Film grain

peppyuk

peppyuk

Suspended / Banned
Messages
473
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Just been sent a few samples from my First film I've shot with my EOS 1n. Once they have all been scanned I'll get get the full size tiffs. I've been using Ilford Delta 400 pro and there is a lot more noise/grain than I was expecting, is this normal?

20090423-One.jpg


20090423-Two.jpg


20090423-Three.jpg


20090423-Four.jpg


TIA
 
The thing to remember with film is the faster it is, the grainier it will be. I would recommend you try either Ilford Delta 100 or FP4+, which is 125 ASA. Either of these two films have very fine grain.

If you wanted to, you could even use Pan F which is 50 ASA.

I don't know much about scanning negatives I'm afraid, but I imagine you would get some decent results.
 
So the grain in those photos is about right? I've nowt against the film grain, I think I just didn't expect quite that much.

Edit: Years ago when I used my Dads Canon AE-1 and ISO 200 colour film and don't remember any grain on a 5*7 print.
 
my memory of "real film" is hazy
but I don't remember 400 ISO being that bad
unless it was underexposed and then force developed
 
Yes, that is quite normal with 400 ASA film.

Personally, when I shoot landscapes I tend to use a slow film such as FP4+ or Pan F in order to be able to make large prints, eg. 10 x 8 or 12 x 16, without the grain standing out too much.

But the Delta 400 is a fine film, as is HP5 - also 400 ASA.
 
There are also the scan unknowns.
Scans generally don't come near to enlarger prints.
Sometimes, if the scanner produces a soft scan (which is most of the time with consumer scanners), a lot of USM is applied, this picks out the grain and makes them look grainier than they actually are on the neg.
Also, if somebody else did the scanning, you're stuck with their version of what they want them to look like.
 
Scanning was done by a good friend, same chap who developed the film, on his nikon coolscan. He is doing ok taking and selling photos so I guess it's been done right. I'll see how the full size scans are when I get them.
 
It looks a bit excessive at this size to me tbh, not really looking typical of film grain - almost like digital noise?

As Joxby says, possibly something in the scanning set up or the processing.
 
It looks about right. Remeber that when a negative is scanned it will pick up the grain fro more than an enlarger would, which is great if your after it. Also it depends on what developer was used as this can have a bearing on the final out come.

As a comparision this is one of mine HP5+ 400ISO, dev in ID-11 scanned on a Nikon Coolscan at 2900dpi, fiddeled with a bit in PS and reduced in size

3387785440_168fe5c68a.jpg


Then again this one was Delta 3200 but rated at 1600ISo dev in ID-11 (time was if I had shot at 3200) again scanned on the same equipment as the other one:

3379383084_72c5262551.jpg
 
mmcp42 said:
my memory of "real film" is hazy
but I don't remember 400 ISO being that bad
unless it was underexposed and then force developed
Click to expand...

thats what I'm worried about! I have been using T-Max 400 at 800 iso. I know it has the same developing time in T-Max developer, but I am worried about how grainy they will be, and loss of shadow detail too!

ive been looking for example pics of this with no success:(
 
:I think the problem is with the scanner not that i have had much experiance with them ,
only the once for a friends babys christening ,Delta 400 35mm scanned by the friend and printed at 8x10 no visible grain at all. Hope it helps
Guid Health.beer::beer:
 
I think it does look a little excessive.

Here's some Delta 400 dev'd in ID11 @ 400ISO. 35mm negative scanned using Canon 8800F flatbed.

As others above say any kind of exposure corrections or sharpening after the scan can enhance the grain.



 
peppyuk said:
Scanning was done by a good friend, same chap who developed the film, on his nikon coolscan. He is doing ok taking and selling photos so I guess it's been done right. I'll see how the full size scans are when I get them.
Click to expand...


To be direct about it, I think they're a shade over sharpened, even without the grain the buildings look over sharpened, its not necessarily the scanner, could be PP afterwards, jpg compression might contribute too.
These are just technicals we are discussing here not the content.
I don't think these shots have the typical grain content of delta 400, but there are a million ways to develop it, all producing different results.
It's only a consideration if you are looking for the minimum grain possible with a particular film, if that's what you require, it needs to be developed with a sympathetic developer and method. :)

Is it possible that the negs aren't sharp ?
 
Also in my experience, even if the grain looks larger in the scans, I have never actually printed out (on a proper A3/A2 pro printer) the same size grain. it just isn't there. Instead, everything had a slight blue/violet tint (took 5 mins in PS to get rid of that:))
 
joxby said:
To be direct about it, I think they're a shade over sharpened, even without the grain the buildings look over sharpened, its not necessarily the scanner, could be PP afterwards, jpg compression might contribute too.
These are just technicals we are discussing here not the content.
I don't think these shots have the typical grain content of delta 400, but there are a million ways to develop it, all producing different results.
It's only a consideration if you are looking for the minimum grain possible with a particular film, if that's what you require, it needs to be developed with a sympathetic developer and method. :)

Is it possible that the negs aren't sharp ?
Click to expand...

These photos are just small sample jpegs, which I'm sure will have had some level of PP intentional or not. The full size tiffs will be as scanned. I'll stick a comparison up when I get them in the post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top