RE: Reala 100 Grain
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.
Originally Posted by Marco B
Last edited by Lamar; 08-24-2009 at 11:52 AM. Click to view previous post history.
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.
***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.
Originally Posted by Excalibur2
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.
"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?
****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
frame 15a same lens, neg probably could do with another 1/2 stop more exposure and taken on a different day
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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...?
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.
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.
Although scanning is off topic here, I will say that Reala only started to shine for me once I started doing colour printing.
Limit of enlargement is directly tied to viewing distance, not film grain. Nobody sticks their nose in a 16x20 or 20x24.
Originally Posted by wogster
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.