35mm: A modest grain reduction proposal...

[JWMster]

Yeah... never said I didnt' want grain, just to not find I'm adding grain by poor technique somewhere along the line.

And FWIW, I did look on line this a.m. at a MF Pentax 645 and was mildly curious that the $'s are out of line from a reputable dealer, and there are a couple of wide lenses in the F/2.8 range. Very surprised. But that's a solution for another day. You not only "can't get what you want" sometimes, but you have to slow down and try to learn what you can rather than keep changing everything every time you run into a roadblock. So here's to trying to knock down the roadblock, and thanks to those who've helped and encouraged me. My hat's off to you guys. And my best regards to you as well.

 

[klownshed]

The poster was complaining about the grain. I simply pointed out that this goes with scanning, and that he won't see that sort of grain when the negatives are printed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You told the OP that there's no point in shooting B&W without printing:

There is no point in using conventional B&W film unless you print it conventionally.

That sounds quite unambiguous to me.

But printing a well scanned negative on an inkjet also reduces the apparent grain.

There are many methods to reduce the grain in a scan.

A hybrid system, printing film scans digitally is used to good effect by some fanatstic photographers. I will leave it to you to tell Nick Brandt he's doing it wrong.

Your views seem to be black OR white. Ironically for a black and white photographer you don't seem to be able to see any shades of grey.

 

[trendland]

Don't complain about grain if you scan then. It's inherent in that process. If you want 'normal' looking prints, use an enlarger. You can't change the laws of physics.

ONLY FOR BRINGING LAW OF PHYSICS into this treat - NOW we make it more complicate !!!!

Petraio Prime to use an enlarger is certainly the best method in case of what..... ?

In comparison of ...... ?

As I understand JWMster correct - and I believe so - he asked of definitive smalest grain with bw films.

As Ian Grand stated before this is more a term of scanning process - if I understand Ian correct. I am not as sure about.

But I would totally agree with. Because of masses of insulficiant scanners - ohhh - just better lets take shelter now - a storm will come.

Well JWMster wanted scans - never knowing for what? But I just could imagine to look photos on a big screen.

As you stated for enlargements something else will come in play.

Quality lost. Now I have to shelter !!!

A scanner is not able to produce quality when you have no quality.

But with 135 you will have some, with 120 you will have more with 4x5.....a.s.o. But you can't get the original info being inside films transfering into bits and bytes
without massive losses. Do you agree with - even the best scaners are unable to do this.But the very best reaches some niveau of quality.

The same procedures you have in the darkroom. Best enlagements have massive lost.

What is massive lost in darkroom ? It depents first to your equipment and suddenly we have to do with "Law of Physics" even in darkroom.

And it depends on your expertise.

What should we regard first ?

And what is the situation to JWMster ?

Make it short : Most importance to lost quality in gerneral is the enlarger lens.

With a very cheap lens at $ 55,- you HAVE to be an expert of your species in darkroom.

At least I would say - just guess the lost of information within films is nearly 50% with best scan technology may be I am wrong and we are talking about only 45 % with
scan equipment at $ 24000,-

The lost in darkroom is given throug optical issues with best lenses at $ 2000,- to a rate of 10% - 15 %.

Would you agree with this a little Petraio Prime ?

with regards

 

[trendland]

Comming to prints with inkjet equipment. I am no friend of this - sorry - but some prints are looking nice I just saw some at calumet.

But that were some comercial samples - doupt a little on the quality in practice.

And I doubt on the quality after 15 years ( with 15 years old prints ). And I realy don't like the plastic on that prints.

Hey guys where is the storm ????

with regards

 

[Vaughn]

...And FWIW, I did look on line this a.m. at a MF Pentax 645 and was mildly curious that the $'s are out of line from a reputable dealer, and there are a couple of wide lenses in the F/2.8 range...

I have a fondness for Rolleis and other TLRs, so I am totally biased in that direction! It is the format I learned photography with-- before I took the 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10 to (occasionally) 11x14 ride! Still use all the formats, depending on the project or mood of the day (or what is loaded and ready to go!)

Back in my primary Rollei days, I used PanX and Microdol-X developer (1:3 to keep the image a little sharper by diluting the silver solvent). Very acceptable grain (for me) in prints to 15" x 15". TMax100 is not the same beast, but I found it a fine film and good replacement for PanX for the 120 format. In sheet film, Ilford FP4+ is a film I have come to appreciate.

Enjoy!

 

[MattKing]

To JWMster:
There is wonderful, high quality work being done in this world by people who photograph on film, scan, and then print digitally.
As far as I have seen, that high quality work is both more expensive than darkroom printing and at least as, and probably more time consuming than darkroom printing. It requires a highly evolved skill set and a substantial investment of time to learn it.
The problem with your initial question isn't a problem with your choice of method, it is a problem with choosing APUG to ask the question.
APUG is a site that has elected to not cover that approach to photography. Unfortunately, there are some on APUG who would criticize those who choose that path.
While I am in the camp that strongly advocates for darkroom printing, I would never criticize you for choosing an alternative, as long as in your thought process you gave darkroom printing the consideration it deserves.
We can help you here with suggestions about reducing the visual appearance of film grain, but need to recommend other resources if you need help reduce the effect of film grain when it interacts with film scanning technology.

 

[JWMster]

Matt: THanks! Some day no doubt, I'll dive into a dark room, and I'll have plenty of negatives to work with. For now... it is what it is. And I'm happy just to see something on a wall.

 

[Craig75]

you might find this thread interesting

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[JWMster]

Absolutely. Will have to read this over tonight. Thanks Craig!

 

[Craig75]

Thank drmoss for his heroic efforts in that thread - he went on a huge mission and was very generous with his findings. From memory i think he was trying to do something similar to you in trying to a create a hybrid leica monochrome workflow so you might enjoy seeing someone elses approach to the problem

 

[Petraio Prime]

Absolutely. Will have to read this over tonight. Thanks Craig!

There should be no grain advantage in using XP2 if you don't process it in C41, because the dye-clouds are not formed.

 

[Lachlan Young]

A good hybrid workflow does not involve doing silly things with XP2 and horrific oversharpening (a massive pet peeve of mine around scanned film). It involves spending money intelligently.

Sorry to sound grumpy about this, but I'm fed up of listening to people who buy Leicas and armloads of glass then skimp on film, processing standards & printing/ scanning (cheap minilabs - ugh!). If you're working in a Leica price bracket you owe it to yourself to do things right - ie simply & as well as possible. The simplest possible process will often give the best results. One lens, one camera, a couple of films that you like, processing etc done well & that's all that really matters. Don't be afraid to get your film processed by a top pro lab or printed by a top darkroom printer or scanned by an excellent scanner operator - even if that means posting it away. Sending it to someone who really knows what they are doing will be money well spent.

I'm not even going to get into the whole nonsense that exists on this forum around inkjet prints on top quality papers, other than to state that they can be stunningly good if done well with superb image stability (but they can also be really horrible all too easily). Feeding the printer with a file derived from a negative/ transparency is usually an excellent first step to getting a great print easily. However, I think a toned silver gelatin print made by a top printer still has a big edge unless you want to use specific printmaking papers & are unwilling to work with liquid emulsion. Having that diversity of choice is good.

 

[JWMster]

Lachlan: Grumpy is fine. Your suggestions, fine as well, and I can look past the implication that all Leica shooters are in the champagne and caviar set. Nice to know you think so highly of me ... but y'know really we're not all well heeled, and that often you can get (as I did) a full kit for less than the cost of one digital lens. But thank you for the compliment. And of course you're right to not overlook suggesting the obvious no one else here has quite as forcefully: there's a time when the best thing to do is go for the pro services when you want that sort of output. Yeah... don't be penny wise and pound foolish. I get it. But mostly, most of what I shoot are "sketches", "workouts" and experimental shots and outings where I'm having fun and don't merit the full nine yards. That's probably most of what I do, and it's okay if in some of those, there's a nugget that should have gotten better handling. Just as commonly, there are plenty of blown shots in there, too. But then again there are rolls where you really DO want the best, and I may have one of those in the can now, and as I think of it, I may take your advice.... and try to find really good lab. I think there's supposed to be one in the Philly area that begins with "M" something or other (whereas my local boys... well, let's just say they have a good rep, but charge a fortune for pretty mediocre work (yes, they have a higher level of service, but really?)). And you're right that it doesn't hurt to utilize two different work flows and know when to use which. Very, very good point. Doesn't change my desire to up my game in shooting and developing my own shots in-house so to speak, but it recognizes that there's only so far you can push the "rushes" as they'd call them in the cinematography biz.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Lachlan: Grumpy is fine. Your suggestions, fine as well, and I can look past the implication that all Leica shooters are in the champagne and caviar set. Nice to know you think so highly of me ... but y'know really we're not all well heeled, and that often you can get (as I did) a full kit for less than the cost of one digital lens. But thank you for the compliment. And of course you're right to not overlook suggesting the obvious no one else here has quite as forcefully: there's a time when the best thing to do is go for the pro services when you want that sort of output. Yeah... don't be penny wise and pound foolish. I get it. But mostly, most of what I shoot are "sketches", "workouts" and experimental shots and outings where I'm having fun and don't merit the full nine yards. That's probably most of what I do, and it's okay if in some of those, there's a nugget that should have gotten better handling. Just as commonly, there are plenty of blown shots in there, too. But then again there are rolls where you really DO want the best, and I may have one of those in the can now, and as I think of it, I may take your advice.... and try to find really good lab. I think there's supposed to be one in the Philly area that begins with "M" something or other (whereas my local boys... well, let's just say they have a good rep, but charge a fortune for pretty mediocre work (yes, they have a higher level of service, but really?)). And you're right that it doesn't hurt to utilize two different work flows and know when to use which. Very, very good point. Doesn't change my desire to up my game in shooting and developing my own shots in-house so to speak, but it recognizes that there's only so far you can push the "rushes" as they'd call them in the cinematography biz.

Was not meant to be taken totally seriously - there just always seems to be a disconnect between those who buy Leicas as status symbols/ toys vis-a-vis those who use them as a means to earn a living. The more able of the latter tend to be rather fussier about the quality of the end result & more sensible about getting others to do the stuff they don't enjoy/ don't care to get involved with/ don't have the time to do...

I have no idea about who's currently printing for hire in the Philly area - wrong side of the pond unfortunately! Good luck in your search - the important thing is finding someone who you can get along with.

 

[flavio81]

Lachlan: Grumpy is fine. Your suggestions, fine as well, and I can look past the implication that all Leica shooters are in the champagne and caviar set. Nice to know you think so highly of me ... but y'know really we're not all well heeled, and that often you can get (as I did) a full kit for less than the cost of one digital lens.

This is true.

And after all, they are very good machines with very good lenses.

I prefer the japanese stuff, but Leica is not only a brand of jewerly, it is also a brand of fine photographic equipment.