grain with color 400, night black sky

[ampguy]

How does one control grain at night with Fuji 400 print film?

These were shot minutes apart, the sky was black.

Shot with Hexar AF, F2 or 2.8, probably 1/30th

grainy sky:

http://www.tedm.com/photos/badsky.jpg

nice black sky:

http://www.tedm.com/photos/goodsky.jpg

 

[dmr]

Actually, your "bad" shot reminds me of when I ran out of Fuji 800 and tried the Walgreens/Agfa 800. Green yucky sky.

One trick I sometimes use, which seems to give me good results on some night shots with the GIII is to shoot Fuji 400 film but expose it as if it were 800.

This seems to help in 2 ways.

1. It does make the sky relatively darker. Scattered light doesn't seem to contaminate the dark sky as much.

2. Highlights of the bright lights and neon and such are not as blown out.

Most of the non-wide-angle shots on this page were done just this way:

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/vegas/vegas5/

 

[aad]

The first shot looks under-exposed..

 

[Chaser]

You can also do the quick and dirty clipping of the blacks by moving the dark point slider up in the levels in photoshop or whatever software you use...

hope you don't mind that i used your file to demonstrate.

 

[Finder]

Don't underexpose.

 

[Honus]

Neat Image works well. I also did a levels adjustment in PS CS.

 

[John]

I have a post going in darkroom about scanner noise. I have that exact same pattern in dark shadows I have shot plus black pants, black carpet, etc. Photoshop tweaks obviously help. I am also trying Noise Ninja and possibly raw scans. 🙂

 

[ampguy]

this sounds logical to me

this sounds logical to me

in that scattered light from lower portion is somehow getting up into the black sky.

Note the multiple responses below that recommend overexposing though. I think I will have to go back to that same spot and with the same film and bracket like crazy with the same film type, and developer. IMHO, and soon IME, overexposing might reduce the grain, but I can't help but think it will lighten up the black sky there.

I like the idea of keeping the exposure showing the darkness the way it is, but of course the sky was black, not speckled.

Actually, your "bad" shot reminds me of when I ran out of Fuji 800 and tried the Walgreens/Agfa 800. Green yucky sky.

One trick I sometimes use, which seems to give me good results on some night shots with the GIII is to shoot Fuji 400 film but expose it as if it were 800.

This seems to help in 2 ways.

1. It does make the sky relatively darker. Scattered light doesn't seem to contaminate the dark sky as much.

2. Highlights of the bright lights and neon and such are not as blown out.

Most of the non-wide-angle shots on this page were done just this way:

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/vegas/vegas5/

 

[ampguy]

Cool

Cool

I have PS, but don't really know how to use it.

Neat Image works well. I also did a levels adjustment in PS CS.

 

[ampguy]

don't mind at all

don't mind at all

Shows the power of PS. Amazing SW.

You can also do the quick and dirty clipping of the blacks by moving the dark point slider up in the levels in photoshop or whatever software you use...

hope you don't mind that i used your file to demonstrate.

 

[ampguy]

ok, i have to test on my own

ok, i have to test on my own

to all, thanks, and I will have to go back and bracket, as I mentioned above, it is not logical to me that giving more exposure time will get me to a black sky (the way it was), though I can see how it might fix the grain.

I have to go back ASAP with same film. Only variable I can't control is the photo guys at Longs..., and I guess the moon changes all the time too...

Don't underexpose.

 

[kaiyen]

Ted,
Giving more exposure will mean more shadow detail. What you're seeing in the print is the printer/scanner trying to suck as much detail out of an underexposed negative as possible. This results in noise because there isn't anything there to resolve. So if you give more exposure you'll get actual density there (or dye clouds, rather) that the scanner/printer can resolve.

allan

 

[ampguy]

Thanks John

Thanks John

These pics are off the photocd from Longs, the low res directory.

No one commented on how black the sky was in the 2nd photo. What if I hypothetically did this:

Put an artificial bright light in the first image and got farther back, so exposure was similar to the 2nd one, then cropped to frame like the top image, would I then get black and no grain? And if so, why?

I have a post going in darkroom about scanner noise. I have that exact same pattern in dark shadows I have shot plus black pants, black carpet, etc. Photoshop tweaks obviously help. I am also trying Noise Ninja and possibly raw scans. 🙂

 

[ampguy]

looked at your pics

looked at your pics

great black sky in all the pics. I can see some grain from your 800 film I think, esp. in the Tropicana bldg. pic. but that's the kind of black sky I want.

So you're saying to underexpose by 1 stop, so if I'm shooting 400, set ASA to 200 and meter normally??

Actually, your "bad" shot reminds me of when I ran out of Fuji 800 and tried the Walgreens/Agfa 800. Green yucky sky.

One trick I sometimes use, which seems to give me good results on some night shots with the GIII is to shoot Fuji 400 film but expose it as if it were 800.

This seems to help in 2 ways.

1. It does make the sky relatively darker. Scattered light doesn't seem to contaminate the dark sky as much.

2. Highlights of the bright lights and neon and such are not as blown out.

Most of the non-wide-angle shots on this page were done just this way:

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/vegas/vegas5/

 

[dmr]

great black sky in all the pics.

Thanks {blush} 🙂

I can see some grain from your 800 film I think, esp. in the Tropicana bldg. pic. but that's the kind of black sky I want.

If you're looking at the wide-angles down by the Tropicana, those were shot on Fuji 1600 and yes, they do show more grain. All of the normal lens night shots on page 5 were shot with 400 speed film, intentionally exposed as if it were 800.

So you're saying to underexpose by 1 stop, so if I'm shooting 400, set ASA to 200 and meter normally??

No, to underexpose one stop, shoot 400 film and set the ISO/ASA to 800.

This is opposite what some of the others said above, and we may just have to agree to disagree on that. What works for me might not be what works for them, or for you. I really don't know how your camera behaves.

Here's why I think that technique works ...

First of all, let's consider the sky. I like nice black solids. Unfortunately the sky in Las Vegas and many other urban areas is not solid black. It has quite a glow, and I think much of it is the smog in the air and the reflection and scatter from all of the lights. I want it to be black, as in clear on the negative. Underexposure will make it darker, overexposure will show up more of the glow, which I don't really want. I'm not after a nice twilight afterglow in these shots, I want a dark sky.

Now let's talk about the lights. In many of my early attempts at things like this, they tended to be overexposed and blown out. An example of this is:

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/vegas/oldlv/

Underexposing by a stop helps with this too.

Now, I'm going to try to explain something which may contradict everything I said. 🙂 I really don't think I'm actually underexposing by setting the film speed intentionally too high. The scenes I'm shooting here are very contrasty, dark skies, rather small areas of very bright light, and overall a darkish scene. The meters (Pentax and GIII) will average, and will suggest an exposure based on that overall brightness, or dimness., which will tend to be too much. Remember, the meter is only a suggestion. It's an opinion that the meter (which is as dumb as a retarded rock) has as to how to expose for average brightness.

I hope this helps and makes sense. This is something that works for me for these types of scenes. No, for daylight scenes or for normal indoor available light scenes I would never suggest this technique. I would expose 400 at 400 for those.

YMMV, of course. 🙂

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Ray

Thanks Ray

OK, this makes some sense. I either never learned this (or forgot it) in my photo classes. Great info.

Ted,
Giving more exposure will mean more shadow detail. What you're seeing in the print is the printer/scanner trying to suck as much detail out of an underexposed negative as possible. This results in noise because there isn't anything there to resolve. So if you give more exposure you'll get actual density there (or dye clouds, rather) that the scanner/printer can resolve.

allan

 

[ampguy]

Easy enough to figure out

Easy enough to figure out

I want to go back to the same spot and nail down this issue. Will take a couple of days, as I have the hexar loaded with a different film right now. btw, the hexar center meters in P and A modes, and spot (4 deg) meters in M mode. I'll bring my GIII along for an average reading, so the hexar doesn't hang up on a light bulb or something.

About your b&w LV photos, I'm not sure they're overexposed. Depends what your subject matter is -- sure the bright neon lights are, but other objects would be greatly underexposed if you properly exposed the neon lights. It's hard for me to compare directly with your newer color images because the old ones are b&w.

Also, here's another variabe to throw in the mix, I know what you mean about smoggy nights, they're everynight in LA or LV, but this area of the bay area peninsula, you can ocasionally have a real dark night (moon/smog/fog dependent of course) so you are actually making the sky darker than it was, while I'm trying to take a photo of real darkness.

Thanks {blush} 🙂



If you're looking at the wide-angles down by the Tropicana, those were shot on Fuji 1600 and yes, they do show more grain. All of the normal lens night shots on page 5 were shot with 400 speed film, intentionally exposed as if it were 800.



No, to underexpose one stop, shoot 400 film and set the ISO/ASA to 800.

This is opposite what some of the others said above, and we may just have to agree to disagree on that. What works for me might not be what works for them, or for you. I really don't know how your camera behaves.

Here's why I think that technique works ...

First of all, let's consider the sky. I like nice black solids. Unfortunately the sky in Las Vegas and many other urban areas is not solid black. It has quite a glow, and I think much of it is the smog in the air and the reflection and scatter from all of the lights. I want it to be black, as in clear on the negative. Underexposure will make it darker, overexposure will show up more of the glow, which I don't really want. I'm not after a nice twilight afterglow in these shots, I want a dark sky.

Now let's talk about the lights. In many of my early attempts at things like this, they tended to be overexposed and blown out. An example of this is:

http://www.letis.com/dmr/pics/vegas/oldlv/

Underexposing by a stop helps with this too.

Now, I'm going to try to explain something which may contradict everything I said. 🙂 I really don't think I'm actually underexposing by setting the film speed intentionally too high. The scenes I'm shooting here are very contrasty, dark skies, rather small areas of very bright light, and overall a darkish scene. The meters (Pentax and GIII) will average, and will suggest an exposure based on that overall brightness, or dimness., which will tend to be too much. Remember, the meter is only a suggestion. It's an opinion that the meter (which is as dumb as a retarded rock) has as to how to expose for average brightness.

I hope this helps and makes sense. This is something that works for me for these types of scenes. No, for daylight scenes or for normal indoor available light scenes I would never suggest this technique. I would expose 400 at 400 for those.

YMMV, of course. 🙂

 

[John]

DMR has said his technique works well with night shots like your picture and I can see how it does work well and understand his explanation. He has also said it would not likely work in other situations - possibly what I was talking about. Shadowy areas in an otherwise properly exposed shot. Black or very dark carpeting, black pants etc. If you underexpose these situations the black areas have much less noise but the rest of the picture will be too dark. Maybe photoshop can brighten one of these up but I am just learning the program myself? 🙂

 

[Finder]

Smokey blacks is an effect of underexposed color negative film. By increasing the exposure you are moving the midtones and highlights further up the tone curve. This gives greater separation from them and the shadows - in terms of underexposure. So when you print or scan you can place the shadows at Dmax/0 level and have the midtones and highlights come out at the right point. Naturally, one of the problems with this kind of subject is that it is very contrasty so controling the highlights will be tricky.

 

[jaapv]

Neat Image works well. I also did a levels adjustment in PS CS.

I think it looks too digital now. I would select only the sky and do Neat Image on that and leave the rest of the image untouched (except for levels of course).