Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Very Grainy Pics

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East Side
    Posts
    122

    Default Very Grainy Pics

    Hi all,

    Need some help here...took some pics lately with my nikon F65 and all the pics turned out grainy. most of the pics are taken with aperture priority, iso 400 film, no flash, then i developed the film, convert it into a cd and they end up as such. can someone perhaps tell me wat is the cause of the grains and how to prevent such occurences. ur help is greatly appreciated..


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    galaxy far far away
    Posts
    1,837

    Default

    i believe yer choice of iso 400 is to blame.. try using another film, like 200..
    400 is to sesitive even at daylight.. if im wrog do enlighten me
    give me a pen, and i'll give you my signature

  3. #3

    Default Asa 400

    I am quite sure it is the ASA 400

  4. #4

    Default

    Ya, try 200 or 100.

    Or try using flash to fill in the shadows.
    The fill flash on your picture seem like not enough

  5. #5

    Default

    bro...if you want to use ASA400 film...

    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs

    It's USELESS...it's disastrous to scan fr negs...u need to dev first, then scan from the dev photo.

    If you want to scan from negs with ASA400 rating, use Kodak 400HD, Fuji Superia 400, Fuji NPS400, Fuji NPZ400

    or slide: Provia400 SURE POWER!!!!

    have fun and cheers!!!!
    blog: inbloomphotos.wordpress.com

  6. #6
    Senior Member erictan8888's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,885

    Default

    if i understand what you wrote correctly, you bascially asked the shop to scan the negatives for you ?

    if that's the case, then it has partly to do with the shop doing the scan lo....
    i did a scan from negatives before.... collected the cd, went home to view and was extremely disappointed....

    but when i developed the negatives into prints.... was pleasantly surprised that it turned out well... not as grainy as seen from the cd scan....
    Hope to learn from everyone here....

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erictan8888
    if i understand what you wrote correctly, you bascially asked the shop to scan the negatives for you ?

    if that's the case, then it has partly to do with the shop doing the scan lo....
    i did a scan from negatives before.... collected the cd, went home to view and was extremely disappointed....

    but when i developed the negatives into prints.... was pleasantly surprised that it turned out well... not as grainy as seen from the cd scan....
    this is true

    if you use ISO 1600 or 3200 films...when you scan, it'll be SO grainy that you could have a HEART ATTACK on the spot...but once you print it...it's what you've always wanted to see, a non-disastrous photo.

    I've used ISO 800 and 1600 for a concert shot before, scanned it into CD, but when client see...all of them thought that their pc monitor just went kaput!!!!
    blog: inbloomphotos.wordpress.com

  8. #8
    Senior Member The_Cheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khairi
    bro...if you want to use ASA400 film...

    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    Bro, since when did Tmax become colour negs? Tmax is a black and white film lah! And frankly, it have one of the finest grain at ASA400 for black and white, to the distaste of a number of people. I personally like a little bit of grain in HP5.

    Anyway, I think you wanted to say Kodak MAX400. If that's the case, then the chant should be:
    "DO NOT USE Kodak MAX (whatever ASA) colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak MAX (whatever ASA) colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak MAX (whatever ASA) colour negs"

  9. #9

    Default Why Asa 400?

    If U don need the speed, U may want to try out FUJI REALA.

  10. #10

    Default

    fuji superia 200 or 400

  11. #11

    Default

    most labs do a certain amt of scan sharpening in the photo....resultin in the "grain" which i would rather call noise....

    do a higher res scan and this could be reduced.....

  12. #12

    Default

    try print out one copy and compare with the pic on ur comp, then most probably u will get the ans. i dun think iso 400 will cause any visible grain on a 4R pic.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East Side
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by khairi
    bro...if you want to use ASA400 film...

    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak Tmax400 colour negs

    It's USELESS...it's disastrous to scan fr negs...u need to dev first, then scan from the dev photo.

    If you want to scan from negs with ASA400 rating, use Kodak 400HD, Fuji Superia 400, Fuji NPS400, Fuji NPZ400

    or slide: Provia400 SURE POWER!!!!

    have fun and cheers!!!!
    ah ok thanks!!! will keep that in mind. but slides a bit the expensive ah. and yah i was using Kodak Max400. been using that ever since i got into photography with my old pentax slr and most pics turn out fine. very crisp in fact. i just tested out my new nikon yesterday and got a shock. oh well lesson learnt. but as a guideline, how do i choose the correct ISO setting for my shoots? which is good for wat? the instructions on the box seemed too general.

  14. #14
    Senior Member The_Cheat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fadzuli
    ah ok thanks!!! will keep that in mind. but slides a bit the expensive ah. and yah i was using Kodak Max400. been using that ever since i got into photography with my old pentax slr and most pics turn out fine. very crisp in fact. i just tested out my new nikon yesterday and got a shock. oh well lesson learnt. but as a guideline, how do i choose the correct ISO setting for my shoots? which is good for wat? the instructions on the box seemed too general.
    There are no rights or wrongs in photography, just some broad and often ambiguous guidelines that many of us like to break anyway.

    Anyway, here are a few things you ought to know:
    - the higher the ISO, the more grainy the picture become (w.r.t to lower ISO);
    - the higher the ISO, the faster the shutter speed at any given aperture (w.r.t to lower ISO)

    What this means is that in low available light condition, in order to achieve a faster shutter speed, one ought to use higher ISO. For example, in a concert where the use of flash-gun are disallowed, one should use ISO 800 and above to capture whatever on stage. This would however result in very grainy pictures.

    Low ISO are often used for landscape photography, since minute details in landscapes (even some stray objects in the background) are more critical than say in a portrait. That's why one of the most celebrated film for landscape photography, Velvia, has only ISO 50. Some even pull the ISO rating lower, to achieve certain shots.

    However, there are many who'd disregarded these guidelines, and came up with superb innovative shots as well. A high ISO film for landscape could often conjured big grains that give another perspective to an often-shot landscape. A low ISO film in lowlight condition could sometimes (if you're lucky) capture movement instead of an average freeze-action picture.

    At the end of the day, it all depends on you.

    One final note, try not to use Kodak MAX400. I personally hate Fuji Superia, but the colour seems better than MAX400. For me, I like to use Kodak HD200 instead. Can't seems to find any HD400 in Singapore though...

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    East Side
    Posts
    122

    Default

    hmm ok will try use the Kodak HD200 nowadays...will give it a try...well here are some of the other grainy pics...hope u guys could give some constructive comments...thanks...

    1.


    2.


    3.


    4.


    5.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    23

    Default

    My comment is on the first photo. I noticed that the stuffed animal, the real one, not the reflection, was out of focus. I would have expected it to be in focus with the shot you were taking.

    I'm thinking a smaller aperature and perhaps focus on the actual girl & doll, then the mirror will automatically be in focus. But I'm a newbie too so I may have messed that thought processup somehow, heh

    I liked the others and couldn't pinpoint anything wrong with them, clear, bright, colorful. The shot between the two boy's heads was probably the least favorable as their heads detracted from the subject.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Cheat
    Bro, since when did Tmax become colour negs? Tmax is a black and white film lah! And frankly, it have one of the finest grain at ASA400 for black and white, to the distaste of a number of people. I personally like a little bit of grain in HP5.

    Anyway, I think you wanted to say Kodak MAX400. If that's the case, then the chant should be:
    "DO NOT USE Kodak MAX (whatever ASA) colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak MAX (whatever ASA) colour negs
    DO NOT USE Kodak MAX (whatever ASA) colour negs"
    whatever ASA? max refers specifically to 400... 200 and 100 are called "gold"

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    AMK
    Posts
    5,711

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erictan8888
    if i understand what you wrote correctly, you bascially asked the shop to scan the negatives for you ?

    if that's the case, then it has partly to do with the shop doing the scan lo....
    i did a scan from negatives before.... collected the cd, went home to view and was extremely disappointed....

    but when i developed the negatives into prints.... was pleasantly surprised that it turned out well... not as grainy as seen from the cd scan....
    Due to the scanner fault. It's time for you to switch to DSLR...

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central Area
    Posts
    565

    Default

    what is ur scanner ?

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Central Area
    Posts
    565

    Default

    what is ur scanner ?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •