Noritsu LS-1100 – First Black & White Scans

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Hi Terry, They are certainly fairly grainy, though I suspect as much as anything else this is down to a lack of practice with my home developing. I'm not so worried about this, as I know I can try harder to keep the variables less variable. (Or get someone else to do it for me) As for DPI, they were scanned "high" which creates a 6000 x 4000 ish file ... so that's about 4200dpi by my reckoning...? The lack of crispness depends on what you feel isn't crisp. If you think the images look soft when zoomed in, this possibly down to them being shot with the Sonnar wide open (they all were). It's not very sharp wide, but I like the look it renders. Or are you talking about crispness at a grain level? I think the grain itself has been well resolved, but if you feel it is lacking there, this is possibly down to me turning off sharpening in the scanner, then not sharpening them after (I didn't want to emphasise the grain too much...)

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

The reason for me being so happy with the scans was in part actually the resolution and rendering of the grain. The other main factor being the control over tonality I now have... though these are things I'll come back to later.

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Hamish, Thanks for the info. From you explanation, I now believe the lack of perceived crispness (to my eyes) is more likely down to shooting wide open where you say the lens is soft, whereas the grain structure looks crisp enough, although to me it still looks to be on the high side for even a fast film such as HP5 and which has not been pushed processed. This is all to taste, of course, and unless I needed to push process a film, my preference was always directed towards getting the finest grain possible commensurate with the film I used; these were invariably, and initially, FP3/HP3 and Tri-X, and later with the updated FP4 and HP4 and Tri-X. I didn't see any need for fancy developers, only Geoffrey Crawley's formulations for Paterson: Aculux, Acutol and ID11/D76. No fancy two-bath formulations and always one shot. Over the years I got to know these combinations well and what they could do. I did try some alternatives, followed the instructions assiduously, but didn't like the results and immediately went back to my tried and trusted combinations. I'd really like to see what your Noritsu does with a finer grained negative, say FP4 perhaps.

rollbahn replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Great to see some examples from your Noritsu - I own an old Fuji SP500 which is fantastic for colour 35mm but not so good for B&W. A little wrangling in LR afterwards gets them to a good point. I have heard the Noritsu is much better at B&W. With regards to the DPI - they definitely won't be 4200DPI. The DPI is determined by the output so if these are scanned at 6000x4000px and you are printing a book at Blurb for example and they required 300DPI then you would be able to be print at a maximum of 20 inches (6000 300) by 13.3 inches (4000 300). You can can of course push that to some extent (print at 25 inces or even 30 inches would like fine at some distance) plus you can upsample in Photoshop too. If you were sending them to the local newspaper they might only print at 75 DPI so you could print as wide as 80 inches from the 6000px wide image. The DPI or PPI of an iPhone is about 325 and the screen of a 27" iMac is about 110 from memory. So when you zoom in on a 6000x4000 you may be disappointed with the 100% view as it is pretty crude but if you were on one of the newer 5k iMacs they have a DPI of about 220 so the photo zoomed at 100% would look far crisper as there are essentially twice the amount of pixels crammed in the same space. That's why your photos look great on the iPhone or when you print them - that sort of DPI/PPI can hide all sorts of issues at small sizes. Suffice to say 6000x4000 is more than enough to view or print at pretty much any size.

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

I'd agree, it is slightly on the high side. It's certainly higher than I have had in my own results processed by AG who scan with the same scanner, so I am confident the fault is within the realms of the chemical part of the process. Speaking of taste, I am happy with them, though I would definitely like to find a path to controlling the perceived grain better. The question is just down to whether or not I choose to go down the road of mastering the chemicals, or taking the path of least resistance and continuing to outsource that part of the process. I'm yet to decide, but with the dark room now ready to rock at work, I'm inclined to the former at the moment. Anyway... Send me a strip of negs if you like...? Im happy to indulge the intrigue of a "regular" to the site. :)

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Hamish, the grain rendering does look like film grain, not something that can be easily replicated, if at all, by adding it digitally. This is a good point. You want your scans to look like film, not a digital interpretation of it.

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Yeah, I get all that... The scanner output files are indeed 72dpi What I was basing my comment on was the scan resolution rather than the file output resolution. Now, this isn't something I know much about, but all scanners seem to have a scan res...? In the epson software (which I use to scan LF) you can select (for LF) up to 3200. If I select 2400dpi, I get a scan that on the long edge is a tiny bit shy of 12,000px (2400 x 5") So in this case, I'm assuming a scan resolution of around 4200 dpi from the same calculation. If the scan is 6000px on the long edge, and a 35mm neg is 1.4". 6000/1.4 = 4285 so there is a scanning resolution of 4285dpi...? Or am I talking out of my arse?

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Indeed, but moreover I suppose, I was just happy to see that the scanner was capable of that level of resolution, even with the sharpening switched off. This is not a level of detail I have ever managed to extract from a 35mm neg.

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Hamish, Regarding the lack of IQ from a 35mm neg in a wet print, I have a theory, not very scientific, as to why a very high quality scan will beat it. In a 12x8 conventionally derived photographic print, say, the negative is not only enlarged linearly 8x, but also suffers some degradation from the enlarging lens and, in addition, just like film, to achieve the best results, the paper needs to be exposed for the optimum time and developed accordingly. If the paper is underexposed and overdeveloped, or overexposed and underdeveloped, both will lead to a lack of sharpness in the print. Technique is all when coming to the highest quality images possible. And because print size is a linear function, the higher the magnification, the less sharp will be the resultant image. Thus for any given size print, it is a truism that a good big'un i.e. 6x6, will always beat a good little'un because less linear enlargement is required. So to my theory why a high quality digital scan and print will win over the same sized print direct from a negative. Let's assume the 35mm negative has sufficient detail to be resolved by a 4200 dpi scan. The file size will be large, but also will be the pixel dimensions expressed as the sides of the image captured. But the resolution captured by the scanner is not subject to any degradation up to the image's native print size based on its pixels. It is nigh on impossible for a 35mm negative to approach this technical quality because its IQ degrades according to the linear enlargement it is subjected to, whereas a digital image does not, except when interpolations is used to exceed its native print size. I'm sure there must be a gaping hole in my reasoning, so please shoot it down!

rollbahn replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Sorry Hamish I misunderstood what you were saying there. Yes I guess the output from the scanner how you worked it out would be correct. Unlike the Epson and Canon consumer scanners with their crazy high DPI numbers I don't think there would be any interpolation going on here. When all is said and done the only thing that matters is the 6000x4000 figure as that is what you have to work with for printing or viewing. Look forward to your overview of the scanner.

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

It certainly stands up as an argument... though god only knows how many variables there are to consider as both pros and cons. I suppose the purist would flag up the flaws in the process of digitisation; is the range and control of tonality in an analogue print process up to that of a scanner and software? Then you have the type of print from digital - are we talking inkjet or c-type, as that argument alone has enough variables to worry about. Enlarger lens quality, skill of the person in charge of the enlarger, CofC/final print size variables. I dunno Terry, I also think we might have stepped into the world of perception, confirmation bias and subjective opinion too - as I bet when you get to the point of controlling variables to an extreme degree, and ensuring highest quality at every step, I'd bet there's not a damn lot most people would be able to discern from one process of image to the next...?

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Cheers... it's been a ball-ache! Noritsu still make scanners - I've been told conflicting info as to whether or not they still make this scanner, but I know they still make the HS1800 (at c.£20k, unfortunately). Interestingly, they have recently released drivers for using these scanners with Windows 10 too... to even if they don't make them, they are still supported. Also, the UK importer of Noritsu recently told me he's seen an increase in demand of late... so things could get interesting if Noritsu respond to that demand. You just might need fairly deep pockets.

Terry B replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Wonderful to see a company keeping its drivers up to date for W10. I'm definitely no IT expert or programmer, but surely it can't be too difficult for major companies to write drivers for their past products, can it? If Hamrick (Vuescan) can do it, why not Canon or Nikon?

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

There's no commercial advantage to them doing it. To my mind, the fact they they do write these drivers points to the fact that they still make the scanners. That being said, they also charge for the drivers... so again, the commercial incentive is there

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 25/02/2017

Thanks very much! That is very true, but I dread to think how much the R&D cost of creating such a thing would be

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 27/02/2017

Hi, have you seen my facebook group - I set it up with a chap called Tom. Some great folks on there now. https://www.facebook.com/groups/noritsuscannerusers/ Have an open policy on people sharing links! It is what the internet was invented for, so crack on I say! I'd also by interested to know what settings you use...? I'm now a little grain paranoid ;) I am going to be writing a review of some sort too, so very happy for you to contribute your thoughts, especially around getting the best out of it Thanks, Hamish

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 27/02/2017

It's been a pain in the ass! I am there now - got some more nice results today too! :)

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 30/08/2017

Then you should stick with the V600

Hamish Gill replied:

Comment posted: 28/09/2017

Hi, thanks, yeah - this was obviously early on in my experiences with the scanner and I have come a long way with it. Though even now I feel I am still very much at the bottom of the learning curve. You can see some more recent B&W shots here which I am much more happy with. There's a colour shot here too. Interestingly, in the Noritsu settings there is as you guessed the ability to wind sharpening right down, but there is also another menu with an option the sets between 1 on 2 - no real explanation of what it is or does, but results when set to two have much less in the way of artefacts. Thanks for sharing your thoughts