Rolleiflex 2.8 D weird artefacts from scanning (?)

[gettons]

Hi there,

a week ago I used an unexpired Delta 100 film with my Rolleiflex 2.8 D (taking lens coating is slightly damaged unfortunately).

The processing and scan was done by lab X, standard quality scan (about 3MB per pic), all went good.

Today I received back from lab Y the scans from an unexpired Kodax Tri-X 400 (pushed by 1 stop). Again, standard quality scan (about 3MB per pic).

I noticed some weird artefacts difficult for me to explain. Detail pics attached at the bottom.

Some info:

- exposures have been taken with various apertures

- for some exposure I used a Rolleipol filter

- for lightmetering I used mylightmeterPRO (for iphone)

- there was drizzle during the day, some droplets may have been on the lens

- Three exposures with same lightmetering, same lab, different camera and different film (Fuji GW690 III with Portra 400) are actually ok

What's going on? Camera issue? Scanning issue? Film issue?

Any idea will be much appreciated.

Full image n. 1

View: original size


Detail with artefacts visible n. 1

View: original size

Full image n.2

View: original size


Detail with artefacts visible n. 2

 

[MikeB]

Tough to say but a couple of things come to mind.

There are many ways of "scanning," with each type of scanning producing a different level of quality and resolution - from drum scanning (the most expensive) to flatbed scanning (the least expensive). It could be that lab X is using superior scanning equipment compared to lab Y. It could also be due to how the image(s) were handled in which case complaining about the quality may achieve better scans. I do hope you are requiring that the negatives be returned to you as well as the scans.

Also, 3 megabytes for 120 film (61mm x 61mm) seems like pretty low resolution to me. With 1 B&W pixel being about 1 byte of data, that's less than one pixel per 1 sq. mm. of the negative. As you crop into a low resolution image, detail will quickly fail. So, some of the artifacts you see cropping in may simply be due to low resolution scanning by a particular type of scanner.

Higher quality images demand greater resolution. For example, if you wanted a high quality 8in. x 8in. print (at 300ppi) the resolution of the resulting digital image would need to be 2400px x 2400px or about 5.8MP - that will require a minimum file size of about 6MB for B&W or about 18MB for color (at 8-bit values).

By the way, I believe a high-end scanner, such as the old Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED scans at about a 4000ppi resolution or 9.2 megapixels for 61mm x 61mm negative.

Your best quality "scan" of a negative is probably using a digital camera with a macro lens and here the resulting digital image will be from 20 to 60 megapixels.

Hopefully, someone with a lot of scanning experience will provide you a better answer.

 

[gettons]

Thanks a lot!!!

it’s just my 3rd roll on 120, and 6th on film in general, so to keep costs low I normally go for low scan res and if I like an image I ask for a better quality scan later on. Thing is, because the previous scans were sort of all right (at the other lab),I thought I would get this quality of scan again.

Surely I will have negatives with me shortly, and I have already emailed the lab to ask for clarification since this is the first time I notice these artefacts since I started using this lab. However it is indeed the first time I use this lab for 120mm processing.

Thanks

 

[Phill104]

It is certainly scanning and processing of the resulting image that is the issue here. It may be the first lab scan at a higher resolution then scale down the image, and the second lab just scan in a high speed draft mode. Finding a good lab is not easy these days. Some are good at processing the film but are atrocious at the scanning and vice versa. Finding one that does both well, and consistently, is the key. We used to have a very good lab in Uxbridge but sadly they closed.

Rather than paying out for these low res scans each time, it is probably best to invest in a cheap scanner for yourself just for your initial scans. Then if you want one, go to a good lab that does drum scanning.