Origin of the "grain" quote?

[sanking]

Just facts. Take a look at all the improvements in Kodak film in the ten years. For example, in color the Porta films. In black & white the T-Max films and the film improvements with the 2-electron emulsions.

You need to do some research. Start with the past threads on this site. Then check out what is going on at Kodak and Ilford.

I already raised my children, you will have to become on age of your own.

Steve

Completely agree. There have been some remarkable improvements in select B&W and color films in the last decade.

Interesting to note the improvements have been made to reduce grain size. So far as I know there have been no announcement of improvements of film that advertise increased grain size. That says something I believe.

Sandy King

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Correction to the original. As Karl stated, most people don't like grain. Some do, and you are apparently one of them, but don't get mixed up and start to believe that you speak for the world.

Karl is wrong about improvements in film. In addition to TMY-2, which is big improvement in terms of grain compared to old TMY, the Portra color films have also been improved in terms of grain, at least to scan better. TRI- 320 has also been improved a lot in grain size in the last decade.

Sandy King

With all do respect, Karl was very specific in his comment. 'With the exception of TMY-2, there has been hardly any improvement at all on B&W films in the past several decades."

Karl neither stated nor implied that there had been "...hardly any improvement at all on [color] films..."

Several posters to this thread have either inferred Karl's comments to include color film, when clearly they did not, or they are being disingenuous and ridiculous when citing improvements in color film as proof Karl was wrong in his comments about B&W film.

I love a good debate, but much prefer an honest one!

 

[clayne]

Just facts. Take a look at all the improvements in Kodak film in the ten years. For example, in color the Porta films. In black & white the T-Max films and the film improvements with the 2-electron emulsions.

You need to do some research. Start with the past threads on this site. Then check out what is going on at Kodak and Ilford.

Fujifilm as well.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Good point Clayne.

I added Portra to keep the thread from wandering into color. There is just too much data available on the black & white changes beyond the T-Max additions to provide Karl_CTPhoto with a tutorial.

Steve

 

[Ian David]

Some interesting threads floating around at the moment about grain and its merits or otherwise...
In my view, obvious grain can be annoying if you want to achieve a certain sort of look, and essential if you want to achieve a different sort of look. It can be harsh or beautiful - for many purposes I love it. To say that it is universally terrible or universally beautiful is just asserting your personal preference as if were a fact. Sometimes it is good to look beyond your own milky-smooth landscapes or your own gritty portraits, or whatever it is you do, and see that your world is not the whole world.
To me, the Flotsam quote just says that film exhibits grain, whether it be very fine or very course. If you cannot see any sign of grain, then you are probably not looking at a film shot. This site is essentially about film. Thus, for most APUGers, grain is 'supposed to be there'. I am not sure that you need to read it as invalidating your own style of work. What a prickly place APUG can be!
Ian

 

[jd callow]

There is no question that one of the goals of film producers is to remove grain. There is also no question that those who shoot professionally tend to try and create images that are immaculate and therefore have moved on to digital for most work (there being other reasons as well). Most work (as in 99%) shot professionally never goes larger than a magazine full page or slightly larger than 8x10. You would be hard pressed to find a colour 120 film that displays grain at that size and all the 160's in 35mm will be grainless as well. It is the odd professional who needs to fear grain for professional purposes.

I find it strange that there are those who love film and hate grain, but I am one of those people that earns his living as a geek and a professional photographer (most years a 50/50 split).

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

Yeah, I am *only* talking about B&W film Sandy.

Portra was actually improved a *second* time last year, which I was pleasantly surprised by this last dance I shot!

So it's been through two iterations since late 2006!


I'll believe you if you say TXP320 has been improved, but these are probably more physical characteristics, like scannability and trying to tweak that notoriously funny curve shape.


I actually like grain in certain applications, but, in general, I try to avoid it whenever possible. I want my results to be as true to life as possible, and medium format film still offers the optimal view of the world, in my opinion.

 

[Karl_CTPhoto]

There is no question that one of the goals of film producers is to remove grain. There is also no question that those who shoot professionally tend to try and create images that are immaculate and therefore have moved on to digital for most work (there being other reasons as well). Most work (as in 99%) shot professionally never goes larger than a magazine full page or slightly larger than 8x10.

I'll agree with you here, that 8x10" is often the largest size non-fine-art pros deal with, but I always want my work to be able to go larger. 2-1/4x2-3/4" (6x7) is probably overkill for an 8x10", but I like having that extra versatility for 11x14" prints or even 16x20" prints.

As for images needing to be immaculate, with the exception of pesky dust problems every now and then, even Portra-3 160 in 35mm does a very very very clean job now, although again, I try to avoid shooting 35mm, especially 35mm perforated.

 

[Mark Antony]

So because you and Mark say I am wrong, Sirius, without any examples to the contrary, that just makes it so?

This is an interesting place. . .

I'd be much more willing to take your views seriously if you gave me a reason to do so.

You made the assertion that apart from TMY there had been no improvements in B&W emulsions for years- that is false and shows extreme ignorance.
Do you think that Tri-x is the same emulsion as it was 40 years ago? what about HP5 the same as it was at its introduction in 1976? Of course not that would be silly, companies like Kodak, Ilford and Fuji improve their products all the time.
What about Fuji's B&W 100 from the 1980's when they developed from Neopan 100 to Acros, think about the huge improvements in reciprocity failure that that update brought as well as finer grain– no a big enough improvement for you?
What evidence do you have for you statement? apart from a 'conversation' with a Kodak employee?
Really you need to do better than that here.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

You made the assertion that apart from TMY there had been no improvements in B&W emulsions for years- that is false and shows extreme ignorance.
Do you think that Tri-x is the same emulsion as it was 40 years ago? what about HP5 the same as it was at its introduction in 1976? Of course not that would be silly, companies like Kodak, Ilford and Fuji improve their products all the time.

what evidence do you have for you statement? apart from a 'conversation' with a Kodak employee?
Really you need to do better than that here.

No, Mark,

He clearly said, "There has been hardly any improvement..."

Let's at least be accurate in our discussions.

 

[removed account4]

hi karl

there are some of us who shoot film professionally,
not all of the people are "hobbyist" shooters as you suggest.

maybe you should do a little bit of research instead of speaking
for all of us, because not all of us share your point of view.

i am glad you HATE!!!!! grain ..
thanks for letting us know.

warm regards
john

I can assure you I'm not high.

I wasn't speaking for anyone on this site. I am speaking for those of us that use film professionally.

Clients hate grain; therefore, so do we.

We want the best color, highest resolution, and smoothest imagery possible.

I don't speak for anyone on here except others who are, similarly, trying to make a living in this increasingly competitive field.


So does anyone on here shoot color or are you all predominantly a bunch of part-time hobbyist B&W photographers who do other stuff, like network design, or engineering, for you day jobs?


As for the person who told me that I am wrong about TMY-2 being the only improvement made since the mid to late '70s, I heard that from my KODAK rep. Would be happy to put you in touch with him if you don't believe me.

I've heard things said otherwise, but empirical testing negates them.

If you want to count Polycontrast IV RC, Kodak made little to no improvements when they tested it in early '04, and then it got discontinued anyway.

Forget the magazine, but someone in the article speculated that the differences were only due to Kodak's moving its B&W facility out of Rochester.

Feel free to disagree with me, but everything I say I have either verified myself or have on good authority.

Ilford films have made little to any improvement as well. I'd say they've only marginally improved their Delta films since the same time.

I'll stake my reputation on taking a negative I have from Deltas from the '80s scanned and compared to a Delta negative I shoot today, no one on here will be able to tell the difference, even at 250% magnification.

 

[Mark Antony]

Thomas
Fuji Acros has been hardy an improvement? SERIOUSLY? you don't see its reciprocity characteristics as an improvement over previous Fuji 100 speed B&W- yet a couple of tweeks to Kodaks Portra line a 'big' improvements?
No lets be accurate in our discussions here – Mono film improves and has done steadily and over the last few decade has improved greatly.
Just look at older emulsions compared to what we have now.

 

[sanking]

No, Mark,

He clearly said, "There has been hardly any improvement..."

Let's at least be accurate in our discussions.

Is not the almost total lack of reciprocity failure with exposure times of 1 second to two minutes of an ASA 100 film like Fuji Across a big improvement in films, in your opinion?

I personally consider it a "huge" improvement.

Sandy King

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Mark, seriously

I was neither agreeing with, nor disagreeing with Karl. I was simply trying to keep the debate honest and accurate. I guess you have inferred (assumed) from my posts to this thread that I agree with Karl. Wrong again. I simply don't have enough experience with current B&W emulsions to agree or disagree.

As I stated, I love a good debate, but lets keep it accurate, relevant, and honest. Keeping with those terms, I will gladly debate anyone, as long as they are willing to do the same.

 

[Mark Antony]

Mark, seriously

I was neither agreeing with, nor disagreeing with Karl. I was simply trying to keep the debate honest and accurate. I guess you have inferred (assumed) from my posts to this thread that I agree with Karl. Wrong again. I simply don't have enough experience with current B&W emulsions to agree or disagree.

As I stated, I love a good debate, but lets keep it accurate, relevant, and honest. Keeping with those terms, I will gladly debate anyone, as long as they are willing to do the same.

Thomas what about my statement is inaccurate? What about my argument that B&W films (like Fuji 100 B&W) have improved over the last few decades- why is that inaccurate.
How am I not being honest?
Please?
You may be willing to debate but as someone who has 'not enough experience with current B&W emulsions to agree or disagree' what makes you qualified to assume someone like myself (who has a vast experience) is being unrealistic in my claims?
seriously...

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Mark,

You are amazing. I shall quote from your post: "You made the assertion that apart from TMY there had been no improvements in B&W emulsions for years."

Are the words, "Hardly any," as Karl wrote, synonymous with "No" in the UK?

Not on this side of the pond!

I guess I'm just one of those pesky, detail oriented grain sniffers.

 

[JBrunner]

Guys, this horse is dead. Stop beating it.

I think grain is something that is a character, like a curve, a DOF, or a perspective. For some want to minimize it for aesthetics, for others it is a tool in the arsenal of expression. Sometimes it's just there for the ride, if you look you can see it, but it isn't the end all.

I think Neil was expressing something basic about film, more basic than the merits of one kind of grain or another. I wish he were here to comment.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

Fair enough-

 

[Chazzy]

If you cannot see any sign of grain, then you are probably not looking at a film shot.

Or at a beautiful contact print—formerly the norm in photography.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Karl,

Boo.

Bad form.

Try doing a tad bit of research on the author of the quote and why it's on the header. Also, try to grok the non-combative nature of APUG before prematurely dropping your gloves.

Murray

 

[Mark Antony]

Mark,

You are amazing. I shall quote from your post: "You made the assertion that apart from TMY there had been no improvements in B&W emulsions for years."

Are the words, "Hardly any," as Karl wrote, synonymous with "No" in the UK?

Not on this side of the pond!

I guess I'm just one of those pesky, detail oriented grain sniffers.

Thomas drop the condescending attitude it is of no value.
He stated
"As for the person who told me that I am wrong about TMY-2 being the only improvement made since the mid to late '70s, I heard that from my KODAK rep. Would be happy to put you in touch with him if you don't believe me".

I'm right a Kodak rep told me so- LOL

He then goes on to say:
So does anyone on here shoot color or are you all predominantly a bunch of part-time hobbyist B&W photographers who do other stuff, like network design, or engineering, for you day jobs?

Well this part time hobbyist (after all thats what you must be to shoot B&W right)? Has and worked in the industry for 28 years and people like Karl with his trollish "part time hobbyist' jibes make me wonder why people post on forums did he get lost on his way to DPR?.

The user Karl is basically trolling and one of the reasons I dislike forums, finally I leave you with one of Karls gems

I wasn't speaking for anyone on this site. I am speaking for those of us that use film professionally

The inference being that no one on this site (apart from Karl obviously) uses film professionally :rolleyes:
Here is a picture taken on the fastest Kodak mono film available in the mid 1980's the 1000 ASA Royal X pan:

Of course their have been no advances in Kodak mono film since the 1970's (apart from TMY) sheesh

I'm outa here:

 

[Ross Chambers]

I just wish that I could come up with such a succinct and appropriate bon mot that it would be at the top of the APUG page. I must try harder!

Regards - Ross

 

[Andy K]

I can assure you I'm not high.

I wasn't speaking for anyone on this site. I am speaking for those of us that use film professionally.

Clients hate grain; therefore, so do we.

We want the best color, highest resolution, and smoothest imagery possible.

I don't speak for anyone on here except others who are, similarly, trying to make a living in this increasingly competitive field.


So does anyone on here shoot color or are you all predominantly a bunch of part-time hobbyist B&W photographers who do other stuff, like network design, or engineering, for you day jobs?


As for the person who told me that I am wrong about TMY-2 being the only improvement made since the mid to late '70s, I heard that from my KODAK rep. Would be happy to put you in touch with him if you don't believe me.

I've heard things said otherwise, but empirical testing negates them.

If you want to count Polycontrast IV RC, Kodak made little to no improvements when they tested it in early '04, and then it got discontinued anyway.

Forget the magazine, but someone in the article speculated that the differences were only due to Kodak's moving its B&W facility out of Rochester.

Feel free to disagree with me, but everything I say I have either verified myself or have on good authority.

Ilford films have made little to any improvement as well. I'd say they've only marginally improved their Delta films since the same time.

I'll stake my reputation on taking a negative I have from Deltas from the '80s scanned and compared to a Delta negative I shoot today, no one on here will be able to tell the difference, even at 250% magnification.

Man, you really have no clue as to the composition of APUG's membership do you? There are a great many professional photographers here, and you by no means speak for them. As for taking a Kodak rep's words as gospel, to quote our colonial cousins, puh-leeze! :rolleyes:

You might want to look up an APUG member called Photo Engineer. He may be able to correct your misconceptions regarding advances in black and white film technology.

 

[Andy K]

Guys, this horse is dead. Stop beating it.

I think grain is something that is a character, like a curve, a DOF, or a perspective. For some want to minimize it for aesthetics, for others it is a tool in the arsenal of expression. Sometimes it's just there for the ride, if you look you can see it, but it isn't the end all.

I think Neil was expressing something basic about film, more basic than the merits of one kind of grain or another. I wish he were here to comment.

Well said.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Guys, this horse is dead. Stop beating it.

Kill joy!

Some around here need to have their blood pressure run up so that they can clear their arteries and viens! [Not me, just the old ones! ]

Steve