- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
DPUG is a bit of a Potemkin village.
Fuji Pro 160S - how did pro's use them
-
A
- Thread starter rayonline_nz
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Cibachrome Mark II Processing Drum 8"x10"
- Started by logan2z
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AI-s Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AF Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
Sold Arca Swiss P0 hybrid classic head - full CLA'd
- Started by Guivd
-
For Sale FS: Ilex Acme #3 Shutter Face Plate, NO Aperture Scale!
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
DPUG is a bit of a Potemkin village.
I find more grain when I scan and print verses when I print in an enlarger. Dry scanning on a consumer scanner really shows the grain verses a drum scanner. Also I find Fuji 160S is much grainier than the newer Ektar and Portra films. But I like the Fuji colors better for a lot of landscape. The Fuji greens are very nice, if not quite as real/natural looking.
How was your film processed? If it was using a Blix instead of a separate bleach and fixer it will look grainier.
The best way to reduce the grain is to use a larger format so you are not enlarging as much. When I shoot a small format like 35mm I plan on making smaller prints. I haven't found the 400H to have smaller grain than the 160S, but it doesn't seem much larger either. Only you can determine how large of an enlargement is acceptable with the film and your scanner. I would think an 11x14 should look good, and not show visible grain at a normal viewing distance, but I haven't used the Nikon scanner so I'm not sure. With Ektar I have made grainless prints at larger than 11x14. It also scans almost grainless at 4000ppi. Also digital grain reduction can work very well on scans, but not as well as it seems to on digital camera sources. Finally, a small bit of grain tends to make the print look sharper. So don't go overboard with software trying to eliminate the grain.
How was your film processed? If it was using a Blix instead of a separate bleach and fixer it will look grainier.
The best way to reduce the grain is to use a larger format so you are not enlarging as much. When I shoot a small format like 35mm I plan on making smaller prints. I haven't found the 400H to have smaller grain than the 160S, but it doesn't seem much larger either. Only you can determine how large of an enlargement is acceptable with the film and your scanner. I would think an 11x14 should look good, and not show visible grain at a normal viewing distance, but I haven't used the Nikon scanner so I'm not sure. With Ektar I have made grainless prints at larger than 11x14. It also scans almost grainless at 4000ppi. Also digital grain reduction can work very well on scans, but not as well as it seems to on digital camera sources. Finally, a small bit of grain tends to make the print look sharper. So don't go overboard with software trying to eliminate the grain.
Actually, it's the other way around. A drum scanner has enough 'true' resolution to actually resolve the film's grain, so it sees, and shows, more of the films actual grain. Consumer scanners do not show the true grain, but an approximation, which is why it looks like shit
I've gotten some very nice optical prints from 160S from some expired 220 film. I can't see the grain with the prints though it is medium format (enlarged from 6x4.5).
For more help with scanning, I'd suggest GetDPI or even Rangefinder forum. And while I do scan, I don't expect answers on apug, it's not its mission and I am fine with that.
For more help with scanning, I'd suggest GetDPI or even Rangefinder forum. And while I do scan, I don't expect answers on apug, it's not its mission and I am fine with that.
Oh geez the question about scanning .. I will make some 5x7 prints out, will make 1 and see how it goes then 4 more of the same, giving some prints to friends ....
I knew Apug doesn't discuss about scanning. I was just talking abou the grain in general compared to other films (neg film) and compared to say slide, I have shot Velvia and E100G. You know ... commercial/portrait photographers who produced fresh pink skin grainfree and how clients may have requested A3 prints. And maybe, how did those pro's produce their prints.
I don't know many that have color darkrooms, the few that have b/w darkrooms only do b/w.
All I do is just use a professional lab, we only have maybe 3x of them in my city, 1 is a lab alone the other two sells various camera equipment as well. Only one lab in my city does slides now. Obviously all the labs are not optical. I don't think my country have them. This pro lab in my place does $30US for C41 D+P, they use a Kodak Nortisu machine.
In regards to the film I just shot, don't know but I am 98% sure they just use a minilab machine. At least they gave me by mistake some index prints for free - the back said Fuji Crystal Archive. In terms of the blix etc .. don't know. I guess they probably just use whatever chemicals for the Fuji Frontier machine.
Edit - I assume many professionals didn't use colour darkroom. Maybe they just drop them at their lab and people there got it done by them? Maybe the lab was large enough to have some people who adjusted the colours for them ...... I am also assuming that they just shot the film ... took accepted whatever properties at the time and just got prints made for the client. Maybe some pro's chose to shoot 120 format, at least my graduation photographer did that in early 2000s. He did use a Nikon film camera but that was for my passport photograph.
I knew Apug doesn't discuss about scanning. I was just talking abou the grain in general compared to other films (neg film) and compared to say slide, I have shot Velvia and E100G. You know ... commercial/portrait photographers who produced fresh pink skin grainfree and how clients may have requested A3 prints. And maybe, how did those pro's produce their prints.
I don't know many that have color darkrooms, the few that have b/w darkrooms only do b/w.
All I do is just use a professional lab, we only have maybe 3x of them in my city, 1 is a lab alone the other two sells various camera equipment as well. Only one lab in my city does slides now. Obviously all the labs are not optical. I don't think my country have them. This pro lab in my place does $30US for C41 D+P, they use a Kodak Nortisu machine.
In regards to the film I just shot, don't know but I am 98% sure they just use a minilab machine. At least they gave me by mistake some index prints for free - the back said Fuji Crystal Archive. In terms of the blix etc .. don't know. I guess they probably just use whatever chemicals for the Fuji Frontier machine.
Edit - I assume many professionals didn't use colour darkroom. Maybe they just drop them at their lab and people there got it done by them? Maybe the lab was large enough to have some people who adjusted the colours for them ...... I am also assuming that they just shot the film ... took accepted whatever properties at the time and just got prints made for the client. Maybe some pro's chose to shoot 120 format, at least my graduation photographer did that in early 2000s. He did use a Nikon film camera but that was for my passport photograph.
Last edited by a moderator:
Regarding grain in general, it shows in the zones where the film density is higher: in slide film that means the shadows and in negative film that means the highlights.
Again, more in general, the human eye tend to notice and find more objectionable the grain when visible in the highlights then when visible in the shadows.
If grain is a concern to you, and your subjects are landscapes, where you often have large estates of blue sky, then slides could be a better choice to reduce grain (which I perceive as a nuisance, as many).
For portraits grain is not a big problem as it would show mainly on the face and would tend to somehow reduce the "imperfections" of skin which are so much more noticeable in picture than in real life.
All this said in very general terms, and your mileage may vary.
Fabrizio
Again, more in general, the human eye tend to notice and find more objectionable the grain when visible in the highlights then when visible in the shadows.
If grain is a concern to you, and your subjects are landscapes, where you often have large estates of blue sky, then slides could be a better choice to reduce grain (which I perceive as a nuisance, as many).
For portraits grain is not a big problem as it would show mainly on the face and would tend to somehow reduce the "imperfections" of skin which are so much more noticeable in picture than in real life.
All this said in very general terms, and your mileage may vary.
Fabrizio
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,896
- Format
- Medium Format
Really? Think about it.
Why there can't be a forum limited strictly to scanning FILM on APUG is baffling. How the hell did the 1000s of images posted get here?
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a ton of Pro 160S that's in the freezer and I may shoot some this weekend. I have used cold stored NPS, the earlier verion of the professional portrait emulsion, and it has what I shall refer to as "variable grain" - grainy shadows but not bad elsewhere. In my experience this often happens when an older film is underexposed and the dye cloud in the shadow areas of the negative is very thin. one problem with using older emulsions is that they may have lost some speed. If I use my 160S this weekend, I will likely shoot it at 125 ASA or even 100 ASA, as while it is frozen, it expired in 2009 and may have lost some speed, and if not, should accommodate a 1/3 or 2/3 stop overexposure.
More generally, I have found many emulsions that print well in the darkroom but scan horribly. For the most part they are films that were formulated before scanning was widespread (eg Ferrania 200, frozen, but expired 1987).
More generally, I have found many emulsions that print well in the darkroom but scan horribly. For the most part they are films that were formulated before scanning was widespread (eg Ferrania 200, frozen, but expired 1987).
Actually, it's the other way around. A drum scanner has enough 'true' resolution to actually resolve the film's grain, so it sees, and shows, more of the films actual grain. Consumer scanners do not show the true grain, but an approximation, which is why it looks like shit
If you set the spot size correctly on the drum scanner you can reduce or accentuate the appearance of grain. At least on the ones I've used. But enough on the scanning mechanics. I think we can all agree that to make digital prints from a negative it needs to be scanned, and of the scanners a good drum will give the best results.
There's a difference between noise and grain, you will get more noise on colour negs scanning than slides.
Film would be printed optically, or high-end scanned for pros back in the day of film being mainstream for pro work.
If you want to isolate the grain, do a huge number of multi-pass scans and average them to remove the scan noise (vuescan can do this for you without extra interaction, or you can scan it over and over and stack the result in photoshop), the point here isn't scanning itself, but examing what part of that is actually grain, you can then make a judgement from there.
If still you want significantly finer grain at that point, you need to move up a format size to 645 for weddings, or try Portra 160 and Portra 400 which may work better for you (I found it has for me). Though if you plan on flatbed scanning MF, you will get less detail than your 35mm scans out of your coolscan sadly.
Then of course there is the issue of how well your lab is processing the film.
In any case, don't forget that viewing 100% crop is -MUCH- bigger enlargement than a print generally speaking. You're probably viewing it between 72 - 100 dpi on screen. So assuming 72 dpi (the standard figure), what you're looking at is what the grain would more or less look like in a 78x52 inch print viewing at a distance of approximately 50cm (same from monitor viewing distance). This simply isn't done.
When I got a 30x40" print done for a small gallery showing (matted to 30x36) viewing distance is approximately 1 metre to 1.5 metres for both myself and just about everybody looking at it.
Film would be printed optically, or high-end scanned for pros back in the day of film being mainstream for pro work.
If you want to isolate the grain, do a huge number of multi-pass scans and average them to remove the scan noise (vuescan can do this for you without extra interaction, or you can scan it over and over and stack the result in photoshop), the point here isn't scanning itself, but examing what part of that is actually grain, you can then make a judgement from there.
If still you want significantly finer grain at that point, you need to move up a format size to 645 for weddings, or try Portra 160 and Portra 400 which may work better for you (I found it has for me). Though if you plan on flatbed scanning MF, you will get less detail than your 35mm scans out of your coolscan sadly.
Then of course there is the issue of how well your lab is processing the film.
In any case, don't forget that viewing 100% crop is -MUCH- bigger enlargement than a print generally speaking. You're probably viewing it between 72 - 100 dpi on screen. So assuming 72 dpi (the standard figure), what you're looking at is what the grain would more or less look like in a 78x52 inch print viewing at a distance of approximately 50cm (same from monitor viewing distance). This simply isn't done.
When I got a 30x40" print done for a small gallery showing (matted to 30x36) viewing distance is approximately 1 metre to 1.5 metres for both myself and just about everybody looking at it.
Last edited by a moderator:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |