Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: Film users... need your advice

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ponggol 21
    Posts
    349

    Default Film users... need your advice

    Hi all fellow film users...
    Just wondering if a 400film will actually cause the photos when enlarge to be grainy than 100 or 200film??
    Because recently i went to develop photos taken with xxxbrand 400 and the staff at the developing shop ask me whether i want them to be scanned into cd as well and i agreed. The results in the CD shows grainy photos.. and when i ask why they say its due to the fact i use 400 instead of 200 or 100film... hmmm wondering if its true ah??
    Thanks!!!

    boen

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by boen
    Hi all fellow film users...
    Just wondering if a 400film will actually cause the photos when enlarge to be grainy than 100 or 200film??
    Because recently i went to develop photos taken with xxxbrand 400 and the staff at the developing shop ask me whether i want them to be scanned into cd as well and i agreed. The results in the CD shows grainy photos.. and when i ask why they say its due to the fact i use 400 instead of 200 or 100film... hmmm wondering if its true ah??
    Thanks!!!

    boen
    I've always shoot using ISO400 film and scanned into a CD. Results are ok in dalylight outdoors but indoors will be more obvious especially during underexposures. Grain sizes in ISO400 will of cos be larger than those in 200 and 100.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    2,522

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    the higher the speed the more grainy it gets.

    partly also due to the quality of the scan. what you got was probably a frontier scan, thus the low quality. scan at a higher resolution and you get much better quality. PS can't save frontier scans.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ponggol 21
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by foxtwo
    the higher the speed the more grainy it gets.

    partly also due to the quality of the scan. what you got was probably a frontier scan, thus the low quality. scan at a higher resolution and you get much better quality. PS can't save frontier scans.
    hmmm, so i have to ask the shop to scan at higher resoultion for me lor... okok... or i think next time i scan myself... heh... thanks man!!!

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ponggol 21
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoweagle
    I've always shoot using ISO400 film and scanned into a CD. Results are ok in dalylight outdoors but indoors will be more obvious especially during underexposures. Grain sizes in ISO400 will of cos be larger than those in 200 and 100.
    ok, think i will tryn 200... and see the results.. haha... thanks!!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    A village in a forest
    Posts
    1,515

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    If grainy pictures bothers you, why don't you try iso100 films?? You'll get photos with much finer grain. Of course you may need to use tripod more often, but if it is quality you want, a little trouble shouldn't be a problem
    Canon 80D|Panasonic LX3/LX5
    35f2 IS|50f1.8|85f1.8|12-24f4|18-135f4-5.6 IS|28-75f2.8

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by boen
    ok, think i will tryn 200... and see the results.. haha... thanks!!!
    ISO 200 is good for outdoors but not under low lighting. ISO 100 is only suitable for daylight shots. ISO 400 is an all rounder, ISO 800 is gd for places where flash photography is not allowed such as theatres. But ISO 1600 is very seldom used.

    The logic is the lower the ASA speed, the less grainy it is. ISO 50 ones are even better but a tripod is recommended. Also, the shutter speeds are slower at lower ASA speeds as they require more light to accomplish correct exposures. For example, an ISO 400 film absorbs light twice faster than an ISO 200 one so the shutter speed is also reduced twice.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by kelccm
    If grainy pictures bothers you, why don't you try iso100 films?? You'll get photos with much finer grain. Of course you may need to use tripod more often, but if it is quality you want, a little trouble shouldn't be a problem
    True...in fact ISO 100 films are very good for day and night shots, but a tripod is required. ISO 400 ones too.
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by foxtwo
    the higher the speed the more grainy it gets.

    partly also due to the quality of the scan. what you got was probably a frontier scan, thus the low quality. scan at a higher resolution and you get much better quality. PS can't save frontier scans.
    The reason why you see the grains is because on the screen pixel for pixel at 96dpi (screen resolution), a 4Base scan (1840x1232, 2.2mp) is equivalent to a blowup to 19"x13". It is inevitable that you see the grains. Even if you scan at 16Base (3096x2048, 6.3mp), at pixel for pixel, you will see the grains even more clearly because it would be equivalent to a blowup to 32"x21".

    If you don't want to see grain, you might want to consider DSLR, but then you will see noise instead at higher ISO. You can see this thread and scroll to find one of my posting there for a quick comparison. http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=181432
    Last edited by lsisaxon; 5th March 2006 at 12:46 AM.

  10. #10
    Member edfck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    grain can also b use as an effect too. try using ya 400, set the cam to 800 or 1600, push process by 1 or 2 stop to bring up the grain... then Digital edit to B & w.

    hmmm so troblesome, aiyah just go digital lah..

  11. #11

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by edfck
    grain can also b use as an effect too. try using ya 400, set the cam to 800 or 1600, push process by 1 or 2 stop to bring up the grain... then Digital edit to B & w.

    hmmm so troblesome, aiyah just go digital lah..
    Yeah.. If quality of the digital output is important I would suggest going digital too.. The workflow is much shorter than film. I don't see why people should shoot film and end up only using the scanned outputs. Doesn't make sense at all.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    (A) The basic question posted by the TS is whether an ISO 400 film will produce "bigger" grains than ISO 200 or 100. Related, but not specifically asked, is the issue of the effects of scanning.

    I do not scan my negatives and therefore I am unable to give a coherent answer to the effects of scanning.

    While I am going to talk specfically about B&W films, I believe that msot of what I will say should apply to color films too.

    But yes! In principle, higher ISO should result in bigger grains. The reason is the size of the silver halides used to "gather" light. A higher ISO film will have bigger grains to start with in order to be more efficient in gathering light. But with new technology, such as the Ilford Delta series, Kodak Tmax series and the Fuji Neopan series, the ability to gather light was made more efficient by the shapes of the silver grains, hence you may find that a higher ISO "T-grain" film may have grains comparable to a lower ISO of the "older" panchromatic films like Kodak TriX, Kodak Plus-X, Ilford FP4, and Ilford HP5.

    But this is not the end of the story.

    The final "size" of the grains, within the same ISO in the same film, can also be affected by other things. Some people had suggested that different developers may alter the size of the grains. But given the fact that the size of the grains was determined at manufacturing, the difference is not a lot. And indeed, Bruce Barnbaum, one of the acknowledged teachers in B&W printing, believes that the effect of different developers on graininess is at best minimal. Some have felt that staining developers, such as pyro developers, could reduce graininess by "filling" up the space between the silver halides. But again, this is arguable.

    What is more important in altering the size of the grains is the LENGTH of development. And also agitation.

    I hope that answer the question, with some further clarifications.

    (B) Now to correct some rubbish made in some posts.

    (1) Films are not imbued with intelligence. Films respond to light, something purely physical, and chemical when you develop the films.

    Films do not know whether you are making photographs outdoors or indooors. Films only respond to light. Period.

    The issue is not outdoors or indoors.

    The issue is a question of adequate exposure. Underexposure, with attempts to "correct" the underexposure by lengthening the development time, such as in "push-processing", will result in more grain. One can photograph in "outdoors" and result in underexposure because the photographer do not know how to expose the negative properly. One can also photograph "indoors" and get correct exposures.

    (2) ISO 200 is NOT "good for outdoors but not under low lighting". ISO ANYTHING, in principle, is not good for any underexposure, unless you are looking for certain effects.

    (3) ISO 100 is NOT "only suitable for daylight shots". (Yes, I know that whoever said this later contradicted himself in the very next post by saying "in fact ISO 100 films are very good for day and night shots, but a tripod is required"). ISO 100 can be used for any lighting shots, including indoors shots, and night shots, provided you know how to get sufficient exposure. Whether a tripod is required or not is a secondary issue. Some night shots such as hawker centres are very bright, and given good techniques and very fast lenses, using a rangefinder, can even be taken handheld.

    (4) ISO 1600 is NOT "very seldom used". On the contrary, ISO 1600, and even higher, is very commonly used in jazz clubs and stage photography. In fact even better, use a 3200 film and rate it at about 2000-2500.

    Now I hope these clear up the nonsensical inaccurate misleading information spewed up by half-baked n********ps .

    (C) Finally, I use a lot of ISO 400 films. As I mentioned, I do not scan films. But I print them and then scan in the prints. Take a look in the portrait subforum. I have two images there.

    One is a nude abstract taken with TriX 400. How is the grain?

    The other is a Child and her Candle taken with Fuji Neopan 1600, hand-held using the candle as a light source. Obviously more grainy. But what is the effect?
    Last edited by student; 5th March 2006 at 12:56 PM.

  13. #13
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,845
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    bravo, student!
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed. ― Deeksha Mittal

  14. #14

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    I have observed the reason that you see the grains when you scan them. Aparently, these scanning services outside adds a sharpening filter when doing scanning which i have asked them before why it was so grainy. I have compared scanned negatives by myself and those scan outside (same roll of film). It seem that those scan outside is "grainer". Maybe its due to the sharpening filter then cause the grains to be more pronounced.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    ponggol 21
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    wow...thank you everyone for their valuable opinions and expertise... have learnt a lot of all of you.., i still prefer the trill of using film camera as i never know the results after i develop them. heh, and everytime after i took them and see them i prints i will ask myself how to improve, thus hopefully improving my techniques in gettin the right exposure..haha..another reason is i have no money to get 5d yet.
    once agian.. many thanks!!!

  16. #16
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    TriX/TMAX 400 I can't see any deep grains, but I like the granularity.

    As for 400 negs, I shot with Kodak Max before, lousy colours lousy saturation and terribly 'noisy'.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    interesting read, student

    i have some queries that crop up. suppose if the film loaded is a ISO100 film and somehow or rather, i've set the cam to shoot at ISO200 or higher, and that is likely to result in underexposures.

    (1) if i had realized the wrong ISO settings used and tell it to the shop before developing, what are the countermeasures that they'll do to restore back to proper exposure of the negatives?

    (2) if i did not tell them about this wrong ISO settings and they just process under default settings, the negatives will look underexposed. is there still any remedy (such as lengthening the exposure time) that when printed on paper, it'll still look as a properly exposed?

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    (A) The basic question posted by the TS is whether an ISO 400 film will produce "bigger" grains than ISO 200 or 100. Related, but not specifically asked, is the issue of the effects of scanning.

    I do not scan my negatives and therefore I am unable to give a coherent answer to the effects of scanning.

    While I am going to talk specfically about B&W films, I believe that msot of what I will say should apply to color films too.

    But yes! In principle, higher ISO should result in bigger grains. The reason is the size of the silver halides used to "gather" light. A higher ISO film will have bigger grains to start with in order to be more efficient in gathering light. But with new technology, such as the Ilford Delta series, Kodak Tmax series and the Fuji Neopan series, the ability to gather light was made more efficient by the shapes of the silver grains, hence you may find that a higher ISO "T-grain" film may have grains comparable to a lower ISO of the "older" panchromatic films like Kodak TriX, Kodak Plus-X, Ilford FP4, and Ilford HP5.

    But this is not the end of the story.

    The final "size" of the grains, within the same ISO in the same film, can also be affected by other things. Some people had suggested that different developers may alter the size of the grains. But given the fact that the size of the grains was determined at manufacturing, the difference is not a lot. And indeed, Bruce Barnbaum, one of the acknowledged teachers in B&W printing, believes that the effect of different developers on graininess is at best minimal. Some have felt that staining developers, such as pyro developers, could reduce graininess by "filling" up the space between the silver halides. But again, this is arguable.

    What is more important in altering the size of the grains is the LENGTH of development. And also agitation.

    I hope that answer the question, with some further clarifications.

    (B) Now to correct some rubbish made in some posts.

    (1) Films are not imbued with intelligence. Films respond to light, something purely physical, and chemical when you develop the films.

    Films do not know whether you are making photographs outdoors or indooors. Films only respond to light. Period.

    The issue is not outdoors or indoors.

    The issue is a question of adequate exposure. Underexposure, with attempts to "correct" the underexposure by lengthening the development time, such as in "push-processing", will result in more grain. One can photograph in "outdoors" and result in underexposure because the photographer do not know how to expose the negative properly. One can also photograph "indoors" and get correct exposures.

    (2) ISO 200 is NOT "good for outdoors but not under low lighting". ISO ANYTHING, in principle, is not good for any underexposure, unless you are looking for certain effects.

    (3) ISO 100 is NOT "only suitable for daylight shots". (Yes, I know that whoever said this later contradicted himself in the very next post by saying "in fact ISO 100 films are very good for day and night shots, but a tripod is required"). ISO 100 can be used for any lighting shots, including indoors shots, and night shots, provided you know how to get sufficient exposure. Whether a tripod is required or not is a secondary issue. Some night shots such as hawker centres are very bright, and given good techniques and very fast lenses, using a rangefinder, can even be taken handheld.

    (4) ISO 1600 is NOT "very seldom used". On the contrary, ISO 1600, and even higher, is very commonly used in jazz clubs and stage photography. In fact even better, use a 3200 film and rate it at about 2000-2500.

    Now I hope these clear up the nonsensical inaccurate misleading information spewed up by half-baked n********ps .

    (C) Finally, I use a lot of ISO 400 films. As I mentioned, I do not scan films. But I print them and then scan in the prints. Take a look in the portrait subforum. I have two images there.

    One is a nude abstract taken with TriX 400. How is the grain?

    The other is a Child and her Candle taken with Fuji Neopan 1600, hand-held using the candle as a light source. Obviously more grainy. But what is the effect?

  18. #18

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by user12343
    suppose if the film loaded is a ISO100 film and somehow or rather, i've set the cam to shoot at ISO200 or higher, and that is likely to result in underexposures.

    (1) if i had realized the wrong ISO settings used and tell it to the shop before developing, what are the countermeasures that they'll do to restore back to proper exposure of the negatives
    Remembering that in most "older emulsions" the actual ISO may be slower than what the manufacturer suggested. For the newer "T-grains" emulsion, the "true ISO' is fairly close to the suggested ISO.

    Assuming your are using the Delta, Tmax or Neopan 100, by rating the film at 200 you are effectively underexposing the negative by one stop. A lot depends on how the film is exposed. And assuming you exposed for the shadows (which is the "general" recommendation) your shadows will be underexposed. The only thing the shop can do is to extent development, which basically allows more development in the high values, but unfortuantely with little effect on the shadows.

    However this form of "underexposure" is often used to create very dramatic effects with little shadows details but brilliant high values.

    Quote Originally Posted by user12343
    (2) if i did not tell them about this wrong ISO settings and they just process under default settings, the negatives will look underexposed. is there still any remedy (such as lengthening the exposure time) that when printed on paper, it'll still look as a properly exposed?
    You cannot print something that is not in your negative. I am afraid the simple answer is no.

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris, Singapore
    Posts
    14,002

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    In addition, at lower ISO film ratings a tripod is suitable to prevent motion blur. For me i always use an ASA 400 speed film for all rounder shots...works day and night!
    Canon EOS 5D, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2 L, 70-300 f/4-5.6 L IS, 600EX-RT. Sigma 12-24 f/4.5-5.6 EX.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Film users... need your advice

    Quote Originally Posted by student
    ...The only thing the shop can do is to extent development, which basically allows more development in the high values, but unfortuantely with little effect on the shadows.

    However this form of "underexposure" is often used to create very dramatic effects with little shadows details but brilliant high values.
    Student, would like to seek some clearifications from you. By extending development. Am i right to say that it is push processing? I got this conclusion from those B&W developing time charts. By developing at a higher EI, you have to develop the same film longer only.

    You said that the the high values will be developed more and the shadows remains unaffected. I am abit confused here. When can you actually shift the zones by 1 stop forward? Instead of expanding the zones which you have described earlier. Hope you can help to clear my doubts.

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
  •