what would push Gold 100 toward more grain?

[stefan_fielding_isaacs]

I took this photo over the weekend. Notwithstanding the problems

caused by my Leica needing a CLA (fast shutter doesn't work too well

obviously) is their some reason that my Kodak Gold 100 came out so

grainy? I had expected a sharper result.

 

I scanned this a 2400 dpi last night using Silverfast SE 6 on an Epson

2450. Note this was my first evening scanning any negatives, much less

the first evening with this scanner.

 

I'm wondering if the corner shop could have developed the negative as

Gold 200 (much more common these days)?

 

Any advice welcome. All shots on the roll seem fairly grainy. Another

one may be seen at: www.flickr.com/photos/stefanisaacs.

 

Camera was an M2 with a 35/2.5 Color-Skopar. Probably 1/500 or 1/1000

on a fairly bright day.

 

Oh yes, film was out of date (past expiration) by about 6 months.<div></div>

[wickedmartini]

Possibilities could include: Improper exposure, less than optimal scanning, less than optimal development or the fact that the film was out of date and may have built up fogging \ base density due to age or improper storage.

[stefan_fielding_isaacs]

Oh.. I should include another photo that I took on the same roll for comparison. I suspect the problem is not with the film..

 

Stefan<div></div>

[john_shriver]

All C-41 films are developed identically. Same time, same temperature.

 

Grainy C-41 film is usually a symptom of underexposure. Since your M2 clearly needs a CLA, those high shutter speeds are probably fast.

 

Look at the negatives, the grainy parts are probably very thin.

 

The Epson 2450 (which I have) isn't really sharp enough to get in much trouble (grain wise) with properly exposed Gold 100.

[jordan_w.]

Clumpy looking grain in a scan can be caused by underexposure. The stale date on the film shouldn't make too much of a difference, and "developed as Gold 200" does not apply in C-41 processing (the process is standard). But if this is your attempt to scan negatives of any kind I wouldn't be too quick to blame it on the film. Sharpening algorithms (that your software may be automatically applying) can magnify the appearance of grain in some circumstances. It is hard to tell what we are looking at in your screen-sized version. Read through the archives and at scantips.com for advice.

[stefan_fielding_isaacs]

Thanks very much. I'm beginning to recognize that scanning well is a journey not a destination.. Much as I would like it to be an easy process.

[roger_smith4]

I think this is a scanning issue. Gold is a decent film.

 

It looks like there is some banding, the shadows lack detail and the contrast is way too high. If you can, try scanning with black point and white point clipping set at 0 or .1% which should give you a flat scan. Up the contrast in Photoshop but try to preserve your highlights and keep the shadows a bit less harsh.

Scan at the hightest resolution and downsample if you don't need that big a size.

 

If it's not a scanning issue try to meter and expose for the shadows when you shoot color negative film.

 

Good luck!

[r.t. dowling]

It's worth mentioning that Gold 100 is pretty grainy when compared to newer emulsions. It's not a bad film, but if you want really fine grain from a slow color neg film, try Fuji Superia-Reala 100.

[ilkka_nissila]

I also think Gold 100 is fairly grainy, and of course this isn't helped by scanning on a flatbed. A worthwhile choice is Kodak's 100UC - much finer grain. Reala is also very good if you prefer its colours (I don't like them).

 

Underexposure, flatbed scanning, a relatively grainy negative film, these are all potential reasons.