I today for the first time scant a Fuji color negative film (Reala 100). Now, besides the fact that this seems to be a pretty coarse grained film compared to some other 100 ISO color negative films like the new Ektar 100, I also noticed that the grain structure seemed to be different. I especially was intruiged by the apparant "pinkish" grains, see the scan below, that almost seem like light colored "holes" punched in the negative. I have not seen this type of grain structure before. Is the grain structure of Fuji color negative really that different from Kodak's? Or is this a sign of some kind of bad processing?
Please note that the scan is a 100% - "actual pixels" - crop of a huge 6300 pixels-per-inch scan.
"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?"
Please note that the scan I showed actually represents a pretty huge enlargement! It would require a 1.2x1.8 meter enlargement of the negative to see the same thing at the same size! So it may not look that bad at "normal" sizes...
"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?"
"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?"
Question:
Is it like this from a wet print? Because if not it looks like scan noise. Those white spaces and course grain 'speckled colour noise' are typical of flatbed scans.
Some wet mount to reduce this, also you can open in photoshop and convert to Lab mode then apply Gaussian blur to the a and b channels to give a more monochromatic noise that will look more 'film like' and less electronic.
Like this
you'll need to view them side by side to really see what I've done.
Mark
That looks exactly how Reala scanned on a Microtek 120 I had. The hard light source always produced grainy scans and the white speckles could be the result of "pepper grain", which has been attributed to microscopic bubbles in the emulsion. In any case, the Nikon LS-8000 I have now produces a much smoother scan, closer to what I get with optical enlarging.
I today for the first time scant a Fuji color negative film (Reala 100). Now, besides the fact that this seems to be a pretty coarse grained film compared to some other 100 ISO color negative films like the new Ektar 100, I also noticed that the grain structure seemed to be different. I especially was intruiged by the apparant "pinkish" grains, see the scan below, that almost seem like light colored "holes" punched in the negative. I have not seen this type of grain structure before. Is the grain structure of Fuji color negative really that different from Kodak's? Or is this a sign of some kind of bad processing?
Please note that the scan is a 100% - "actual pixels" - crop of a huge 6300 pixels-per-inch scan.
Marco
I think you have simply pushed beyond the limits of the technology, in more then one way, and when you do that, things start to fail really quickly.
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.
Now the scan, unless your using a high end drum scanner, no flatbed scanner or film scanner comes anywhere near the resolution in hardware, some will let you pick a higher resolution, it then uses software to increase the resolution, there are about 10 different formulae for increasing that resolution, some work better with some images then others, so if the scanner uses only one formula (most do), then that formula may have failed your image.
I would make an RA print of the neg, then judge. First of all, you have posted a severe crop. Second of all, you have scanned it, which is no way to flatter a C-41 film. Third of all, we don't know if it was scanned and processed well. Fourth of all, it could have been overexposed, and/or processed in foul chemicals, which would increase the graininess.
Reala is the best looking C-41 film made, IMO. I am thrilled to tears that I discovered a [somewhat] local source for it in 120 format. If only they made it in 4x5. From 35mm, this film is tack sharp at 8x12. For what it's worth, even Press 800 makes a decent 12x18 in my experience.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 12-15-2008 at 07:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.
2F/2F
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by Marco B
