When film grain improvement might not be perceived as a film grain improvement

[MattKing]

David
On a typical November day here, ISO 400 is barely enough for a hand-held shot at f/5.6.

 

[KN4SMF]

True Enough.
He could be into anything dealing with Amplification.
Guitar Amps are probably the biggest niche at this point.....so with his user-name i figured it was probably guitars.
But it could be Audio or Ham, or anything else i suppose.

I wondered about that Pentode name too, but guitar amps and audio output amps would likely have tetrodes in the final, wouldn't they?

 

[CMoore]

I wondered about that Pentode name too, but guitar amps and audio output amps would likely have tetrodes in the final, wouldn't they?

I am really not all that familiar with "Audio" stuff, but LOTS of guitar amps use EL34 in the power amp....... FWIW
We seem to have more interest in him than he does.

 

[CMoore]

There is almost a religious aspect towards believing that TMAX and DELTA films are 'better' because the grain is tabular. My queries are these:

1) Are there any out there who PREFER traditional grain over the tabular types? Please note: I am NOT talking about 'more forgiving' as far as exposure range is considered, simply 'Do you prefer the traditional grain's look?'

2) Is there any notice within the film manufacturing industry about the 'fact' that what they had initially upheld to be an improvement might not have been perceived to be the case by many (more than anticipated by the industry) of the film buying customers?

3) Is 'cheaper to manufacture' or 'many customers prefer the traditional look' the main, underlying reason for the continuance of the traditional B&W film's ongoing marketing impetus? - David Lyga

Hey David -
This has been a Very Interesting thread.
I think you (and others) are probably correct.....we get used to using a certain film, and simply stick with it.
Believe it or not, i never shot Tri-X and never tried T-Max.
Where Kodak is concerned, i did use Plus-X a lot.
In the last 15 years it has been all Ilford. Which for me means FP4 and HP5.
I am just a "Street Photographer" i doubt i will ever be better than the film i am using.
BTW.....i lived in San Francisco for 20 years. So, a smaller city. But a five mile ride on the N or L street car would take 40-60 minutes at commute time.
I did A LOT of reading on the N-Judah street car. More reading than at any other time in my life. I probably owe a huge debt of gratitude to San Francisco Muni.....they educated me in a very unique manner.
Two hours IS a long bus ride, but MUCH better than doing it in a car (which i also did).
Good Luck My Friend

 

[Truzi]

I really wonder if you prefer the traditional solely because you are USED to seeing the traditional grain and that familiarity drives your aesthetic perception. And, you would not be alone with that presumption. Maybe I am incorrect, here, but that is a thought worth thinking about. - David Lyga

Astute observation, though it is only part of my preference. Keep in mind the following is from the view-point of someone who takes snapshots, not a photographer.

I admit part of my preference for traditional grain is because I am used to it and thus feel that is how a photo should "look," but there are other reasons. I find the tonality more pleasing. To me, tabular seems to have an almost unreal sharpness. This is not compared to traditional, but when comparing to a subject sitting next to me in real-life; none of it looks like the real-life subject, but some seem more similar to my tastes than others. A well-done tabular grain photo seems, to me, more perfect in the technical sense, but is missing something I prefer. Consider infra-red as an example. I like it and use infra-red and tabular sometimes, but deliberately for the characteristics they each excel at.

At the risk of a digital/analog derailment, I will use this as an example. A lot of digital photographers I know tend to notice grain, but I do not because I am used to it. On the other hand, those people do not notice the sensor noise because they are used to it, yet it jumps out at me. Neither of those are why I like a photo, however.
I believe the same is true of tabular grains for me. When I see tabular or digital pictures I like, they are still quite obviously different from traditional grain, yet have something I cannot articulate that I like.

I'm sure if I were to sit down with someone quite good at photography and file through scores of photos, they could probably articulate the quality I like - it's not magical, just something I cannot put my finger on.
I'm also sure an accomplished person can make either look similar, but I'm just an average person who takes snapshots, and traditional grain gives me the results I want without extra work or skills I do not have. I don't consider myself a photographer. You know the typical person who just wants to take a picture? That's me, except I'm not using a smart phone like the majority.

 

[jim10219]

I wondered about that Pentode name too, but guitar amps and audio output amps would likely have tetrodes in the final, wouldn't they?

There are a lot of options for output. Triodes, tetrodes (beam power), and pentodes. For preamp, it's usually just triode or pentodes. Though there are a lot of rules that love to get broken, so it's not unheard of to use tubes for a purpose they were never intended to do. For example, I've designed and built amps that use RF tubes as audio tubes (a guitar preamp ran by a 6AU6) and used 12AU7's as output tubes (a traditional preamp tube). That's the joy of guitar amps verses HiFi amps. You want distortion, so breaking the rules is the norm.

 

[trendland]

Quite right David - also slow films can make a medium camera into a 4x5 camera!
I guess it has to do with the weight David - todays people are often to weak to carry!

* "Really they are to weak to carry some slow Films with them??"

No David - not exactly : But they are too weak to carry a smallest tripod of 5 pounds?


From same reason most of them swiched from digital Nikon 1,2 kg to 165g Smartphone with "4 Leica camera" features!

But it is allways the same weakness - remember 1980 : a weakness epedemic infected
100.000 photograpers later millions suffered from simular symtoms = they can't operate their
lenses sufficiantly - but their medicine then was "autofocus"!

with regards

 

[StepheKoontz]

"Why is there such an ongoing obsession with high film speeds?"

When shooting 35mm, I'm almost always shooting handheld. I also usually have at least a 1 stop yellow filter and sometimes have 2-3 stops of filtration. I've found in many instances I need to shoot 1 stop over to keep a reasonable level of shadow detail. Add that up and best case I'm metering 400iso film at 100iso or less. If I was starting with 100iso, I'd be down at 25iso, which if I want to shoot at f8, even on a sunny day, I'm down to 1/100 second exposure.

I find I usually pick the film speed based on the DOF I likely will be shooting and the speed of the lenses I plan to take.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

First, you are the most prolific writer I have ever witnessed, Trendland. That must be a 'trend' with you and your omnipresent, emotive, emojis. Second, I have not stated that I prefer the traditional films. In fact, I consider TMX (T Max 100) film to be the best film extant for general photography. Your Aerocon does not come close. And for ultimate resolution, trendland, try Kodak ImageLink (avail in 35mm but NOT perforated). It is a panchromatic microfilm that turns 35mm into 4 x 5. You are VERY VERY funny trendland. I cannot compete with your drawn humor. - David Lyga

Wholly crap David! Did you actually read his entire post? "You're a daisy if you did" (stolen from 'Toombstone'). I've always been of the belief that short and sweet is the only way to get the point across. As a professional technical writer, word barf makes me sad.

 

[StepheKoontz]

Wholly crap David! Did you actually read his entire post?

Yep TL;DR

 

[Vincent Peri]

I shoot both Tri-X and TMax 100/400 film.

They both have their place.

 

[trendland]

"Why is there such an ongoing obsession with high film speeds?"

When shooting 35mm, I'm almost always shooting handheld. I also usually have at least a 1 stop yellow filter and sometimes have 2-3 stops of filtration. I've found in many instances I need to shoot 1 stop over to keep a reasonable level of shadow detail. Add that up and best case I'm metering 400iso film at 100iso or less. If I was starting with 100iso, I'd be down at 25iso, which if I want to shoot at f8, even on a sunny day, I'm down to 1/100 second exposure.

I find I usually pick the film speed based on the DOF I likely will be shooting and the speed of the lenses I plan to take.

I remember quite well a compagny photograher in 2000 who shot 6x17 Panorama! We met us
sometimes during these days! It was the beginning of digital! The theme came to films.
And he was laughing about my Kodachrome25 35mm! Because of format I asked him!
No because of ISO 25 he was laughing???
Till these days I really don't remember to feel unlucky caused from less speed with KM25
There was allways enough light to shot handheld 35mm (in parts with f/5.6 f8)....
But I should add it was outdoor, it was most in Italy in summer - it was allways in sunlight
(No rainy days I remember)

The different issue is my 120 format Voigtländer! The lens has f7.7....its charactertistic isn't good there is no profit from f/8 of course! The same is at f11....it is beginning at f16
(sweetspot seams to be between f16 - f22 [more in the near of f16 than in the near of f22]..)!
The next problem is the correct distance - there is no distance messuring like with Leica rangefinfers.....I have just the distance scale marked on the lens! For landscape it is OK!
But I tryed to shot portraits in 6x9 ( distance 1,7....1,9...2,3....2,7...3,1meter???)
The scale on the lens is at 1,5 next 3meter! Next is the speed 1/25sec. 1/50sec. 1/100sec!
The lens has 105mm (for handheld there is then just 1 speed [1/100]...I would like to have
1/250 sec. but this Voigtländer isn't able to offer me)!
So it is allways on a tripod of course (best way also for landscape)!
The problem for portrait is the incorrectness of distance in regard of sharpness!
I might messure the distance from lens to object correct up to 1cm - but it is without profit
due to the scale (1,5 m next 3 m) What about to calibrate portrait shooting at distance from correct messurement at 1,5 m next shot at 3m??) A good thought but I doubt on the exactness of the marrkings a bit (1,5 meter in the scale can be 1,8 meter from the lens in reality if I have bad luck
)!
But that all is no need for Trendland to give up with 6x9 porttaits!
What I did is to realize the following : 6x9 give 8 exposures per 120 Film : So let's begin with shootings! Portrait of course = (Landscape is a such too easy task)!
The result is 1 - 2 sharp shots per 120roll!
Why???? 1) the f stop for minimal quality is set between f16/f22 = f 19 (around)!
2) the speed has to be 1/100sec from tripot! 3) the deep of field sharpness is too short for correct
distance because of markings on the lens But OK with ISO 400 FILMS IT IS POSSIBLE
(BUT THIS IS JUST IN FULL SUNLIGHT)
SO THERE IS NO REAL WAY TO PHOTOGRAPH ON A RAINY DAY - THAT WOULD HAVE TO NEED OF
ISO 800!

why are todays photographers so in love with high speed films? Do they all shot with 6x9 equipment
out of the year 1927 AND DON'T SHOT LANDSCAPE BUT PORTRAIT LIKE ME?

Come on folks don't tell you need ISO 400 for handheld 35mm beside avaible light situations!

with regards!

 

[trendland]

Wholly crap David! Did you actually read his entire post? "You're a daisy if you did" (stolen from 'Toombstone'). I've always been of the belief that short and sweet is the only way to get the point across. As a professional technical writer, word barf makes me sad.

Short and sweet writing is a good way for a technical writer I guess it may be The way (the only
way) so pls. forgive me...pls !

with regards

PS : If I would have the time to impress my posts more in a professional way I would need
more vocabulary (more than my 1200) the result would be (I agree with you 100%)
a text of min.1/3 of the normal Trendland length!
So come on fellow : pls. post your comment again in two versions:
1) in Spanish
2) in Italian.....you have the exact time to do it = 2,5 min. that is a usual Trendland writing speed meanwhile ! BECAUSE WE WANT FAIR ROULES for competition!
And for the case you are able to fullfil this task - do it again on a Chineese tablet like I do!
(I sometimes have to correct each 3. word from claustrophobic tablet grammar)
PPS : I am no professional writer

 

[trendland]

In the last 15 years it has been all Ilford. Which for me means FP4 and HP5.
I am just a "Street Photographer" i doubt i will ever be better than the film i am using.

Ilfords FP4 is also to me the film from characteristics - good enough for many many different
situations! A really general to use fiilm! Same is for me : APX100 !

The sentence: " I am just a Street Photographer " can be dangerous btw - CMoore !!
If your intention to state that is in direction of a understatement it is 100% OK!
But beware of to use "just" in concern of your scills - it can smaller selfconfidence!

with regards

PS : Remember Joe Maloney: "I am just shooting color" - I can't say - but who can be sure about - perhaps he said at the beginning! But wait - of course he stated .
Then - there was a need of (he was told) : NO JOE, YOU ARE A REAL PHOTOGRAPHER!

 

[trendland]

First, you are the most prolific writer I have ever witnessed, Trendland. That must be a 'trend' with you and your omnipresent, emotive, emojis. Second, I have not stated that I prefer the traditional films. In fact, I consider TMX (T Max 100) film to be the best film extant for general photography. Your Aerocon does not come close. And for ultimate resolution, trendland, try Kodak ImageLink (avail in 35mm but NOT perforated). It is a panchromatic microfilm that turns 35mm into 4 x 5. You are VERY VERY funny trendland. I cannot compete with your drawn humor. - David Lyga

Aha - yes I see you asked in concern of traditional grain from reason of aestetic!
....it doesn't matter (I am not allowed to state : Tmax films are bad films....!)
Seriously it is extreme fine grained, with normal contrast abilitys - for some who stated : tmax has too much contrast - it may be THEIR developer combination more than the tmaxx itself!
The prove : Some mention : good contrast with tmaxx (me too)!
But what I miss (in general) with Tgrain films is an advance in characteristics IN DIRECTION
of slower speed - manufacturers decided in oposite "extreme" direction = ISO 3200 !
BUT EVERY CHILD (MIN.4 YEARS AGE) TODAY KNOWS ISO3200 IS NOT WITH ISO 3200 FILMS!

with regards

PS : To reach real ISO 50 BOX SPEED WITH TMAXX /DELTA would not be that complicate from
improvement for manufaturers - but (I guess in concurence to digital) the train is depart in direction
of highest (pseudo) ISO's and manufacturers are not willing to stop it!

We will see ISO 6400 Box speed from manufacturers of Tgrain films in the future!
(There is a lot of profit to make from higher pricing [if the demand will come to more ] - perhaps we also will see a relaunch of an oldacquaintance)!

 

[trendland]

What the hell is that xx if I type x??? Tmaxx ahh understand that seams to be the Chineese Version??

with regards

PS : I perhaps need a New Samsung?

 

[Pentode]

True Enough.
He could be into anything dealing with Amplification.
Guitar Amps are probably the biggest niche at this point.....so with his user-name i figured it was probably guitars.
But it could be Audio or Ham, or anything else i suppose.

Guitar amps, audio amplification, recording gear and test equipment. I have tinkered with all of the above.

That’s as far off David’s topic as I’ll venture, though.

 

[CMoore]

Guitar amps, audio amplification, recording gear and test equipment. I have tinkered with all of the above.

That’s as far off David’s topic as I’ll venture, though.

Sorry...completely MY Fault.
I should have simply sent you a PM.
That is the end of that.
My Apologies

 

[MattKing]

Sorry...completely MY Fault.
I should have simply sent you a PM.
That is the end of that.
My Apologies

If Photrio required apologies for every off-topic post, it would have twice posts it has!
mea culpa

 

[David Lyga]

Hey David -
This has been a Very Interesting thread.
I think you (and others) are probably correct.....we get used to using a certain film, and simply stick with it.
Believe it or not, i never shot Tri-X and never tried T-Max.
Where Kodak is concerned, i did use Plus-X a lot.
In the last 15 years it has been all Ilford. Which for me means FP4 and HP5.
I am just a "Street Photographer" i doubt i will ever be better than the film i am using.
BTW.....i lived in San Francisco for 20 years. So, a smaller city. But a five mile ride on the N or L street car would take 40-60 minutes at commute time.
I did A LOT of reading on the N-Judah street car. More reading than at any other time in my life. I probably owe a huge debt of gratitude to San Francisco Muni.....they educated me in a very unique manner.
Two hours IS a long bus ride, but MUCH better than doing it in a car (which i also did).
Good Luck My Friend

Thank you, C Moore, and I think that you are largely correct. We 'learn' that grain imparts an aesthetic and rarely deviate from that mantra. That is not so bad ... after all, what is art other than ingrained perceptions that are taught by others, dead or alive? Our whole perception of our valuations we impart towards life are learned. In painting, 'pointillism' is an acquired aesthetic of its own (forced?) making. We are 'taught' that that art is grand. (But, is it, any more than Warhol's Campbell's soup can is? Really, think about it.) In sum, pointillism is art's grain, but not necessarily art's gain.

But I do promise you that the bus commute to King of Prussia would trump your SF Tram (especially the people who populate that bus!!!) - David Lyga

 

[David Lyga]

Wholly crap David! Did you actually read his entire post? "You're a daisy if you did" (stolen from 'Toombstone'). I've always been of the belief that short and sweet is the only way to get the point across. As a professional technical writer, word barf makes me sad.

trendland evens out life's sordid detritus and actually makes living palatable. He imparts a level of honesty that almost scares one. It is said that the Brits are polite and under-spoken, whilst the Germans say anything that comes to mind, regardless of immediate feelings. There are benefits to both paradigms and to call one or the other 'better' defeats honesty, itself. trendand is refreshing and I don't even think that he needs to be kept on a leash. Throughout his sayings, manners do come though, clearly and honestly. He is a good man. I think that he would have gotten along well with David Vestal, who 'proved' in his 'Craft of Photography' that Tri-X's REAL speed was about 100. - David Lyga