Out of date colour negative film and image quality

[Tom Kershaw]

On the vast majority of occasions I make sure to use in-date film and not something found "at the back of the cupboard", especially 400 speed colour negative film. However, I did recently shoot and process some 2008 dated Kodak Portra 400VC and was surprised to see how grainy the results were, especially considering the film has been re-fridgerated for most of those two years.

Nikon LS-9000 scan @ 4000 DPI, 100% crop:

Is this level of grain what one should generally expect from a 2 year out-of-date colour negative film? I don't have my Thermaphot set up for RA-4 work at the moment to make an optical print comparison.

Tom

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tom;

This should not happen with this film!

That said, it does remind me of the original Ektar 25 which, when frozen, would cause crystals to form in the coupler droplets which gave this kind of "grainy" effect.

So, the bottom line is that this should not happen. It did, so there must be some sort of reason. What it might be, IDK, but I have never heard of this with the recent Portra films.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

PE,

So what I've shown in the JPG is a known phenomena with other films? - The film was self-processed but I've not had any issues before when making optical prints or scans with the same kit (Fujihunt 4 bath / Jobo), including 20x24s from a 645 format 400 speed Portra film. I'll scan try and scan some other film for points of comparison.

Tom

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tom;

It does resemble a crystal formation in the coupler droplets or also incomplete bleaching. I can list a number of possible things that might cause it. I just do not know. I know that it should not happen, as I have used the same film, kept frozen and outdated by about the same amount with no problem.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom;

It does resemble a crystal formation in the coupler droplets or also incomplete bleaching. I can list a number of possible things that might cause it. I just do not know. I know that it should not happen, as I have used the same film, kept frozen and outdated by about the same amount with no problem.

PE

PE,

Good to know, I realised the film shouldn't look like this.

Tom

 

[hrst]

Although this looks a bit different than the way Nikon Coolscan is known to exaggerate graininess, make sure that it really is the film and not your workflow. Best would be to shoot the same or same kind of scene with same exposure on a fresh 400VC.

It's also possible that the outdated 400VC is of previous generation. Not sure, but this should be checked. It should affect graininess a bit but not too much. This could show up if you are able to make a comparison with fresh film.

 

[Boggy1]

At least if you know the results from that film, next time you shoot something which is a bit "gritty" you can incorporate the effect into it.

You'll just have to hope for the best! (or worst )

 

[srs5694]

First, I'd like to emphasize to other readers that Tom has posted a crop of a scan at fairly high resolution (4000 dpi). I'm not really familiar with scans at that precise resolution -- I mostly use 2700 dpi myself, although I sometimes scan at 5400 dpi. It's therefore hard for me to judge just how bad that image is. I'll take your word, Tom, that it's worse than you generally see from Portra 400.

Given this, another possible factor is grain aliasing, which is an exaggeration of grain in scans as a result of the way the grain interacts with the scanner's pixel size. Of course, if you've used the same workflow before with the same type of film and not seen anything this bad, this can't be the whole answer; but it could be that a relatively minor effect from some other cause is being exaggerated by grain aliasing. Any of the previous suggestions (more primitive emulsion, retained silver, etc.) could be making a small effect, which then appears even worse because of grain aliasing.

FWIW, when I want 4x6-inch prints, I'm willing to get digital prints from scans from color print films up to ISO 200; but once the film speed hits 400, I find that digital prints look much grainier than prints made in my darkroom. (My film scanner is a Minolta DiMAGE Scan Elite 5400, FWIW, and I generally scan at 2700 dpi.) I'm not trying to offend anybody with my digital "potty mouth," just illustrate one possible source of at least part of the problem, which has so far been observed only in a scan of a negative. I therefore recommend doing a direct darkroom print, along with a comparison print from the same type of film shot and processed when it was still within date.

 

[Photo Engineer]

SRS;

It has been mentioned here before that color negative films are so sharp and fine grained that there are scanning problems that lead to the appearance of higher grain. Earlier color films had a "tooth" on the back for retouching that also caused this problem. There are lots of things to consider before we make a decision.

PE

 

[domaz]

That looks like scanner noise to me. Are you sure that's actually in the negative? Have you looked at it with a high power loupe?

 

[mawz]

Definitely not typical. I shoot a lot of expired C41 and 400VC's one of my favourites. I don't normally see anything like this from it, even if a lot older than 2008-dated film.

 

[Scott_Sheppard]

Tom:

That is Digital Noise in your scan. PM me the scanned file, I would like to look at in more detail.

Thanks

Scott

 

[L Gebhardt]

I bet it is a scanner issue. On the CCD scanners I sometimes get grain like this. I don't see it in an optical print. If a drum scan is done correctly it will scan with minimal grain like the optical print.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Update

Here are some samples from a more controlled test, scanning with four passes on the Nikon LS-9000:

It looks as though 4 passes does improve image quality. However the 400 speed film still appears grainy; although one does have to consider the degree of magnification.

A next step may be to double check solution volumes and temperature in the Jobo, along with making optical prints (Assuming I get the Thermaphot running again soon) - for experimental purposes at the moment I could make up to a 16x20" print in the Jobo.

Tom