Any tips for reducing grain?

Try one of the noise reduction softwares like Imagenomic's Noiseware Standard. Check it out at www.imagenomic.com

Out of curiosity, what was the negative and scanner used? Is the crop at 100% or resized?

Your original is pretty much the way that colour negatives look when scanned. It really is that grainy. (Based on my experience with my Coolscan 5000 and negatives from Kodacolor X through Kodacolor Gold 400 - and from other examples I've seen posted on the net.) If that scan is at something like 4000 dpi then the grain will be completely unobjectionable when printed as a 4x6, 5x7 or even 8x10. A 100% crop in Photoshop is the most unflattering way to look at scanned images and is likely to mislead you about the way it will look when printed out.

Furthermore, I was conditioned by the grainless look of digital cameras, over time you will probably find the grain more acceptable - I did. Certainly I find the grain in B&W negatives perfectly acceptable and even part of the way it 'should' look. After scanning B&W negatives I came to find that the thing I found most objectionable about the grain in colour negatives was the colour noise rather than the grain per se. Thus, if you don't get some of the noise reduction filters (Noise Ninja, Noiseware, et al) you might try to concentrate on colour noise rather than the grain when using the noise reduction filter in Photoshop.

Wow, that's pretty awful! My first thought, looking at that, was... Extremely underexposed and brightened in the scan software. No, that's not normal at all. I use Neatimage to reduce image grain but that sample's horrific...

Compare with the first 100% crop I could find on the web from some Kodak Gold 200:
http://www.mindspring.com/~madcader/KodakGold200_neg14-Crop.tif

That looks about the same for grain to me.

Lynn,

Are you asking how to reduce grain in general, or how to fix this picture? I don't think you are being up front with your representation. Les is on to something. On close examination, it looks like this is a 2x or more resampling, not a 100% crop of the original. Otherwise, this image is a lost cause and you need to move on.

It would help to know what film was used, how it was scanned and what the overall image looks like (e.g., is this sample a fair representation). How large was the "good" print before scanning, and how was it produced?

The area in this sample is grossly underexposed, which by itself will cause excessive grain when opened up in Photoshop. The clue is that there are only highlights present - the shadows are completely blocked up. Proper exposure is a learned skill, and you can't always rely on the camera or minilab to bail you out. Secondly, if you want fine grain, use fine-grained film, probably something with an ISO of 100 or less. Finally, don't try to enlarge the original more than 10-12x. If you want big photos on the wall, use big negatives (e.g., medium or large format).

I'm not completely averse to seeing grain, provided it complements the subject and composition. On the whole, B&W grain is less objectionable than seeing color splotches. Landscapes are better when clean and sharp. Let shadows be shadows, don't make the image something it's not. Go easy on the sharpening (not an issue in the sample as presented).

I've been doing the scan and print thing for more than seven years now. What I've learned is that it's nearly impossible to make meaningful judgments about either graininess or sharpness from looking at a monitor. The reason is simple physics. The monitor has much greater pixel pitch than a print, as much as 5x. So looking at a monitor image magnifies the grain by as much as 5x. Which is huge. Then, the monitor is a light source, while a print is a reflective source. Again, huge.

The moral of the story is, if you want to know how something will effect the final print, make a test print and evaluate the test print. It's the only way to know for sure.

Thanks everyone,
The negative is 35mm Kodak Gold 200 - exactly the same as the sample John found. It was scanned at a lab. It is 100% crop, very unflattering indeed!
I think it is the colour noise that most bothers me so I'll try that again, thanks John. And you're absolutely right, it's hard to accept film grain when I haven't seen it in ages!
"Let shadows be shadows, don't make the image something it's not." - Good point Edward, the original print (20x24" printed from the negative years ago) is quite dark. I think I was hoping I could make it something it's not.
And thanks for your insights Bruce; ultimately I will have to print some tests to see if I am content with it or content to give up on it.

Lyn

will you be scanning your own in future?