Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: EricWHiss on January 08, 2019, 12:10:26 am
-
Hi,
Just hoping someone here will have some neat ideas for sharpening film scans without pronouncing the grain. I've tried some plugins including topaz and pixel genius but currently think the PS CC reduce shake filter does the best job, however it also does pronounce the grain too. Any ideas? I have tried the frequency / graphic equalizer type methods also but it's hit and miss and time intensive. I'm using an iQsmart3
- currently scanning at 5000 p/in.
-
Have you tried bringing your scans into ACR and using the tools there?
Specifically applying ACR sharpening in combination with the masking slider to limit the sharpening to edges.
By far the best information I have seen on this subject is by Jeff Schewe dealing with building edge masks using Find Edges in PS as described in the book Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom A little more involved than a one click plugin solution maybe but the potential results could make it very worthwhile for hero images?
https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/real-world-image/9780321679307/
-
This is quite easy to deal with, and I've written it up in previous articles on this website. In a nutshell: Download Photokit Sharpener 2 Photoshop Plugin from the Pixelgenius website. Support for the application is now discontinued, but the owners are providing it free and it works with current versions of Photoshop and Mac and Windows operating systems. I think it's still the best sharpening toolset of its kind. It has custom presets for sharpening film scans, so these are combinations of settings that have been tested. Also download a copy of NeatImage from A/B Soft; this is an application one pays for but not expensive. After sharpening, inspect the results for areas of the photo where the grain looks objectionable (if not the whole photo), put them onto a new layer with a layer mask. Run NeatImage on the layer; it will automatically analyze the image and produce a combination of settings for relatively non-destructive mitigation of grain. This application is designed for dealing with digital noise, but it works very well on film grain too, despite the fact that grain isn't digital noise. If you don't like the results it produces automatically, you can operate the program in manual mode, where there are many controls for refined identification, selection and mitigation of noise or grain; you can dial in combinations of settings and examine their impacts almost immediately till you are satisfied. Used properly, it does a good job of protecting edge sharpness.
-
I wasn't aware of PG/PK ceasing business.
:( :(
Thanks for the memories PG!
-
Hi,
Just hoping someone here will have some neat ideas for sharpening film scans without pronouncing the grain. I've tried some plugins including topaz and pixel genius but currently think the PS CC reduce shake filter does the best job, however it also does pronounce the grain too. Any ideas? I have tried the frequency / graphic equalizer type methods also but it's hit and miss and time intensive. I'm using an iQsmart3
- currently scanning at 5000 p/in.
Hi Eric,
NeatImage, as mentioned by Mark, also crossed my mind. It allows a lot of control over which noise to remove, and which (spatial frequency) detail to preserve.
A more recent development, which I have not tried myself on filmscans yet, is Topaz A.I. Clear (with minimal sharpening). I'm not sure how that will work out, because I don't think it was trained on film but on digital images. But who knows, it might work.
To emphasize local contrast but not emphasize very high detail of grain, the Topaz Precision Detail plugin for the free Topaz Studio host would be worthwhile to explore (with negative boost settings).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart, I once wrote a review on this website for Topaz DeNoise, an earlier version of the current noise mitigation application. I found it very good and it has undoubtedly improved since - I haven't tested it recently. It is a different character of application than Neat Image. Topaz handles the task in a more bundled-up but also effective manner, whereas NeatImage gives the user more variables to play around with, which I appreciate for dealing with film as neither of these applications were really designed for film grain, or more accurately in the case of colour materials - dye clouds.
-
Have you tried Noiseware?
-
Yup - also very good, with lots of user control. Close call between the two of them and I could be happy with either, but I still marginally prefer Neat Image for film.
-
Yup - also very good, with lots of user control. Close call between the two of them and I could be happy with either, but I still marginally prefer Neat Image for film.
Yes, I also used NeatImage on my film-scans when I still did those. That's why I recommended to try it.
Topaz Precision Detail (which is not a noise reduction application/plugin) gets its strength from halo-free contrast enhancements based on feature size (depending on the scanned film resolution). That will allow to somewhat avoid the film grain, yet address the image detail.
Would be useful to have a crop of the level of detail and graininess (varies with filmtype and processing, and diffuseness or collimation of scanner lighting) that Eric is targeting, to test some different scenarios.
Cheers,
Bart
-
On the other hand, what we did in the darkroom was to focus on the grain, meaning that once the grain is sharp, you've got all the sharpness that's in the negative.
I apply the same approach with scanned film. There is no need, in my opinion, to go further. The trick is to get the grain sharp without making it larger than it naturally is. Once you've done that, there is nothing else to get from the scan (resolution-wise). And that's OK.
This will not give digital-like resolution and acutance, but that's all right. The best way to get digital-like resolution and acutance is to shoot digital. The best way to get film gorgeousness is to embrace what film looks like.
-
On the other hand, what we did in the darkroom was to focus on the grain, meaning that once the grain is sharp, you've got all the sharpness that's in the negative.
I apply the same approach with scanned film. There is no need, in my opinion, to go further. The trick is to get the grain sharp without making it larger than it naturally is. Once you've done that, there is nothing else to get from the scan (resolution-wise). And that's OK.
This will not give digital-like resolution and acutance, but that's all right. The best way to get digital-like resolution and acutance is to shoot digital. The best way to get film gorgeousness is to embrace what film looks like.
What you do depends on what you are digitizing. If we're talking colour negatives for example, we're not seeing particles of silver, but rather we are seeing tiny dye clouds formed of clumps of silver particulates and dyes through the emulsion, often in a structure of nine layers. Dye clouds diffuse detail, so the objective of good focusing should be to aim for the sharpest visible distinction of contrasted edge detail. Interestingly, there is a by-play between focusing, sharpening and grain mitigation. The focusing part happens pre-capture, while the latter two happen post-capture. Judicious sharpening is needed to restore the acutance lost through the digitization process, while judicious "grain" mitigation can help make the photo appear sharper by eliminating the so-called grain whose appearance interferes with the observation of image detail.
-
The trick is to get the grain sharp without making it larger than it naturally is.
That's my approach. I've never run noise reduction on film scans (B&W and colour neg).
-
NeatImage has been kicking around for a number of years and I've often had an urge to try it but as with many situations in life, that urge seemed to disappear and was forgotten. It has now been rekindled and I will definitely give it a try. PKS-2 has also been mentioned, an app I use with most of the prints I make for output sharpening and wouldn't want to do without. I print my own images and those of my customers and have never been let down by PKS-2, it's a great sharpener on several levels. My usual app for noise reduction is Noiseware from Imagenomic, but I'm certainly open to trying others as well. I have Topaz DeNoise but haven't tried it yet. The way I see it, having several noise reduction apps is not a bad thing, since if one doesn't seem to be doing the job for a particular image, try another, or perhaps combine two on separate layers and brush in the sections you want. I'm not sure one noise reduction app can do all for everyone.
Oh yes, and by the way, here's the current download link for NeatImage - https://ni.neatvideo.com/
Gary
-
I tried to download the Pixelgenius package for mac and Photoshop says it doesn't recognize that type of file. Must be some simple way around that?
-
OP (& OT) -- I'm digitizing my old Rollei GX Tech Pan negatives now and am being reminded of just how good that setup was. Amazing detail and a virtually grainless image.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
OP (& OT) -- I'm digitizing my old Rollei GX Tech Pan negatives now and am being reminded of just how good that setup was. Amazing detail and a virtually grainless image.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
+1 for Tech Pan. For most folks, Tech Pan was a film meant strictly for particular applications, such as high contrast B&W and line work. However, with careful attention to exposure and proper processing it was a film extremely adept for shooting landscapes etc. If memory serves me, I believe I always used ISO 25 when shooting landscapes etc. on TP. Again, a great range and lots of fine detail when handled properly. I must dig out some of my TP negs and scan them as well. Make sure you have high magnification grain focuser if printing TP, since grain can be difficult to find.
Thanks for tweaking my memory of Tech Pan again Paul. Now I have work to do. ;^)
Gary
-
I tried to download the Pixelgenius package for mac and Photoshop says it doesn't recognize that type of file. Must be some simple way around that?
it downloads as a .zip file that contains all the PG toolkits/plugins in one.
Expand the .zip file and read the README that is inside for installation.
-
Depending upon the resolution of the original scan and the size of the grain versus the details you are targeting, you might try frequency separation to push the grain to a separate layer and then sharpen the residual image.
kirk
-
Depending upon the resolution of the original scan and the size of the grain versus the details you are targeting, you might try frequency separation to push the grain to a separate layer and then sharpen the residual image.
kirk
What application do you have in mind that does "frequency separation"?
-
I've seen plenty of PS actions/recipes to do frequency separation. Some of the Luminosity 'toolkits' offer a pushbutton Freq. Sep. (like ADP or Raya)
-
What application do you have in mind that does "frequency separation"?
Hi Mark,
Affinity Photo has that functionality built straight into the application.
Official tutorial (https://vimeo.com/130965888)
Some user tutorials:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpVKaOKWOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8_OXoPJ91c
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart and Howard.
-
Here is an application-agnostic method for doing a single separation:
https://fstoppers.com/post-production/ultimate-guide-frequency-separation-technique-8699
It uses basic image editing tools so that it can be implemented in any image editor. You can do a single separation or multiple frequencies if that is what you need. The basic idea is to choose a blur radius that gets rid of your "high frequency" detail, which will include grain. Then you can sharpen the residual image (the image without the high frequency) and composite the separation. This is a classic technique used in portrait retouching, for example, where the artist wants to smooth or heal small blemishes and wrinkles (high- or middle frequency detail) on a separate layer while leaving the tonal sculpting of the face (low-frequency image data) intact.
As a variation, which will keep more real detail in the residual, low-frequency image, try using noise reduction software to perform the "blur" operation instead of a simple Gaussian blur. Then use that result to generate the high frequency layer via Apply Image. This will keep more high-frequency real detail in the residual, which is the image layer you want to sharpen (without the grain) and push the "noise" (grain) into the high-frequency layer that you will not sharpen, but composite back onto the sharpened residual layer via Linear Light blending mode.
You could also try Surface Blur instead of Gaussian Blur.
The scanning resolution and the size of the film grain relative to pixel size will dictate how completely or easily one can separate the grain content from the fine image detail.
kirk
-
I use other software from these guys.
https://www.knowhowtransfer.com/photoshop-professional-plugins/wow-frequency-equalizer
-
Thanks Kirk,
Reading this over, several observations come to mind. This procedure does not seem purpose-built for dealing with the problem of film "grain", which may have different characteristics from the subject matter of the retouching it appears to be purposed for, though not having done it, I don't have a view on how much of an issue this could be. It would appear to require case by case fine-tuning to work properly, which could pose a time conundrum for those doing large-volume scanning work. The distinction between image detail and so-called "grain" can be tricky, especially when dealing with naturally "grainy" surface textures. I can see the distinctions being difficult, yet that would be an essential element to successful separation. A bespoke application such as Neat Image allows one to easily identify and mitigate noise or "grain" by channel (Y - luminance; Cr, Cb - the colour channels) and by frequency (High, Medium, Low), allowing the user to decide in real time (as it recalculates) the level of adjustment for each at which image detail may begin to suffer. On top of the quality of the results, the ease of use of the interface and its responsiveness is what attracted to me to this program in the first place. While it may seem counter-intuitive to sharpen before "grain" mitigation, the advantage of working in this manner allows one to see in a post-sharpening context at what point the right degree of acutance of real edge detail that one achieved from sharpening could begin to suffer from overly aggressive "grain" mitigation in one or more channels or frequencies.
(You will notice I have "grain" in "", because when dealing with colour fiom it's a generic name for what may be so-called dye clouds that are formed by clumps of fundamental silver particles and dyes through nine layers of emulsion.) Dye-clouds are much larger than silver particles, not as sharply defined and come in random shapes, posing perhaps a challenge for distinguishing them from image detail and reducing their visibility without destroying real detail.)
-
I use other software from these guys.
https://www.knowhowtransfer.com/photoshop-professional-plugins/wow-frequency-equalizer
I use that as well as several other panels from Davide and company. Terrific stuff.
Kirk
-
Thanks Kirk,
Reading this over, several observations come to mind. This procedure does not seem purpose-built for dealing with the problem of film "grain", which may have different characteristics from the subject matter of the retouching it appears to be purposed for, though not having done it, I don't have a view on how much of an issue this could be. It would appear to require case by case fine-tuning to work properly, which could pose a time conundrum for those doing large-volume scanning work. The distinction between image detail and so-called "grain" can be tricky, especially when dealing with naturally "grainy" surface textures. I can see the distinctions being difficult, yet that would be an essential element to successful separation. A bespoke application such as Neat Image allows one to easily identify and mitigate noise or "grain" by channel (Y - luminance; Cr, Cb - the colour channels) and by frequency (High, Medium, Low), allowing the user to decide in real time (as it recalculates) the level of adjustment for each at which image detail may begin to suffer. On top of the quality of the results, the ease of use of the interface and its responsiveness is what attracted to me to this program in the first place. While it may seem counter-intuitive to sharpen before "grain" mitigation, the advantage of working in this manner allows one to see in a post-sharpening context at what point the right degree of acutance of real edge detail that one achieved from sharpening could begin to suffer from overly aggressive "grain" mitigation in one or more channels or frequencies.
(You will notice I have "grain" in "", because when dealing with colour fiom it's a generic name for what may be so-called dye clouds that are formed by clumps of fundamental silver particles and dyes through nine layers of emulsion.) Dye-clouds are much larger than silver particles, not as sharply defined and come in random shapes, posing perhaps a challenge for distinguishing them from image detail and reducing their visibility without destroying real detail.)
For purposes of this thread I experimented with using Neat Image to perform the “blur” operation for the frequency separation. It works well, given the level of control one can exercise over isolating the grain.
Kirk
-
Once you've used Neat Image, why do you still need frequency separation? Why not do the whole grain mitigation operation in Neat Image?
-
Once you've used Neat Image, why do you still need frequency separation? Why not do the whole grain mitigation operation in Neat Image?
The original idea was to sharpen a film scan while not sharpening the grain present in the scan - I have assumed that the idea was not to completely remove the grain, but to somehow sharpen the underlying image and preserve the original grain. Neat Image is good at isolating and removing the grain, which results in a grain-free "residual" image but with detail preserved (way better than using Gaussian Blur). This low-frequency "residual" image is the part that you can sharpen without worrying about accentuating the grain in the original image. The frequency separation technique essentially lets you subtract the grain from the original image and put it on its own layer - you will composite the grain back onto the sharpened residual image with the Linear Light blend mode. This way you get to sharpen the image without the grain, but then add the original grain back in after the sharpening without the grain is performed.
All of this assumes that the grain is noise-like enough for Neat Image to be able to effectively isolate it. Fortunately, Neat Image has enough control over noise type, channel and frequency that it is pretty adaptable for the task. Also good - Neat Image can be set up to run in an Action.
Kirk
-
Interesting approach, thanks.
-
You're welcome.
Here is an example of the difference between sharpening the grainy image with and without frequency separation as previously described. This is an over-the-top example, but you get the point. The original image is from a Fujifilm GFX 50s and grain was added in CaptureOne - is it really film-like? I don't know, but this is for demo purposes. The image shows a 100% crop of the original, the residual image resulting from treatment with Neat Image, the sharpened result using Smart Sharpen, radius = 2.0, amount = 500 applied to: 1) the residual image and recombined with the grain (left) and 2) the original, without frequency separation (right). I had to reduce the composite image to 75% of its original size for purposes of making the JPEG easier to view and download, so some artifact occurred, but you can appreciate the difference between sharpening the detail and sharpening the detail and the grain.
kirk
-
Thanks for doing this Kirk. Several queries:
(1) The image: not clear to me whether this is a good sample to work with. It has very little (nearly none) high density detail, so in a way, it doesn't need sharpening. Most of it is smooth surfaces with some distinct lines that don't obviously need much sharpening - I suppose depending on the magnification of the final photo. The advantage of this kind of image, however, is that it does show the effectiveness of grain mitigation on smooth surfaces very nicely. The disadvantage is that we have difficulty imagining impacts on the acuity of high density detail of the various approaches.
(2) The results: the top right version is the preferable outcome of course - looks fine, but did you notice that it has slightly toned-down highlights compared with the original? Not clear how that happened - whether a result of Neat Image, or something else. It's quite subtle but noticeable. Between the bottom two, even looking at them magnified, it isn't clear how much improvement the frequency separation brought to the right versus the left versions. There is some, but it's not that remarkable. Perhaps this is due to the limitations of the format in which such demos need to be posted here, I don't know.