If grain were all that bad, Photoshop wouldn't include a filter to add it...
If grain were all that bad, Photoshop wouldn't include a filter to add it...
SFX200 is quite grainy, as are all IR-type films. You won't get nice fine grain with it in any developer I guess, but I quite like how it looks in Perceptol. HC-110 might be good too.
Hi Sven, I guess, you have not used the ROLLEI IR yet! Take a look at digitaltruth.com
Cheers
Wolf
Hmm - I wouldn't say that at all. Visible grain has great artistic potential. There are many pictures where the visible grain adds to the mood of the photograph. I think your club members need to re-think their judging. Are a lot of them using digital equipment?
Dan
Dear All,
Grain is good, as always, dependant on the subject, I have always loved the way HP5+ looks in ID11 ...my current favourite is DELTA 3200 for just about everything, again why, I love the grain. You cannot recreate it in Photoshop or d*****y IMHO.
Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Ditto. The clowns who have visited to judge at my local club in Shrewsbury (on the odd occasion I go) have been blinkered in the extreme. Sometimes I've wondered if they are even looking at the same image as me. I usually only go on evenings when a visiting snapper promises some interesting work."Camera Club Judges" - one of the reasons I do not belong to Camera Clubs. I am convinced that there ARE "good ones" - somewhere, but so far I've found that they must be few and far between.
Well, no, not strictly T-grain: the difference between T-grain and Delta (epitaxial growth) isn't just marketing speak. It's also true that the distinction between monosize controlled-growth crystals (Delta/T-Grain) and conventional cubic crystals with the current generation of both 'traditional' and 'new technology' films is a lot less than it used to be.
What is more, not only is T-grain more sensitive to overexposure and overdevelopment than Delta, but the 'quality crash' that you get with either or both mistreatments is worse: by this I mean the point at which sharpness is actually worse than with traditional films, as as a result of mistreatment.
With this in mind, the sharpness is indeed higher with the slower films in each emulsion type.
Like most manufacturers, Ilford define sharpness in terms of MTF.
Returning to SFX200, I'd say its grain is comparable to HP5. It can be reduced by using Perceptol but, as others have said, if you're going for the IR effect the obvious grain can make rather than break the image. As ever, tastes vary....
Ditto. The clowns who have visited to judge at my local club in Shrewsbury (on the odd occasion I go) have been blinkered in the extreme. Sometimes I've wondered if they are even looking at the same image as me. I usually only go on evenings when a visiting snapper promises some interesting work.
"Camera Club Judges" - one of the reasons I do not belong to Camera Clubs. I am convinced that there ARE "good ones" - somewhere, but so far I've found that they must be few and far between.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?