Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,061   Posts: 1,611,390   Online: 1041
      
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 71
  1. #41
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,415
    That makes sense. And I would be unlikely to consider printing 35mm that large though I suppose if I just happened to get a really exciting image on the camera I had that day and it was 35mm...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #42
    Rudeofus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,937
    Images
    10
    Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

    This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.
    Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228

    Portra 160 vs 400

    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

    This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.
    I wasn't aware the Epson scanner yes, the V750 was considered crappy...

    But compared to multiple thousand dollars scanners I suppose it could be, either way whatever the reason for the strange issues, I'm not the only one to report them, and again this is my perspective, I don't see you getting a new scanner anytime soon, so from my experience and my use, transparency film just works better and if I forced to use negative film, I would prefer a lower speed film for tighter grain to lessen this effect whatever the cause.

    (Thank you so much for explaining it, now I understand, and thus I am now more informed than I was before so thank you).

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Vienna, AUSTRIA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    67
    Portra 400 in 135. Visible Grain? yes. Grainy? no.


  5. #45
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,415
    That's way more grain than I see in my 35mm Portra 400. Is that a scan of the negative or a print?

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by kanzlr View Post
    Portra 400 in 135. Visible Grain? yes. Grainy? no.

    Yup! That's similar, though yours looks a little over exposed or over developed, the shadows shouldn't shouldn't do that

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    248
    Shadows shouldn't do what? This looks like a great C41 shot, well scanned.

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Yup! That's similar, though yours looks a little over exposed or over developed, the shadows shouldn't shouldn't do that

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    8,093
    Images
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Lamar View Post
    Shadows shouldn't do what? This looks like a great C41 shot, well scanned.
    The shadows have "grain" it stands out more than E6 blacks because of intermittent colored grains in the blackness (apparently this is a scanner problem described above?) still, my E6 doesn't do that.

  9. #49
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,697
    Images
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudeofus View Post
    Stone, when it comes to scanning, the difference between reversal film and negative film is their contrast: slide film high and negative film low. As a result, the negative scan must be contrast expanded, which amplifies scanner noise a great deal. What you see there has nothing to do with film grain and everything to do with a lousy scanner (let me guess: Epson V700/750?).

    This being an analog forum and all, I still think that color negative film would have a MUCH better reputation here if there was an affordable film scanner that wasn't noisy as heck.
    The V700/750 is not lousy. It's a middle of the road scanner, neither great, nor lousy. With a wet mounting kit it is surprisingly good, however.

    Color negative film can be amazingly great from something like an Imacon or a Heidelberg. So can slide film. I often find that my V700 doesn't have near the dynamic range to come up with clean blacks no matter what I do. The same film scanned on a Flextight looks much better.

    Anyway, whatever method the OP is using to get their final presentation they should pick the film that suits their work flow and supports their output best. I don't know enough about the three current Portra emulsions to tell much of a difference between them. I do know I have used all three and they are all remarkably good films.
    "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. #50

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    248
    My E6 doesn't do that either but my E6 doesn't capture the dynamic range my C41 does either..... I'm good with a little grain in the shadows, if the C41 is exposed well it's not a problem for me. When it gets less exposure than it should in the shadows you start seeing the bad stuff.

    Here is one of my Portra 400 shots with lots of shadow but exposed to my liking with acceptable grain.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20140402-01 Portra 400 ExtISO Zorki3S 04.jpg 
Views:	92 
Size:	1.13 MB 
ID:	85799


    And one that I inadvertently underexposed by setting my exposure on the grass near the train, mistake in this case.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20140401-01 Portra 400 ExtISO FFTN 25.jpg 
Views:	79 
Size:	287.0 KB 
ID:	85800

    Should have opened up a stop or two in the shot above. Portra 400 can handle overexposure in the highlights just fine and it helps minimize the issue you are seeing. Not advisable with E6 though as i'm sure you're well aware.

    An E6 sample that shows what you are talking about, nice blacks without noise but the compromise is blown highlights in high contrast scenes.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20140321-01 Provia 100F Nikon F 18.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	706.1 KB 
ID:	85801

    Personal taste....... I'm good with TriX at ISO3200 stand developed, I think the grain looks wonderful. I can accept Portra at ISO 1600 if needed but try to avoid. Portra exposed correctly looks fine to me though, even in the shadows. E6 and C41 are just different. Either you like the way one looks or you don't.


    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    The shadows have "grain" it stands out more than E6 blacks because of intermittent colored grains in the blackness (apparently this is a scanner problem described above?) still, my E6 doesn't do that.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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