SFX 200

[bdial]

If grain were all that bad, Photoshop wouldn't include a filter to add it...

 

[luvmydogs]

If grain were all that bad, Photoshop wouldn't include a filter to add it...

LOL. Good one.

 

[Simon R Galley]

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 :

 

[WRSchmalfuss]

SFX

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

 

[Ole]

Hi Sven, I guess, you have not used the ROLLEI IR yet! Take a look at digitaltruth.com

Cheers
Wolf

I have, and felt a little let down when I looked at the first attempt: There was no grain! I had to rethink everything, including my scene selection...

I must try SFX, if it's as grainy as they say.

 

[chorleyjeff]

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

Mostly digital.
Another couple of film users who use MF.(I use MF and 35mm) But mostly they don't seem to take pictures to share at the club strangely enough!!!

 

[chorleyjeff]

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 :

Hmmm.
Is this a reaction to the too clean and clinical look of digital which I think usually looks just like, er well, a computer generated image?
Cheers Jeff

PS just off to club night for the monthly projected image competition of which at least 90% will be electronically projected images.

 

[Videbaek]

<<Quote:
Originally Posted by WRSchmalfuss
Hi Sven, I guess, you have not used the ROLLEI IR yet! Take a look at digitaltruth.com

Cheers
Wolf <<


<I have, and felt a little let down when I looked at the first attempt: There was no grain! I had to rethink everything, including my scene selection...

I must try SFX, if it's as grainy as they say. <

No, I haven't tried the Rollei IR yet but I've had it in mind for a while. No grain... hard to believe. As for the photoclub judges marking down pictures showing visible grain, well, it's hard to comment on that politely. They'd be marking down all of HCB's classic pictures, no doubt also for their soft grey tonal range. Doisneau's "Baiser de l'Hotel de Ville"... nul points! Capa's pictures of D-Day... nul points! Grainy and shaky!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

OK, I can't resist any longer too. I have to confess that I am outright angry feeling when I hear they mark down prints with grain. That's ridiculous! As Svend (politely) pointed out, just look at the work of Henri Cartier-Bresson! Genius! I'm sorry, but that's just garble.

I attached a photo here, done by my 13-year-old son, with an (admittedly) nice Minox 35GT rangefinder and outdated Neopan 1600 film. Taking the grain away would have completely destroyed the feel of the image.
I don't usually make remarks when I'm angry, sorry if I'm ranting.

To get back on topic, Ilford SFX is a wonderful film. Grain or not. Use it as you see fit, forget about what others think about it. If you like it, and it comes from the heart, then you're on the right track.

- Thomas

 

[Ed Sukach]

I would seriously consider "insult" as a recourse for ANY SYSTEMATIC downgrade.

Every technical characteristic (in this case, "grain") has its effect on the image, at times, and for some reason, beneficial; at other times NOT beneficial. The only way to determine any sort of merit value due any photograph is by filtering the impression of it through the capricious, inefficient, non-logical perceptual system of a human being.

"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.

 

[Simon E]

"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.

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.

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....

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

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.

Ah!

Grain explained without my head exploding and the need to lie down afterwards.

Thanks Roger for your carefully chosen words. Some very interesting reading.

Sometimes it is better coming from a well read Amateur.

Cheers

Stoo

 

[rusty71]

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....

My admittedly limited experience with SFX leads me to believe it is HP-5+ with an extra Red sensitive emulsion layer coated in the mix. So your comment about the grain rings true. Try it with different developers. Seems to work well with Ilford DD-X and have the least grain.

 

[mcfactor]

Ralph Gibson! (to add another who purposefully utilizes grain)

 

[Terence]

I loved SFX when I used it in 35mm, but fell IN love with it when I started using 120. I love the amount of extended red sensitivity for what I predominantly shoot; old buildings, old bridges and very old rock formations. I practically danced for joy when they brought back the 120.

 

[Ondrej1]

Well, I like the grain of 35mm HP5+ pushed to 800 or even 1600 developed in ID-11, but I am not particulary happy with grain of SFX. For me those two are entirely different beasts. Definitely I need some more experiments, maybe some slight exposure adjustment is necessary.

On the other hand SFX in 120 format is The Film.

 

[Steve Smith]

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.

Similar to the judges who come to us. It seems to have become a 'Technical Expertise with Photoshop' competition instead of a 'Photographic Competition'.

I used to go just for the cup of tea and biscuits in the break. I don't think I will be going any more though.


Steve.

 

[fschifano]

"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.

Now that's putting it mildly, Ed. I'm compelled to agree with that statement 100%. I do belong to a camera club, but have quit the competitions for that very reason. My experience has been that they were judging and commenting upon silver projection prints as if they were digital images and not judging them as what they are. Comments like, "That can be fixed in Photoshop," just rubbed me the wrong way.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Just, as an illustration, two immages : SFX 200 in X-TOL and APX 400 in Rodinal 1+50.