Which film is the lowest grain at box speed? (that is still sold today)

[maevery]

Curious about what people think is the lowest grain film.
I'm leaning towards Provia

 

[koraks]

Probably Kodak Ektar. But I'd have to check, and I don't really feel like it, because if grain is an issue, it's just too easy to pick a larger film format and not worry about it

 

[pentaxuser]

OP I thought there were actual RMS figures for each film. There may even be a tables of RMS results for a whole range of films. I'd point you in that direction if I knew where such info exists but it does exist

pentaxuser

 

[madNbad]

If you can find it, Adox CMS 20 II and Adotech IV developer to go with it. I have several rolls and the developer but haven't had the chance to try it out yet. There are several videos on exposing and developing it. ISO 12 seems to be the best setting and apparently, if done correctly, is virtualy grain free.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have not had a grain problem with any color film, print or slide, for so many decades that I can no longer remember.

 

[koraks]

If you can find it

And if you can coax color out of it. I can't.
Would be valid for the B&W forum though
Btw, I'd consider it a wayward and difficult film to work with. For extremely fine grain in B&W, but also excellent usability, TMAX is hard to beat. That, or Delta100.

 

[foc]

In B&W film , I like the smoothness of Ilford Delta100 and XP2.
In colour, Fuji Superia 200 ( but if I could turn back time it would be Reala).

 

[madNbad]

And if you can coax color out of it. I can't.
Would be valid for the B&W forum though
Btw, I'd consider it a wayward and difficult film to work with. For extremely fine grain in B&W, but also excellent usability, TMAX is hard to beat. That, or Delta100.

I really do ned to start reading the headings...

 

[runswithsizzers]

You might be interested in <this old thread> from 2014. See post #43 where Henning Serger says this about ISO 400 color films: "Finest grain has Fuji Provia 400X. Second is Portra 400 new, and only minimal behind is Fuji Pro 400H and Portra 400 NC-3 (the former Portra version). At fourth position Superia 400." Note: I don't believe he is discussing all color film, only those rated at ISO 400(?)

Previously, in post #19 he says this about ISO 100 color films: "Provia and Velvia also have a bit finer grain than Ektar"

 

[AgX]

OP I thought there were actual RMS figures for each film. There may even be a tables of RMS results for a whole range of films.

Kodak years ago stopped publishing RMS figures or any form of granularity figures for their color negative still films, but since then refer instead to graininess and to an indicator on this. But as no other manufacturer uses this, it cannot be used for comparison.

 

[pentaxuser]

Kodak years ago stopped publishing RMS figures or any form of granularity figures for their color negative still films, but since then refer instead to graininess and to an indicator on this. But as no other manufacturer uses this, it cannot be used for comparison.

Thanks, AgX So it looks like the OP is on his own in terms of being able to rank lowest to highest grain film from any kind of objective measurement where a set standard is used.

Mind you the OP has asked specifically for the lowest grain colour film and not tables from which he can see for himself. He seeks our opinions only which is fine and if that is what he wants I have every reason to believe we will give them to him

However here's a joke told by a British comedian called Jasper Carrott that may be applicable to any thread on this kind of subject. " I had a problem of a mole under my lawn creating holes and I needed to kill it so asked 50 people who had a similar problem and the good news was that each said there was only one way to successfully kill a mole. The bad news was that all 50 ways were different

pentaxuser

 

[brbo]

Slide film: Provia 100F, Velvia 100
Negative film: Ektar 100

 

[Paul Howell]

The only color films that I think are grainy are Kodak Gold 400 and 800. Hard to find grain in a 11X14 from a Kodak Gold 200 or Pro image 100 negative.

 

[bluechromis]

Hennings also had this interesting observation about Ektar:

"Lot's of film photographers think that a film with finer grain automatically has higher resolution as well.
This is often the case, but not always!
There are some cases in which films with finer grain are not so good in resolution and vice versa.

Further Examples:
Agfa Copex Rapid has much higher resolution and better sharpness than TMX, but there is not a very significant difference in grain between both films.

Retro 80S has finer grain than Copex Rapid, but cannot match the excellent resolution of CoRa.

Another very good example is Ektar 100:
It has very fine grain (but not as fine as ISO 100 slide films), but resolution is quite low and worse compared to all other CN films on the Market: Reala, Pro 160 S / C / NS, Portra 160, Gold 100 and 200, Superia 200 all have significantly higher resolution at an object contrast of 1:4 as Ektar.
But most people don't see it, because they use scanning with scanners with max 4000 ppi. So the performance is very limited by the scanner.
But in optical enlargements the differences are very obvious."

 

[DREW WILEY]

In the color neg category, Kodak distinctly claims Ektar, and my own substantial experience with it in multiple formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10 agrees with that. It's resolution is SUPERB; and I optically print with the finest enlargers and enlarging lenses one can get. I have no idea where the above poster got some idea otherwise. Ever hear of the old saying, "Go to the horse's mouth" (instead of Aristotle)?

Dye cloud "grain" behaves differently between CN and chrome films, so it's hard to make direct comparisons. A lot is simply due to the higher level of contrast of the latter. But overall, I'd say Ektar still wins the battle, with the possible exception of the now discontinued Astia 100F chrome film. It beats Velvia hands down.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the color neg category, Kodak distinctly claims Ektar, and my own substantial experience with it in multiple formats all the way from 35mm to 8x10 agrees with that. It's resolution is SUPERB; and I optically print with the finest enlargers and enlarging lenses one can get. I have no idea where the above poster got some idea otherwise. Ever hear of the old saying, "Go to the horse's mouth" (instead of Aristotle)?

.

Drew, is the above poster blue that of #14, namely bluecromis? He is quoting Henning Serger so has Henning got it wrong and Ektar is the answer to the OP's question, at least in the colour negative category?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi. Yes, it was him. I have no idea if the quote is correct or not. Or if Henning did claim that, what specific methodology was involved. Was the observation taken visually - if so, at what level of eye fatigue? Was the film equally flat in each case. Was everything developed to the same level of contrast (unlikely, since C41 was involved). Was the simulation matched to the way color paper itself sees the film, in other words, through a blue filter to null out the orange mask (yes, it makes a big difference; and RA4 paper has a blue overcoat). There are all kinds of potential variables that need to be ironed out to make an objective test. But one thing I do know, is that the statement just doesn't make sense.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank for reply Drew. Henning does seem to have the equipment and skill to do such things as I assume he did to establish some basis for what he was quoted as saying. Unfortunately he either is here on Photrio frequently for short periods and then not at all so he may not respond

However from what you say about the necessary methodology it strikes me that the OP's question may be largely academic rather than practical in that with the naked eye few if any viewers might have any chance of picking out the lowest grain from the prints of negatives or projections from the films Henning was examining

pentaxuser

 

[brbo]

Looking at Kodak's published MTF of Ektar and Portra 160 support Henning's claims of Ektar maybe not having the highest resolution. But Portra 160, Gold 100, Superia 200 being "significantly" higher resolution than Ektar is... stretching it. Henning isn't particularly famous for precise use of quantitative adverbs, so I fully expect to be pointed out as being completely wrong

But resolution isn't what OP is after. So, Ektar 100 definitely is currently available colour negative film with smallest grain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If one wants to call Kodak an outright liar about what they distinctly claim about Ektar, even on the box, that's their prerogative. I know what Ektar can do. I've printed a lot of it; and apples to apples, in the same film size, it can handle distinctly more detail and sheer RESOLUTION than either Portra 160 or 400. And most people who shot Kodak Gold didn't even have the quality of camera or lens or printing to begin with to make an objective comparison. I'll never bother with that again because I rarely shoot color in anything smaller than 6X7, and often shoot a lot larger.

But this is just like all those silly attempts to try to trump microfilm resolution over slow speed pan films. Sure, it's true, but not apples to apples. Microfiche and spy camera work is hardly the same game; and such films, when adapted to con-tone imagery, always exhibit their weakness in trying to hande a full tonal scale. Same with ole Tech Pan; sure you could get an image in the right developer, but it often wasn't very satisfying; the highlights and deep shadows were generally blank, "soot and chalk" syndrome.

Is the whole question academic? Not necessarily. I find visible grain annoying in color prints. And when I do want it, and did employ it, was back when really lovely grain Agfachrome 1000 was still available. There's nothing like that on the market anymore, although a revival of high-speed Scotchchrome under a different label might be on the horizon. Pixelated simulation of that kind of look is disgusting.

 

[brbo]

If one wants to call Kodak an outright liar about what they distinctly claim about Ektar, even on the box, that's their prerogative.

My Ektar boxes don't carry any claims about resolution/sharpness. Only "world's finest grain". And MTF graphs are better for Portra 160 in Kodak's official spec sheets.

 

[AgX]

This thread is about grain. And I got no idea why then in this context resolution is even mentioned. But then it may be my fault that I see this all from a photoengineer's point of view...

 

[DREW WILEY]

brbo - You simply can't separate MTF from contrast or saturation when it comes to perceived sharpness. It's just one more variable that needs to understood in full context. And grain itself can be a misleading term because what is really involved are dye clouds, which are not all the same from one product to another. Real world experience is therefore essential too in such discussions. It also depends how your image are being printed. Most of these products, along with modern optics, exceed the ability of inkjet to resolve. I print true optical and often on high-gloss polyester base, a whole different ballgame, and much more demanding of a product.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Looking at Kodak's published MTF of Ektar and Portra 160 support Henning's claims of Ektar maybe not having the highest resolution. But Portra 160, Gold 100, Superia 200 being "significantly" higher resolution than Ektar is... stretching it. Henning isn't particularly famous for precise use of quantitative adverbs, so I fully expect to be pointed out as being completely wrong

But resolution isn't what OP is after. So, Ektar 100 definitely is currently available colour negative film with smallest grain.

It's possible to predict the results of resolution tests from the MTF charts if you know the contrast of the resolution chart used. The upshot is that it seems to be the case that transparency resolution results are being read at near extinction, while the neg resolution results are maybe in the 5-10% MTF response range (and which seem to vary according to apparent granularity). So the results aren't 'wrong' but suffer from a lack of normalisation. If all results were read off at the same point, neg materials considerably outperform transparency in terms of usable resolution.
Another important point is that the lower overall sharpness of transparency (it relies a lot on the contrast inherent to a display medium) helps to suppress apparent granularity up to a point - and in certain contexts that allows more aggressive sharpening (which often becomes obvious). And the other side of this is that very low noise and good MTF at higher frequencies can combine to deliver results seem to have high resolution because detail isn't being lost in granularity.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The point is, that the difference is so slight between the MTF curves of Ektar and Portra 160 that there is almost no perceptible real world difference. The fact that Portra is more likely to be chosen for softer image work to begin with means it will likely appear less sharp in print to the average observer. But the whole hypothetical squabble means next to zero to me, cause I rarely print 35 mm anyway, and when I do, I print small. I use large film for big enlargements. It's that simple. Yes, people who print digitally can fiddle with contrast and saturation quite easily; but the fact they mostly inkjet print as well pretty much nullifies any kind of optimal detail repro. Basically, a lot of this is just a nitpicky obsession of little practical value. Things like the specific color signature of any particular color negative film are a lot more important.

With either of them - Portra 160 or Ektar 100, grain is basically a non-issue. With Portra 400, it does tend to become visible around 8X enlargement, but not annoyingly so.