Converting Film to Digital

[Kit-V]

I posted this in Beginner's Questions since my experience with  film photography was limited. I recently digitized many trays of 35mm slides (Kodachrome 64 & Ectachrome 100). Although I am generally pleased with the conversion process, I did notice that the digital versions of the images are quite "grainy". I'm curious whether is inherent in the film itself or is it  noise introduced when converted to digital? Interestingly, attempts to reduce the amount of noise (in Lightroom) are not very successful.

I would appreciate if someone could educate me on this. Thank you kindly.

Kit

[degrub]

Sure, that is not an unusual result in my limited experience.  Describe the equipment used and the workflow - that might give us a clue.
Also, are you viewing these at 100 % scan pixels ?  That usually gives an impression of "graininess" and "noise".
There are a few digitization tutorials on the site and many threads that you can look at if you haven't already that may give you some ideas.

[Kit-V]

Degrub: I'll respond in the morning. Thank you for getting back to me.

kit

[Kit-V]

I converted the slides to digital using my Canon 6D camera. I attached an adapter ring to the camera body to which I attached a Nikon Micro Nikkor 55mm lens with an extension tube. Finally, on the end of the lens I threaded a Nikon ES-1 slide copying adapter. The entire set-up was then mounted on a tripod. As a lighting source I used a 4700K light. In order to match the lighting source, I set the camera's brightness control to 4700K. The camera was set on Manual & the lens at f3.5 (wide open). With some minor adjustments, I was able to focus & to fill the frame with the slide image. With everything set up, I would sequentially place each slide in the slide adapter, adjust to the correct exposure & remotely fire the shutter.

[degrub]

That is about the same number of pixels per mm as my Nikon CS5000. i saw similar results. Perhaps they were dye clouds, silver particles, emulsion crud, etc. but they were there with that scanner as it was good at finding slide imperfections. Some, with the Minolta MF scanner did not report as much of the issue, but it used a CCF rather than LEDs like the Nikon.

[EricV]

Is there a diffuser of some sort in the illumination path, between the light source and the slide?  Something like a ground glass plate?  That can help reduce graininess.  The fact that you can see film grain and slide imperfections means you are doing things right on the imaging side

[Kit-V]

Yes, the Nikon ES-1 slide holder has a diffuser forward of the slide. I am interpreting from your response that slide film inherently has a graininess inevitably captured by the digital image. Am I correct?

[EricV]

Yes, film has inherent grain, which you would certainly see under a microscope, and can capture with a good imaging system.  However, the "sharpness" or contrast of the grain (or dust or scratch) depends also on the illumination, and can be minimized with a diffuse light source.  (If you are old enough to remember darkroom days, condenser enlargers were notorious for emphasizing film grain and contrast, while diffusion enlargers smoothed out those effects.)

[Kit-V]

Thank you for the info, EricV. I appreciate it!

Kit

[Rob C]

Yes, film has inherent grain, which you would certainly see under a microscope, and can capture with a good imaging system.  However, the "sharpness" or contrast of the grain (or dust or scratch) depends also on the illumination, and can be minimized with a diffuse light source.  (If you are old enough to remember darkroom days, condenser enlargers were notorious for emphasizing film grain and contrast, while diffusion enlargers smoothed out those effects.)

Indeed, and where you had both enlarging sytems available, it was very useful.

Regarding the OP's question: much depends on the film type, and the degree of final enlargement he wants to reach.

My own stuff was scanned on a Canon CanoScan FS 4000 US, and though I have scanned pretty much everything I had left worth the time, I wouldn't part with the device just in case I ever use 135 format film again. To tell you the truth, that scanner was last used so long ago that I have probably forgotten how to do it!

Perhaps the worst part of the process was the spotting of the files: dust I simply could not see on the film in the holder using a magnifying glass. I guess the more one thinks about it, if film is being used with an eye to later digital manipulation, the less sense using film today makes.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... the lens at f3.5 (wide open)...

Why wide open? Most likely not the best option for that lens. Stopping one or two stops should improve image quality, not just sharpness, but flatness of field, vignetting, corner sharpness, etc. 

[rabanito]

Perhaps the worst part of the process was the spotting of the files: dust I simply could not see on the film in the holder using a magnifying glass. I guess the more one thinks about it, if film is being used with an eye to later digital manipulation, the less sense using film today makes.

I remember the hours of spotoning prints, not overdo it, find the right tone etc.
Now with content aware it's just "Presto!" and it's done forever in milliseconds

[kers]

Why wide open? Most likely not the best option for that lens. Stopping one or two stops should improve image quality, not just sharpness, but flatness of field, vignetting, corner sharpness, etc.

+1 i think you should try f8 to f11 to get the best results... look at the corners - they should improve...overall sharpness should improve- everywhere you should see grain
Blow the dust of with some canned air...
Grain is natural- that is film...(!) - quality is so much better now.

[Doug Peterson]

I'll just leave this link here. It's the most comprehensive (and up to date) summary on the topic I'm aware of:
https://dtculturalheritage.com/product/digitization-workflows-transmissive-pdf-download/