
 
There is perhaps a bit more grain than my last roll of Agfa Vista (which was processed and scanned by Photo Express in Hull). But not an inordinate amount, to my eye. Perhaps popping up one of the bad ones, with any comments on how the negative looks to the naked eye, might be a help? The more work the scanner is doing trying to rescue a problematic exposure, the more grain is likely to be visible.
 
skysh4rk said:
I think your camera is fine and I don't think that the grain looks all that intrusive for 35mm film.

I'm inclined to believe that the 'grainy' look that you're seeing results from settings dialled in at the scanning stage.

As Rob has hinted at, I think you might want to check to see if you have the sharpening option ticked.
Click to expand...

i'm sure i don't have anything ticked. how would sharpening make the image grainier? not sure i understand
 
lapsang said:
i'm sure i don't have anything ticked. how would sharpening make the image grainier? not sure i understand
Click to expand...

It would sharpen the grain, making it look a lot grainier than it actually was.
 
With a lot of scanning software the sharpening option is quite aggressived, its probably much better to apply it afterwards in elements etc if yiu can
 
The grain looks alright in the correct exposed areas, but the exposure is completely wrong for the people and you are seeing scanner noise. The camera has exposed for the background and not the man and woman, so when facing this problem, with any camera, you have to use fill in flash or take a exposure reading close up to the person then step back to take the shot. The 2nd shot of the woman is a puzzle as the camera should have got the exposure reasonably correct even with a sun tan.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
The grain looks alright in the correct exposed areas, but the exposure is completely wrong for the people and you are seeing scanner noise. The camera has exposed for the background and not the man and woman, so when facing this problem, with any camera, you have to use fill in flash or take a exposure reading close up to the person then step back to take the shot. The 2nd shot of the woman is a puzzle as the camera should have got the exposure reasonably correct even with a sun tan.
Click to expand...

looking at it again, you're correct, it's their faces that are the problem really as they're too dark. advice taken.

I still don't think it's as sharp as it should be.

problems this morning even getting the bloody thing to warm up so hesitating on buying a scanning mask :(
 
lapsang said:
looking at it again, you're correct, it's their faces that are the problem really as they're too dark. advice taken.

I still don't think it's as sharp as it should be.

problems this morning even getting the bloody thing to warm up so hesitating on buying a scanning mask :(
Click to expand...

You could check the camera's exposure meter in comparison with a digital camera, if you haven't got one a quick check would be to point the camera at dark green grass and roughly you should get @ 1/250 sec @ f5.6 to F8 @200 ISO...in clear direct sunlight in the UK.
For me, I just go to Asda and let them dev and scan to CD while you shop for £3 but in dark shadows (in a sunny shot) quite a few times I also get that annoying scanner noise. So if I expose for the shadows all the rest of the shot in sunshine would be well over exposed...some take a reading of the darker areas and the bright areas and choose an exposure reading in the middle......h'mm the fun of photography with any camera :)
 
excalibur2 said:
You could check the camera's exposure meter in comparison with a digital camera, if you haven't got one a quick check would be to point the camera at dark green grass and roughly you should get @ 1/250 sec @ f5.6 to F8 @200 ISO...in clear direct sunlight in the UK.
For me, I just go to Asda and let them dev and scan to CD while you shop for £3 but in dark shadows (in a sunny shot) quite a few times I also get that annoying scanner noise. So if I expose for the shadows all the rest of the shot in sunshine would be well over exposed...some take a reading of the darker areas and the bright areas and choose an exposure reading in the middle......h'mm the fun of photography with any camera :)
Click to expand...

those 2 were taken with kodak hd film which is 400 ISO i believe but i shot it set at 200 ISO.

the one of my wife and friend i suppose if the sun was behind me rather than to the side then their faces would have come out better?

can someone please clear this up on here as i've read many conflicting opinions? is it better to scan directly onto the glass or use a scanning mask (neg holder)?
 
lapsang said:
those 2 were taken with kodak hd film which is 400 ISO i believe but i shot it set at 200 ISO.

the one of my wife and friend i suppose if the sun was behind me rather than to the side then their faces would have come out better?

can someone please clear this up on here as i've read many conflicting opinions? is it better to scan directly onto the glass or use a scanning mask (neg holder)?
Click to expand...


Don't scan off glass as you could get Newton rings, neg holder is better.

Also sun behind you could be bad because of people squinting...a bright cloudy day can be useful, or use fill in flash with the people not facing the sun, but you'll need a hood for your lens. Same problem with the sun to one side as half of the persons face would be in shadow.....pros use a large reflector to light up the dark side of the face.
 
excalibur2 said:
Don't scan off glass as you could get Newton rings, neg holder is better.

Also sun behind you could be bad because of people squinting...a bright cloudy day can be useful, or use fill in flash with the people not facing the sun, but you'll need a hood for your lens. Same problem with the sun to one side as half of the persons face would be in shadow.....pros use a large reflector to light up the dark side of the face.
Click to expand...

would this be any good to use on an epson 4490?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/35mm-Negative-Slide-Holder-/221212318577?pt=UK_Scanners&hash=item3381481b71
 
lapsang said:
but in terms of holding the negatives flat, it should do the same thing surely?
Click to expand...

IT'll hold them flat but it will be the wrong height for the focussing of your Epson.
 
lapsang said:
but in terms of holding the negatives flat, it should do the same thing surely?
Click to expand...

Maybe :shrug:...but the Epson ones have locating pins and are set to be a certain height from the glass, but if the plustek is similar height :shrug: and if it has locating pins, well I suppose you could file them off and put pencil marks to set the neg holder in the right position in the scanner...but all this guesswork and bother is only worth it, if it was a couple of quid. :shrug:
 
On my 4490 I use the Digitaliza for medium format and it works well. I imagine that the 135 holder would too, but I'd google around for some reviews.

I don't have any holder for 135 for the 4490, but I have tried it with the holder for my Plustek scanner (which I've since sold) and it kinda worked, but it was fiddly and less than ideal.

The Plustek holder is too long for the 4490 scanning area and blocks the sensor thingies at the top (I believe the standard Epson holder has holes for these), so you can get some crazy scans.

I had to find a way to prop the Plustek holder up slightly so it could extend off the near side of the scanning bed to get it enough clearance to not affect the sensors at the top of the scanning area...

I imagine that you'll run into similar problems with holders from other scanners as well.

If you plan to be scanning fairly often, I wouldn't think anything outside of the stock Epson, Digitaliza, or Better Scanning holders are worth buying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top