Grainy!

[F80p]

Hi there! I shoot 35mm and C-41.
I have few questions regarding grain.....and its relationship towards film development.

So my question is.....does under/improper development lead to more graininess?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3439836052_132c8c44f3_o.jpg
1/1000 sec, F5.6
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3442231628_914f8c37cf_b.jpg
1/125 sec, F4.5
Both the pics are shot at the same focal length and same film brand but processed by different minilabs.
(please see the large size picture)
The bokeh in the first pic is very grainy(see the front tyre, its not even circular)! whereas the second pic bokeh is smooth like digital. I dont get it....WHY?????

If it is uneven development/improper development then a better method like using a brush to move over the film for more even development solve the problem?

Grainy skies are another headache/mystery!

 

[Bruce Watson]

Baseline graininess is a property of the film. From this baseline, graininess increases as density on film increases. With negative films, the greatest density, and thus the greatest graininess, occurs in the highlights, like bright skies. Where it's very easy to see.

With tranny films, the greatest density is in the shadows where the increased graininess is hardest to see. This is one of the reasons for the persisting myth that tranny films are more fine grained than negative films. Given the same ISO rating, modern negative films can outperform modern tranny films in graininess. But visually, prints from tranny films can appear to be less grainy, because they have less graininess in the highlights.

 

[nickandre]

Sometimes you can increase the graininess with poor development. Going from 100 degrees in the developer to 62 degrees in the bleach can cause "reticulation" where the emulsion cracks slightly, which can look like grain.

You cannot judge the graininess of color negative film from a scan. Some scanners reduce grain electronically (also reducing sharpness.) Also, scanning color negative film introduces grain to the image. I cannot tell you why, but when I scan my color negatives I say "oh my that's grainy; I should switch to digital" and when I print the negatives in the darkroom even very large I say "wow that looks nice. Now I remember why I shoot film." For some reason scanners make color negative film look grainy. I've printed 400 speed color negative film at 11x14 with very tolerable pleasant looking grain in the darkroom; the same film is almost intolerable scanned.

 

[perkeleellinen]

If these photos were scanned by a lab, I'd suspect aggressive sharpening to be the culprit on the first.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The images are very high in contrast. I suspect either scannng problems or process problems, or the use of older film or film from a second source. This does not look like normal Kodak or Fuji film.

PE

 

[hrst]

Both pictures, especially the second one, have been through heavy digital image processing. You can't say anything about processing or film.

 

[DaveOttawa]

...graininess increases as density on film increases. With negative films, the greatest density, and thus the greatest graininess, occurs in the highlights, like bright skies. Where it's very easy to see.

True for silver black & white films but not for C41 process, dye based films I think? For these grain will appear smaller as exposure increases.
As other posters have stated it isn't possible to tell much about the grain in the original neg from the scans liked to in the original post.

 

[Bruce Watson]

True for silver black & white films but not for C41 process, dye based films I think? For these grain will appear smaller as exposure increases.
As other posters have stated it isn't possible to tell much about the grain in the original neg from the scans liked to in the original post.

Why would that be? The silver grains are the basis for the dye couplers to form the dyes, yes? IOW, more silver --> more dye clouds. More clouds --> more overlapping in the layers, so larger dye cloud "clumps". Which would make for more and larger "grain". At least that's my current understanding.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Why would that be? The silver grains are the basis for the dye couplers to form the dyes, yes? IOW, more silver --> more dye clouds. More clouds --> more overlapping in the layers, so larger dye cloud "clumps". Which would make for more and larger "grain". At least that's my current understanding.

Yes, it sounds weird, but it seems to be true. Some time ago, I found density/granularity curves for motion picture films (from Kodak). Below is the curve for Kodak Vision 3 500T:

The curve for PLUS-X Negative 5231/7231 is linked here and is what you'd expect from a BW negative.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Color negative films are coupler limited to prevent excessive growth of dye clouds.

PE

 

[DaveOttawa]

Why would that be? The silver grains are the basis for the dye couplers to form the dyes, yes? IOW, more silver --> more dye clouds. More clouds --> more overlapping in the layers, so larger dye cloud "clumps". Which would make for more and larger "grain". At least that's my current understanding.

I didn't attempt to explain this (coz I couldn't but PE has just done so) but if you try it you will see it is so, e.g. expose Ilford XP2 at EI100: finer "grain" appearance than at box speed of 400. Or even just look at the highlight areas in an XP2 negative, they are less grainy looking than the shadows.

 

[keithwms]

Are the images scanned negs? If so, the grain that you see from scanning is not the same that you'd see from a traditional print. There is an informative article on that floating around.

Especially if scanning, the *worst* thing you can do with neg film is underexpose. Always err on the side of overexposure with neg films (colour or b&w) if you will be scanning. (N.b. I am not saying you should deliberately overexpose, I am just saying... do not underexpose!)

 

[BetterSense]

Color negative films are coupler limited to prevent excessive growth of dye clouds.

Doesn't this cause a "shoulder" on the film? I'm trying to figure out what this means for exposure. Since color negative film has such a long straight latitude, I can't figure out what this color coupler limiting could mean.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Doesn't this cause a "shoulder" on the film? I'm trying to figure out what this means for exposure. Since color negative film has such a long straight latitude, I can't figure out what this color coupler limiting could mean.

Shouldering does not need to take place if it is done right. You see, it is limited in comparison to the silver load placed in association with each component, whether fast, medium or slow. You can see that just by looking at the curves. There is no shoulder.

PE

 

[Bruce Watson]

Yes, it sounds weird, but it seems to be true. Some time ago, I found density/granularity curves for motion picture films (from Kodak).

I guess my understanding has just be updated. Very interesting. Screwy, but that's chemistry. Good on Kodak for figuring out how to do this stuff; it can't be easy.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Shouldering does not need to take place if it is done right. You see, it is limited in comparison to the silver load placed in association with each component, whether fast, medium or slow. You can see that just by looking at the curves. There is no shoulder.

PE

You photo engineers are amazing. This can't be easy to do, but the film makes it look effortless. My hat is definitely off to you.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You photo engineers are amazing. This can't be easy to do, but the film makes it look effortless. My hat is definitely off to you.

Thanks Bruce.

It takes about one year of hard work to improve a product. This is usually a team of 3 people or more. If a new product is being designed it takes about 5 years and about 6 people. Of course, that was in the heyday of analog. Nowdays, things are a lot slower with fewer resources and people.

PE

 

[F80p]

Thanks for all your replies

Its Fujifilm Proplus II iso100.
Both have been scanned at different minilabs. The first one, i have increased contrast and levels in photoshop by round 10-20%. The second one, i havent done anything. Maybe the minilab scanner might have been set with parameters wrongly.

Yes sharpening must have been done, but my experience/inexperience says that it induces coloured noise not grains. The first one has background like a powdered bokeh spread on the picture and less noise.

 

[hrst]

- All films have always grain.
- Grain IS noise.
- Scanning usually increases grain but it depends how much. This is because scanner CCD's have fill factor lower than 100%, meaning that there is image data lost, but grain as a random noise will survive this.
- Most digital operations affect grain; sharpening increases grain and noise reduction decreases it. It's better not to do either.
- Increasing contrast makes grain more visible.
- When making web-resolution files, the resize algorithm you use has a strong influence on graininess.
- When made correctly, a 800-pixel wide image made from 100 ISO film does not show much grain, but 1600-pixel wide image will show it no matter what.
- Every time you lose resolution (pixels), you will lose 1) image information and 2) sharpness. If you want to keep sharpness, you have to boost the remaining high frequencies (this is sharpening and it's what resize algorithms do). This won't add information, but it will always make the grain more noticeable. This is what happens when you resize your image to a smaller size. There are resize functions that won't exaggerate grain but they make image look too soft.
- There is no way out, because:
- This all is due to poor resolution of digital displays and loss of data due to that; you actually look at HUGE picture (at horribly low resolution) and if it was print of the same size, it would show you 10 times the resolution and with less grain, because there is no sharpening done because it's not needed when the resolution is higher.

Digital prints at 300 dpi are much better than computer displays at 70-90 dpi if scanned correctly; but optical prints are the best in the terms of grain, because there is no information lost in scanning, there is no dpi (the lens and paper correspond much more than 1000 dpi), and last, there is no sharpening or any interpolation, and everything looks just fine even without them! Optically, you will get an exact reproduction of the original negative, no matter what you do. You can't "lose pixels" like you have to in digital. And to rehearse, losing pixels is the exact reason why your film-scanned web-size images on computer display look grainier that same- or even double-size prints.

And, last, this "optical" thing is what we do and discuss at APUG . It makes life easier. Digital things are very complicated, I do and teach them as my job.

Hope this helps.

 

[BetterSense]

I have much better luck scanning prints than scanning film, especially when it comes to grain. Here is a comparison image of a 35mm color slide. I scanned the right side of the image with my Epson V500 at 6400dpi. The left side, I made a 4x5 internegative, contact printed it, and scanned the 4x5 print on the same scanner. It's disappointing that I get better results doing this even through 2 enlarger lenses than straight off the scanner.


http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n78/daravon/sharp.jpg

 

[F80p]

@hrst:Thanks for the explanation. That clears some of my doubts !
I seldom print so I guess i have to move on to better scanners! I love film more than digital so i will not be leaving it for sure. How come the HD movies(shot on film) i see on my computer have very less noise? maybe the answer is better scanning methods!
@bettersense: Thats a lot of difference!!!! The scan is just an approximation of the original !!!!

 

[bob100684]

the shot of the truck exhibits classic patterns of oversharpening found in scans made on a fuji frontier. Request your film be scanned at sharpness low 2.

Hi there! I shoot 35mm and C-41.
I have few questions regarding grain.....and its relationship towards film development.

So my question is.....does under/improper development lead to more graininess?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3384/3439836052_132c8c44f3_o.jpg
1/1000 sec, F5.6
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3349/3442231628_914f8c37cf_b.jpg
1/125 sec, F4.5
Both the pics are shot at the same focal length and same film brand but processed by different minilabs.
(please see the large size picture)
The bokeh in the first pic is very grainy(see the front tyre, its not even circular)! whereas the second pic bokeh is smooth like digital. I dont get it....WHY?????

If it is uneven development/improper development then a better method like using a brush to move over the film for more even development solve the problem?

Grainy skies are another headache/mystery!

 

[nickandre]

How come the HD movies(shot on film) i see on my computer have very less noise? maybe the answer is better scanning methods!
!

An HD movie is at most 1920x1080. It's not difficult to get that off of a frame of super 35mm film. Clearly there are some people who have figured out how to scan (or telecine) correctly. Typical telecine includes 2 to 4 times the linear resolution (4 to 16 times as many megapixels--do you enjoy digital resolution inflation as much as I do?)

For scanning I recently found a website which details making raw 16 bit tiffs out of scanning data and inverting them in photoshop. I will try this soon and expect better luck.

 

[F80p]

It might be Noritsu or fuji. They are the only things found in my city.

Please do share that link regarding scanning!

 

[Admbws]

- All films have always grain.
- Scanning usually increases grain but it depends how much. This is because scanner CCD's have fill factor lower than 100%, meaning that there is image data lost, but grain as a random noise will survive this.

I had always thought that though scanning doesn't "increase" grain per se, severe noise was an aliasing artifact caused by a mismatch between the scanning frequency and the grain frequency, and thus ought to be treatable with an optical low pass filter just below the scanner's Nyquist frequency, which I assume is not implemented in consumer scanners for cost reasons?