New Kodak Film in 2022?

[Don_ih]

I have always, long before Kodak invented digital cameras, absolutely hated grain.

Why?

 

[Cholentpot]

I have always, long before Kodak invented digital cameras, absolutely hated grain. That's why my early 35mm photography was all done using Kodachrome 25, and why I continuously moved up in camera format all the way to 11x14.

Nonetheless, for those who inexplicably like grain , there are software programs that can effectively add it to otherwise wonderful digital files.

See, us youngsters embrace the grain because it's what sets film apart from digital. Again, to my eyes the digital software is just not quite there. The randomness of grain can't fully be replicated just yet.

 

[George Mann]

See, us youngsters embrace the grain because it's what sets film apart from digital.

I don't like grainy films. But I do like the natural, realistic looking direct copy look of slow speed films that digital still can't replicate.

 

[Cholentpot]

I don't like grainy films. But I do like the natural, realistic looking direct copy look of slow speed films that digital still can't replicate.

I just shoot 400 speed pushed at stop in 16mm stills and develop stand in warm Rodinal. There's a few grains in the photo, you can call it almost grainless because there are so few grains.

 

[Sirius Glass]

See, us youngsters embrace the grain because it's what sets film apart from digital. Again, to my eyes the digital software is just not quite there. The randomness of grain can't fully be replicated just yet.

Are you saying that digital black & white looks plasticy to you?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't like grainy films. But I do like the natural, realistic looking direct copy look of slow speed films that digital still can't replicate.

I am not a fan of grainy films although I can see it being useful at times. And I agree on your last statement.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I have always, long before Kodak invented digital cameras, absolutely hated grain...

Why?

Because it's an unfortunate artifact of the technology that precludes faithfully replicating what a lens imaged. It overlays noise on the scene. Noise is not a goal in engineering practice. If Niépce and those who followed him could have made photographs without grain, they would have. Grain wasn't intended, it was unavoidable. Unless one makes large format negatives and contact prints them, the noise is visible.

See, us youngsters embrace the grain because it's what sets film apart from digital...

Nah, capture life expectancy (in black and white on polyester base) and generally crappy color are what set film apart from digital.

...Again, to my eyes the digital software is just not quite there. The randomness of grain can't fully be replicated just yet.

Again, addition of random noise to a system is anathema to me, so I'm not as picky about how faithfully digitally added noise replicates the shortcomings of smaller format film.

 

[Don_ih]

unfortunate artifact of the technology

But as such it becomes a potential defining characteristic of certain images. That is, you can make use of it to make a photograph, which is necessarily not simply a projection of reality but something in itself. There's little of interest to things purely for record-keeping.

 

[Cholentpot]

Because it's an unfortunate artifact of the technology that precludes faithfully replicating what a lens imaged. It overlays noise on the scene. Noise is not a goal in engineering practice. If Niépce and those who followed him could have made photographs without grain, they would have. Grain wasn't intended, it was unavoidable. Unless one makes large format negatives and contact prints them, the noise is visible.Nah, capture life expectancy (in black and white on polyester base) and generally crappy color are what set film apart from digital. Again, addition of random noise to a system is anathema to me, so I'm not as picky about how faithfully digitally added noise replicates the shortcomings of smaller format film.

Noise and grain are not the same thing.

 

[Don_ih]

Noise and grain are not the same thing.

From the perspective of someone engineering a photographic material, they are the same.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Noise and grain are not the same thing.

You're thinking of "noise" in the digital imaging sense. No, digital camera noise is not the same as film grain. But film grain is unwanted signal that invades wanted signal, i.e. what the lens projects, so it is by definition noise. They're noises with two different spectra, but both are noise.

People are strange creatures. Some like acoustic noise in "music," including recorded "music." Some like visual noise. As with most aspects of life, I'm outside the norm. I hate all noise. Signal is the reason for the system.

 

[Cholentpot]

You're thinking of "noise" in the digital imaging sense. No, digital camera noise is not the same as film grain. But film grain is unwanted signal that invades wanted signal, i.e. what the lens projects, so it is by definition noise. They're noises with two different spectra, but both are noise.

People are strange creatures. Some like acoustic noise in "music," including recorded "music." Some like visual noise. As with most aspects of life, I'm outside the norm. I hate all noise. Signal is the reason for the system.

Does the squeak of the strings in 'Blackbird' drive you mad?

 

[mshchem]

Does the squeak of the strings in 'Blackbird' drive you mad?

No!

 

[Cholentpot]

No!

Sal hates The Beatles.

I for one, love the happy mistakes and randomness going on. Controlled chaos, much like analog photography.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Does the squeak of the strings in 'Blackbird' drive you mad?

McCartney's fingers sliding on the strings? Why would it? That's the acoustic "signal," i.e. his performance accurately captured.

Sal hates The Beatles...

Not even close. While my preferred musical genre is jazz, lots of great music came from them. I particularly enjoy several Benny Goodman renditions of their compositions.

...the happy mistakes and randomness going on. Controlled chaos, much like analog photography.

Those who perceive silver halide photography as "happy mistakes and randomness" haven't mastered the process.

 

[Cholentpot]

McCartney's fingers sliding on the strings? Why would it? That's the acoustic "signal," i.e. his performance accurately captured.Not even close. While my preferred musical genre is jazz, lots of great music came from them. I particularly enjoy several Benny Goodman renditions of their compositions. Those who perceive silver halide photography as "happy mistakes and randomness" haven't mastered the process.

He could have used nylon strings, the mic could have been placed in a different location, many ways to keep the squeak down. To my ears it sounds like it was a take and they left it

As for silver halides, isn't the whole idea of grain the randomness of the pattern? It clumps how it wants to clump. You can herd it as best you can but it's behave in weird ways because that's what it does. I'm no master and I don't claim to be but give me 10 rolls of the same film to develop, shot the same way, developed the same way and there will be an element of randomness on many of the frames. It's the nature of film. It's not perfect. Instead of fighting the quirks I'd rather embrace it.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...As for silver halides, isn't the whole idea of grain the randomness of the pattern? It clumps how it wants to clump. You can herd it as best you can but it's behave in weird ways because that's what it does. I'm no master and I don't claim to be but give me 10 rolls of the same film to develop, shot the same way, developed the same way and there will be an element of randomness on many of the frames. It's the nature of film. It's not perfect. Instead of fighting the quirks I'd rather embrace it.

There is no "idea of grain." It's inherent visual noise with silver halide imaging.

...People are strange creatures...Some like visual noise...

 

[kl122002]

I only hope they could re-release some discontinued products, like Plus X-pan, Panatomic-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I only hope they could re-release some discontinued products, like Plus X-pan, Panatomic-X.

You forgot the old standbys for threads:

• Kodachrome
• HIE
• IR Ektachrome
• Royal Pan
• UltraColor 400
• VividColor 160 and 400
• Kodak black & white papers - all of them
• Glass plates, all versions
• ... [dream the impossible]

 

[kl122002]

You forgot the old standbys for threads:

• Kodachrome
• HIE
• IR Ektachrome
• Royal Pan
• UltraColor 400
• VividColor 160 and 400
• Kodak black & white papers - all of them
• Glass plates, all versions
• ... [dream the impossible]

I have given up hope on Kodachrome already. It's a really good memory to have experienced with it during the golden age of films.

While for the B&W papers I see no reason why they give up. Seriously, in Asia I see more teens getting the old film cameras and they are studying B&W photography. The Ilford chemicals and papers are always on shortage here.

 

[Agulliver]

See, us youngsters embrace the grain because it's what sets film apart from digital. Again, to my eyes the digital software is just not quite there. The randomness of grain can't fully be replicated just yet.

I was chatting with the staff at my local camera shop yesterday (brief reminder, they now do most of their business with film/analogue/hybrid). They themselves and their customers - especially the younger customer base - all agreed that even if the end product is an image on a monitor, you cannot fake the look of film capture with any digital system. That goes for the random grain pattern and colour palettes of colour film and for the look of B&W.

Are you saying that digital black & white looks plasticy to you?

this was something discussed in the aforementioned conversation. Digitally acquired images, even from semi-pro cameras and put through full on Photoshop....don't look much like B&W film....even on a computer monitor. There is something artificial or "plasticy" about it.

But the biggest issue for them is supply of C41 film. They're getting young people 25 and under wanting to buy used/NOS film cameras, but who are turning away because they cannot also sell them colour film. The emergence of Gold in 120 is something they're very happy about because once their supplier has it in stock, they *know* they're going to sell a good number of MF cameras.

Rather than necessarily more "new" filmstocks.....what is needed is a reliable and sufficient supply of colour film.

 

[pentaxuser]

From the perspective of someone engineering a photographic material, they are the same.

Well there was one of our members, now sadly dead as far as I recall, whose avatar contained the quote: "It's called grain, its supposed to be there!"

The point he was making with that quote is of course open to interpretation but it seemed to me to indicate that grain in an intrinsic part of film.

pentaxuser

 

[Don_ih]

The point he was making with that quote is of course open to interpretation but it seemed to me to indicate that grain in an intrinsic part of film.

Don't misunderstand me - I find grain an important characteristic of the medium (although, for the most part, I don't notice it). But someone engineering a photographic material would likely want that material to give the greatest reproduction value (per practical limits) possible and would consider grain detrimental - noise. But someone engineering a photographic material is not interested in composition, for instance - is not interested in photography, for the most part.

You don't need to be a painter to design and make a brush, but you do need to know that it needs to hold and spread paint well.

 

[Cholentpot]

I was chatting with the staff at my local camera shop yesterday (brief reminder, they now do most of their business with film/analogue/hybrid). They themselves and their customers - especially the younger customer base - all agreed that even if the end product is an image on a monitor, you cannot fake the look of film capture with any digital system. That goes for the random grain pattern and colour palettes of colour film and for the look of B&W.



this was something discussed in the aforementioned conversation. Digitally acquired images, even from semi-pro cameras and put through full on Photoshop....don't look much like B&W film....even on a computer monitor. There is something artificial or "plasticy" about it.

But the biggest issue for them is supply of C41 film. They're getting young people 25 and under wanting to buy used/NOS film cameras, but who are turning away because they cannot also sell them colour film. The emergence of Gold in 120 is something they're very happy about because once their supplier has it in stock, they *know* they're going to sell a good number of MF cameras.

Rather than necessarily more "new" filmstocks.....what is needed is a reliable and sufficient supply of colour film.

It's not for lack of trying by the way. Adding digital grain doesn't seem to work.

 

[flavio81]

You're thinking of "noise" in the digital imaging sense. No, digital camera noise is not the same as film grain. But film grain is unwanted signal that invades wanted signal, i.e. what the lens projects, so it is by definition noise. They're noises with two different spectra, but both are noise.

People are strange creatures. Some like acoustic noise in "music," including recorded "music." Some like visual noise. As with most aspects of life, I'm outside the norm. I hate all noise. Signal is the reason for the system.

I slightly disagree, because the image is formed of grains.

Grains, if we are going to do a "digital" analogy, are more similar to pixels (short for "picture elements").

While noise, in the strict sense, has no relationship to the signal.