Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,645   Posts: 1,481,251   Online: 745
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21
    Ken N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Creston and Newton, Iowa.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    389
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i'm a pro and i just use it like any other film.
    shoot it box speed (and bracket ) and then drop it off at the pro lab and have them process it normally.

    the whole grainless images thing is a waste of time. film has grain
    (unless you shoot techpan ) ... if you don't want grain, ... make contact prints
    or just use a different medium ...
    Exactly! I can pretend that the lab is keeping it all optical. If I am not personally touching the printing process is it hybrid or is it pure analog? Having the lab do it seems fine, but heaven forbid that YOU do your own scanning. That's not discussed here.

    As to the grain, there is good grain and bad grain. 160S has good grain. It helps a lot in defining the microcontrast in an image and helps keep gradients from stair stepping.

    I stopped shooting 160S when Kodak reformulated the Portra films several years ago. Portra was redone to be scanned, not optically printed. It scans much better than before and I only know of one major commercial lab in the country that will still provide optical prints. As a professional photographer, I have to embrace the modern era. That doesn't stop me from being a religious zealot when it comes to B&W, though.
    http://www.zone-10.com

    When you turn your camera on, does it return the favor?

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Tyler, Texas USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    100
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Hmmm. How'd you post 135 images here? Telling people to go to DPUG<<crickets chirping>> is telling them to get lost. Judging from this thread, there's plenty of technical experience scanning film here. One of these days...
    +1. Telling people to get lost does nothing to enhance participation or encourage interest/re-interest in analog photography.. Geez, some of you folks sound like you need to take something and chill out... Most of us are trying to learn something here.

    Kent

  3. #23
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    I've had pretty good luck with Fuji 160s in both 135 and 120. I shot a TLR at a wedding (not their main photog, just being nerdy) and used either 400h and 160s...and 800 (z? I don't recall)! Funny, the 800 was equal in appearance on small 5x7 prints as the 160s...the 400 was awful.
    K.S. Klain

  4. #24
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,983
    Images
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by BardParker View Post
    +1. Telling people to get lost does nothing to enhance participation or encourage interest/re-interest in analog photography.. Geez, some of you folks sound like you need to take something and chill out... Most of us are trying to learn something here.

    Kent
    It's not personal.

    APUG as a web site does not allow discussions surrounding scanning, that's all. DPUG was created for the purpose of having a place to take those discussions. This has been explained time and again by the site admin and the moderators. Most people here see this as a refuge or haven where they don't have to be exposed to talk about digital methods, and is the whole purpose why APUG exists.

    You can still learn about Fuji Pro 160S.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  5. #25
    Brian C. Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Everett, WA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    476
    Blog Entries
    2
    Images
    13
    rayonline_nz, I'm on my last roll of 160S (220). Yes, the film has grain. The question is, is the grain objectionable to you? I rarely use 35mm, so it's MF and LF for me. If you want to find out what the film really is like, then stop looking at the monitor and print it. Only the print will tell you what you really want to know.

  6. #26
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    It's not personal.

    APUG as a web site does not allow discussions surrounding scanning, that's all. DPUG was created for the purpose of having a place to take those discussions. This has been explained time and again by the site admin and the moderators. Most people here see this as a refuge or haven where they don't have to be exposed to talk about digital methods, and is the whole purpose why APUG exists.

    You can still learn about Fuji Pro 160S.
    DPUG is a bit of a Potemkin village.

  7. #27
    L Gebhardt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    NH - Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,672
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    18
    I find more grain when I scan and print verses when I print in an enlarger. Dry scanning on a consumer scanner really shows the grain verses a drum scanner. Also I find Fuji 160S is much grainier than the newer Ektar and Portra films. But I like the Fuji colors better for a lot of landscape. The Fuji greens are very nice, if not quite as real/natural looking.

    How was your film processed? If it was using a Blix instead of a separate bleach and fixer it will look grainier.

    The best way to reduce the grain is to use a larger format so you are not enlarging as much. When I shoot a small format like 35mm I plan on making smaller prints. I haven't found the 400H to have smaller grain than the 160S, but it doesn't seem much larger either. Only you can determine how large of an enlargement is acceptable with the film and your scanner. I would think an 11x14 should look good, and not show visible grain at a normal viewing distance, but I haven't used the Nikon scanner so I'm not sure. With Ektar I have made grainless prints at larger than 11x14. It also scans almost grainless at 4000ppi. Also digital grain reduction can work very well on scans, but not as well as it seems to on digital camera sources. Finally, a small bit of grain tends to make the print look sharper. So don't go overboard with software trying to eliminate the grain.

  8. #28
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,983
    Images
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    DPUG is a bit of a Potemkin village.
    Not APUG's fault.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  9. #29
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,983
    Images
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt View Post
    Dry scanning on a consumer scanner really shows the grain verses a drum scanner.
    Actually, it's the other way around. A drum scanner has enough 'true' resolution to actually resolve the film's grain, so it sees, and shows, more of the films actual grain. Consumer scanners do not show the true grain, but an approximation, which is why it looks like shit
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #30
    segedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    334
    Images
    2
    I've gotten some very nice optical prints from 160S from some expired 220 film. I can't see the grain with the prints though it is medium format (enlarged from 6x4.5).

    For more help with scanning, I'd suggest GetDPI or even Rangefinder forum. And while I do scan, I don't expect answers on apug, it's not its mission and I am fine with that.
    -----------------------

    Segedi.com

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin