Which color film do you think has the most attractive grain?

[trondsi]

Just like it says in the the title. I often enjoy the grain in BW film, but rarely think that it looks that good in color film. However, I have also noticed that some grain seem a bit more "blurry" and other sharper. This may have been one of the nice features of the old Kodachrome for instance. So which one do you think looks best today? (slide or negative)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Just like it says in the the title. I often enjoy the grain in BW film, but rarely think that it looks that good in color film. However, I have also noticed that some grain seem a bit more "blurry" and other sharper. This may have been one of the nice features of the old Kodachrome for instance. So which one do you think looks best today? (slide or negative)

Portra 160 followed closely by Ektar. Least attractive, ultramax 400. I just don’t like the way it renders. Everything else is a spectrum between that.

 

[koraks]

Superia 200. Sharp and well defined, without being too much at modest enlargements. Only comes in 35mm though. I find ektar and portra quite smooth, which is if course nice if that's what you're after, but if you want to see some grain, superia is a good choice IMO.

 

[Bikerider]

When I print colour film I don't have a problem with any grain so long as the film is 200iso or under. I can go to 12x16 and at a normal viewing distance the grain is invisible. Look at it from a few inches and, yes you will see the grain but who looks at a big enlargement like that and appreciates it. I was rather disappointed that Superia 100 was discontinued, in fact all C41 film of any quality is 200 or over except one or two. With my style of photography I don't need 200, in fact it can be a hindrance.

 

[Bormental]

How can a multi-colored grain be attractive? I totally get the appeal for B&W but for color, I have automated my scanning to apply a gentle color-only denoise step. For Portra 160 and Ektar 100 I do not bother.

Here's a couple of full-size 35mm scans. Even ISO 800 is not an issue:

Portra 800
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/grain/portra-800.jpg

Superia 400
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/grain/superia-400.jpg

Superia, by the way, is slowly becoming my favorite. Unmistakable film look without moody casts or over-the top saturation, affordable and easier to color-invert than some, for DSLR scanning. The grain is finer than Ultramax.

 

[foc]

+1 for Superia Xtra 400.
Of course if I could use my time machine, I would pick Reala.

 

[Auer]

Kodak Pro Image 100

 

[trondsi]

How can a multi-colored grain be attractive? I totally get the appeal for B&W but for color, I have automated my scanning to apply a gentle color-only denoise step. For Portra 160 and Ektar 100 I do not bother.

Here's a couple of full-size 35mm scans. Even ISO 800 is not an issue:

Portra 800
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/grain/portra-800.jpg

Superia 400
https://d3ue2m1ika9dfn.cloudfront.net/grain/superia-400.jpg

Superia, by the way, is slowly becoming my favorite. Unmistakable film look without moody casts or over-the top saturation, affordable and easier to color-invert than some, for DSLR scanning. The grain is finer than Ultramax.

I like the Superia in this case. I have seen some other Portra 800 photos where I liked the grain too, not sure about this one.

 

[Lachlan Young]

@Auer That Kodak Pro Image looks horrendously oversharpened. The visible granularity should be much finer than that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The grain of premium CN films like Ektar or Portra 160 is almost invisible. But at the opposite end of the scale, for certain applications I do miss the very conspicuous but lovely soft tone of long gone Agfachrome 1000 grain, reminiscent of the Autochrome look. I can't think of anything equivalent today. Scotchchrome 1000 had crisp contrasty multicolored grain that could be wonderful for certain types of images, though not appropriate for general use, in my opinion. Digital post- tweaks are like imitation ice milk by comparison.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I quite enjoy slide films, and cinestill 50d and portra 160 are also very nice, but I find the colors can sometimes be a bit to vibrant. Lomography films are more subdued, but using them runs the risk of getting light leaks and defective backing papers.
I probably watch too much Italian Grindhouse cinema and shoot too much expired film- I practically expect my color film photography to have grain.

 

[Auer]

@Auer That Kodak Pro Image looks horrendously oversharpened. The visible granularity should be much finer than that.

I find my results horrendously similar to others https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...97276800&max_taken_date=1600041599&view_all=1

 

[Lachlan Young]

I find my results horrendously similar to others https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort...97276800&max_taken_date=1600041599&view_all=1

I've attached 100% crops of Pro Image 100 scanned at 3000ppi on a high end CCD scanner with no sharpening & Portra 800 pushed a stop, scanned at about 2600ppi on the same machine - again, no sharpening. They show quite clearly that the Pro Image granularity should be much smoother than that a lot of what's coming off the Noritsu/ Frontier scanners. The pushed Portra 800 is about the highest level of visible granularity you'll get from current professional neg films. Neither have been dust spotted etc.

 

[mshchem]

I have scanned a lot of my Dad's ASA 10 Kodachrome slides from late 40's through the 50's. You need to go to about 8X before you see much grain at all. All I did in Light room was adjust contrast and exposure. I print Kodak color negative film, almost all medium format, I use sharp lines to focus, damn grain is so tiny.

I remember when if you pushed high speed Ektachrome (ASA 160) to 400 it got nice and grainy.

It's somewhat funny in that, if you want old fashion grain with almost any of today's film you, you need to add it with Photoshop.

 

[Auer]

I've attached 100% crops of Pro Image 100 scanned at 3000ppi on a high end CCD scanner with no sharpening & Portra 800 pushed a stop, scanned at about 2600ppi on the same machine - again, no sharpening. They show quite clearly that the Pro Image granularity should be much smoother than that a lot of what's coming off the Noritsu/ Frontier scanners. The pushed Portra 800 is about the highest level of visible granularity you'll get from current professional neg films. Neither have been dust spotted etc.

Lame Segway
I should have never responded to you in the first place.
/ignored

 

[Bormental]

@Auer That Kodak Pro Image looks horrendously oversharpened. The visible granularity should be much finer than that.

I think that's because it's downsampled. Unless we're talking about 100% crops, I wouldn't trust Photrio attachments to evaluate grain or sharp[ness | ening]

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think that's because it's downsampled. Unless we're talking about 100% crops, I wouldn't trust Photrio attachments to evaluate grain or sharp[ness | ening]

I'd agree with the latter, but I suspect that a lot of the oversharpened Pro Image I've seen elsewhere is likely because Frontier/ Noritsu operators are so used to the very low noise/ granularity of Kodak Ektar/ Portra 160 that they don't change settings for Pro Image - assuming it's got a similarly low granularity level (whereas, according to Kodak, Pro Image is actually slightly worse in visible Print Grain Index than Portra 400), thus they end up oversharpening. Not as horrendous as some results I've seen off HP5 or Tri-X though.

 

[pentaxuser]

Lame Segway
I should have never responded to you in the first place.
/ignored

What's Lame Segway mean? What has Lachlan said in his post(s) in terms of wrong statements that provokes your response. I cannot work out if you believe he is simply and seriously wrong or is deliberately provoking you?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I am confident that Segway - an interesting, strange and now discontinued mode of transport - was an error, and segue - a change of direction - was what was intended.

 

[markjwyatt]

+1 for Superia Xtra 400.
...

I will add a vote for Fujifilm Superia 400 XTRA. Don't know if it is the best, but it is pleasant.


Yonder Ships On The Horizon by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[unityofsaints]

Velvia 50, because it's nearly invisible On a serious note, the X-tra films are hard to beat for visible grain that is attractive to my eye.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do not expect or see grain in color work. I use Kodak Portra 400 and my stock of Kodak UltraColor 400.

 

[tomkatf]

Kodachrome 200 shot at EI 500 and processed by A&I...

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I've been thinking this over since my last post- I actually demand the opposite of everyone else.
I want my BW film to be sharp and grainless

I want my color film to be grainy.

 

[Bormental]

I've been thinking this over since my last post- I actually demand the opposite of everyone else. I want my BW film to be sharp and grainless

Unusual and interesting perspective!