Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,466   Online: 939
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    231

    RE: Reala 100 Grain

    Marco,
    I know this is an old thread but I have seen the same problem with Reala on my Nikon CoolScan V ED. Very pronounced grain for a 100 speed film. I have now compared it to Ektar 100 and the Ektar has MUCH finer and more acceptable grain. I will go as far as to say that in many cases the Fuji Superia Xtra 400 shots I scan have less apparent grain than the Reala scans. ????? I don't know why, I'm still relatively new to this. I use local stores that develop C41 with Fuji processors so maybe it’s related to that. After shooting about five rolls of Reala at ISO 100 to ISO 50 and getting what I consider grainy results for ISO 100 film at resolutions from 1600dpi to 4000dpi I am frustrated.
    I have had a few scans of Ektar shot at ISO 100, with excessive grain, most notably in blue sky. I think you mention in one of your articles that the gain on blue channels on scanners may be higher to compensate for the loss of light due to the orange mask resulting in potentially more noise in that channel especially if the signal is low to begin with. I shot my second roll of Ektar at ISO 64 resulting in finer grain than the roll I ran at 100. At 4000 dpi grain was there but finer than any other negative film I have scanned; at 1800 dpi it was detectable but essentially negligible. Regardless it is frustrating when you're not getting the repeatable quality you think should and you cannot find the cause.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marco B View Post
    Hi all,

    Guys, these scans were made on a high end Imacon Flextight 848 that had just been serviced. It is a scan of a negative, so not a scan of a wetprint. Scan results of other films look pretty good, and I am therefore also pretty sure that what I am seeing is NOT just noise. Yes, part of it may be, and will be, attributable to noise, but for the most part, I am pretty sure what we see is actually what THIS PARTICULAR negative looks like. What I actually want to know, or try to assess based on all of your useful comments, is if Reala 100 is known to be a slightly more "grainy" film compared to some others around in the 100 ISO range, like for example the new Ektar 100.

    A few responses to all the input here:



    I have no doubt that even this negative will look great when printed on 8x12 or 12x18. The reason I scanned it at such ridiculous high resolution, is that I did intend to get a closer look at the grain structure. I have successfully scanned other 100 ISO films at the same very high 6300 ppi resolution for my Ektar review, that I am now in the process of updating for new, better, scan results of the serviced 848.



    Interesting, your suggestion of microscopic bubbles. Anyone else who can comment on this particularily in relation to this film type?



    I am perfectly aware of this, as I am the author of that article! . Thanks for the compliment by the way, I am glad that all the work that went into these things is appreciated.

    Yes, it's probably beyond what Fuji Reala 100 can deliver in terms of true image detail, but as I have clearly shown in my Ektar review, some films (like Fuji Velvia 100 and Kodak Ektar 100) DO hold up even with such ridiculous high scanning resolutions.

    And again, I was trying to asses the grain structure. However, since these results, compared to the other 100 ISO films in my Ektar 100 review, were somewhat unexpected, I want to make sure I do not have another issue like a bad film processing issue. Or if Reala 100 is known to be a problematic film for scanning due to it's technical make up in terms of layers or so... I have regularly read here on APUG about older film types being "difficult" to scan, is Reala 100 maybe one of them?, and of updates to emulsions by manufacturers for "better scanning" characteristics.

    Is there anyone else here that has ever attempted to scan a Reala 100 negative at resolutions beyond 4000 ppi at a scanner like Imacon, drum, or Nikon Coolscan and that can comment on his observations, like Landecker did with his Microtek?
    Last edited by Lamar; 08-24-2009 at 11:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    35
    I've seen the same with Reala and Pro160S compared with similar Kodak films on my Nikon LS-4000.

    Reala crop from a 4000ppi scan

    Ektar crop from a 4000ppi scan

    Just for grins, Kodak's HD 400 in comparison.
    HD400 crop from a 4000ppi scan

    This one isn't quite the same as it was prepped for printing but it shows the same behavior in Pro 160S

    Pro 160S prepped for print from a 4000ppi scan

    Portra 160VC from a 4000ppi scan

    I don't have a crop from Portra 160NC handy, but it typically looks similar to the VC scan.

    Now this could be attributed to noise or amplification of the grain due to a curve on the scan, but the grain in 35mm slide film is much less noticeable.

    E100G crop from a 4000ppi scan

    I like the palette of Reala very much, but I haven't been very happy with scans from that film. Its a shame because the film holds a deep blue in the sky. It sounds like this isn't a problem with it when its printed.
    Last edited by mrladewig; 08-24-2009 at 12:55 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    410
    ***I had the same effect with a batch of Reala - in fact some of the "slightly outdated, but cold storage and 100% perfect" junk frequently distributed over the internet.***

    Oh no! Just bought 20 rolls dated oct 2006 for £15 on ebay.

  4. #24
    Marco B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,983
    Images
    169
    Quote Originally Posted by Excalibur2 View Post
    ***I had the same effect with a batch of Reala - in fact some of the "slightly outdated, but cold storage and 100% perfect" junk frequently distributed over the internet.***

    Oh no! Just bought 20 rolls dated oct 2006 for £15 on ebay.
    I think you shouldn't worry to much and simply give it a try. It all depends on what size you intend to print the film. For any normal purpose (up to 10x15 inch prints), I doubt you will see excessive grain.

    It is just with very large enlargements, or high scanning ppi's like the ones mentioned in this thread, that problems appear.

    Thanks all for the further input!

    It just reconfirms all of the things I concluded before, with Reala clearly being one of the grainier ISO 100 films around, especially in comparison with some of the more modern films like Portra and Ektar.

    Nothing new here, we all know that films rated at the same ISO, can still have significantly different grain sizes and grain appearance.

    Marco
    My website

    "The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true." - William M. Ivins Jr.

    "I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White." - David Burnett in 1978

    "Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?"

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    410
    ****Nothing new here, we all know that films rated at the same ISO, can still have significantly different grain sizes and grain appearance.***

    ...and some shots from a home scanner are better than others for less grain.

    frame 14a contrasty neg tak 35mm f3.5 fuji superior 200
    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...5mmf3-5M42.jpg

    frame 15a same lens, neg probably could do with another 1/2 stop more exposure and taken on a different day
    http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/n...a/chris755.jpg

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    77
    I found this old thread and thought I would comment.

    I have just scanned a roll of OOD Reala 100 which was developed at a local Boots branch and I'm pretty unhappy with it. It is marked 'process before Oct 2007'.

    A few days ago I scanned some Kodachrome slides from the early Seventies and they look superb in comparison even though they were shot on a very cheap P&S camera. The Reala was shot on my Olympus 35RC which is renowned for its' sharp lens but the results are very poor.

    My scanner is a Nikon Coolscan IV ED and it has always performed well - I scan with all settings off, just selecting the correct setting dependant on film type.

    Maybe this is a warning on buying old film...?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,221
    What don't you like about it?

    I bought one of those 20 pro pack of OOD Reala in 2008 from 7DayShop, back then they were being sold for £7. I shot all the film within six months and my prints (10X8) show no grain and have punchy colours in the sun. I noticed a guy on ebay is now selling those pro packs for £20 even though they're now two years older. Interesting that they seem to have deteriorated, maybe they were stored poorly.
    Steve.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    England
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    77
    Hi perk

    I'm going to do some more extensive scanner testing before deciding what went wrong. I'm not sure if it's the old film or me with my scanner...:rolleyes:

    I was scanning the negs via the Nikon Scan software - I'm going to try scanning straight into CS4 and try lots of different settings.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,221
    Although scanning is off topic here, I will say that Reala only started to shine for me once I started doing colour printing.
    Steve.

  10. #30
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by wogster View Post
    First the film, if your going from a 35mm negative, a 40x50cm (16x20) is considered just about the limit for a 35mm negative, and that's only with very fine grained and slow film, so a 120x180cm enlargement is well beyond what analog enlargements can expect from the film. For an enlargement that size a 10x12cm negative would be best.
    Limit of enlargement is directly tied to viewing distance, not film grain. Nobody sticks their nose in a 16x20 or 20x24.

    I agree with others here that this looks like something inherited during the A->D conversion (scanner).
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

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