understanding 35mm b&w grain?

Robert ffffffffffttttk, yeah, scanning at 4000 dpi. GEM is a "technology" licensed from the company that does ICE. I'm not sure whether it's software or hardware or a mix of the two based *shrug*

Trius, I wouldn't say best, there were a couple others that are very good and far better, especialy for beginners.. this one just happens to cover some more advanced techniques and musings :)

Taking Willie's info there is good: especially the part about not touching the software handling. There was a "super advanced" workflow handling a technique for color negative film, I haven't tried it on b&w yet, but it does lead to good results. Basically, you find out what the film-base-color is, and rather than using curves or software, you set the analog gains to the corresponding ratios, thereby minimizing any software compensation for color and just using the scanner itself. It's led to good results for me, but I've no qualifications to say whether results are better with software or with the hardware color adjustments.

Ultimately, though, looks like there's no easy answer to this. *shrug* Well.. maybe ditching 35mm and just shooting MF or larger :D

Jano
 
I read a recent article by John Sexton in No. 66 of Lens Work magazine and all of the reproductions are done from scans of traditional silver based prints. With the ability to really burn in highlights and control exposure and contrast through additional techniques such as toning and bleaching, perhaps this is the way to get the most out of you black and white negative in the digital world.
 
This is a very interesting thread. As a relative newbie to home developing/printing I had wondered about the change in grain size myself. I'm not dealing with scanner issues here, just to say that I experience heavier grain in more dense areas of the picture when printing. I had been told that this is what the film is about, that is higher density of grains and subsequent "clumping" giving this effect. (I think that I know what that means!). The proof (at least for me, in a non techy way..) is when I have (seriously) underexposed a shot, or typically where a flash failed to work. The picture will have very high levels of grain, even in lighter areas of the print.
Anyway, the local photographic club members (90% digital converts now) have the phrase "overexpose and under develop". Is this because
1, overexposure will enhance shadow detail
2, under development will reduce the grain size?
Have I been mislead? .......Dave.....
 
fidget said:
This is a very interesting thread. As a relative newbie to home developing/printing I had wondered about the change in grain size myself. I'm not dealing with scanner issues here, just to say that I experience heavier grain in more dense areas of the picture when printing. I had been told that this is what the film is about, that is higher density of grains and subsequent "clumping" giving this effect. (I think that I know what that means!). The proof (at least for me, in a non techy way..) is when I have (seriously) underexposed a shot, or typically where a flash failed to work. The picture will have very high levels of grain, even in lighter areas of the print.
Anyway, the local photographic club members (90% digital converts now) have the phrase "overexpose and under develop". Is this because
1, overexposure will enhance shadow detail
2, under development will reduce the grain size?
Have I been mislead? .......Dave.....
Click to expand...
"Overexpose" is a misleading term. This will go OT to this thread, but the correct exposrue (adequate shadow detail) for a film/developer combination is something that can be determined emipirically by testing. If you find the EI that results from your testing to be different than "box speed", then you are "overexposing" or "underexposing" relative to published ISO. But that only means that either your testing methodology or the variables in testing are different from how the manufacturer determines ISO.

After determining your personal EI for a film/developer combination, you need test for development time.

Whew. If after all of that, grain is still objectionable ... I agree with Jano. Go MF or LF; if RFF is your home, then the gear better have a rangefinder on it. :p
 
For silver-based film, I find a touch of Neat Image ( http://www.neatimage.com/ ) or Noise Ninja ( http://www.picturecode.com/ ) works better for me than noise reduction in scanning. A small application seems to remove or at least reduce the 'aliasing' effect. Because I dual boot between XP and Linux, I chose Noise Ninja because there's a Linux version that's quite good.

Gene
 
Gene or others: any experience using PS CS2's noise reduction? I tried it out a couple times, but my computer is so slow and old, I gave up trying to understand how the options affect an image. Maye instead of buying new lenses and such, I should consider upgrading :rolleyes:

Dave/fidget.. I don't think your statement is right. If you seriously underexpose a negative, it will be thin, not thick. Errr.. I'm reading "higher density of grain clumping" and assuming this is a thick part of the negative. Or can that be on the thin part?
 
jano said:
Gene or others: any experience using PS CS2's noise reduction?
Click to expand...
It seems a pretty weak feature. I think it's just there to fill out a feature list -- doesn't do much of a job, imo.

Gene
 
It's also important to note that color film dyes are translucent, so the scanner's light passes through every part of the frame. The silver grain in BW films is opaque so no light gets through at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom