Film speed and grain question

[michael_barnes1]

Greetings,

I have used Kodak Portra 400 and Supra800 pro films and been very

disappointed with the results. I have seen others use fast films and

the images, although not as tack sharp as say an ISO of 50 or 100,

they are very sharp. I expected grain to be visible in my shots, but

not to the extent that I saw. Have I missed something in "film 101

class"? Will I get better shots with different shutter speeds?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Michael

[majid]

Grain and sharpness are not directly related. Black and white film developed in Agfa Rodinal is both very grainy and very sharp. Shutter speed does not have an impact on grain. How your film is developed can have a big influence on grain, although less so for color film as the process is more standardized. You might want to try another lab. And all films at the same ISO rating do not necessarily have the same level of grain. Have a look at <a href="http://creekin.net/films.htm">this table</a>.

[oskar_ojala]

Grain is affected by exposure to the extent that a (very) poorly exposed negative will have some grain problems that a properly exposed one does not exhibit. Grain is also subjective: some strive for perfection, others settle for less.

 

However, you're a bit vague in your description. How about posting an example here of the grain or describe what print size you used and what was the enlarging method. And which Portra did you use, NC?

[EricM]

Fuji NPZ 800.

Shoot @ 500asa, develope N

shoot @ 1250, push 1

 

It's a four layer emulsion that can also be corrected back if shot under tungsten or flouresent.e

[michael_barnes1]

Oskar,

You are correct, my statement was quite vague. Let me try again with specifics.

I shot a wedding anniversary with Kodak Supra800 color print film. The photolab I always use asked me why I shot it with 800 (I also used digital and had no problems). My reply was, I wanted to use available light (high ceilings, chandeliers and candles). I got standard 4x6 prints and the results had grain that I thought to be beyond acceptable. To echo Fazal, grain and sharpness are not directly related, and I mis-spoke when I wrote that. The sharpness was fine, exposure was correct and the colors of the room were exactly as I remember them. The grain simply seemed to be more "coarse". I have seen other photographers use 400, 800 even 1600 in both b&w and color with wonderful results. This led me to believe that I had done something wrong in my exposure, i.e. too long or too short. So my question should have been phrased more along the lines of, "Will exposure times affect graininess?"

I've attached one here not from the wedding but rather from my backyard. I used Portra 400VC and scanned the negative with a Microtek 5900. Other than some cropping, I have not changed this shot.

Do you feel it has too much grain or is this what I should expect?

Thanks for you help.

Michael<div></div>

[r.t. dowling]

Supra 800 (not made anymore) and Portra 800 are not much better than Max 800 in terms of grain. Fuji NPZ, or even Superia XTRA 800, are better choices. In my experience, they provide the best results when rated at 640, i.e. overexposed by 1/3 stop.

 

Portra 400NC has pretty good grain for its speed. Portra 400VC has more noticable grain. Portra 400UC has very fine grain -- possibly the finest grain of any ISO 400 film. Fuji NPH also has very fine grain, perhaps slightly finer than Portra 400NC.

[dan_sapper]

To my eyes, the calla lily picture (scan) looks underexposed. That would lead to more graininess than necessary in the prints. Another thing with the older genration 800 speed films is if it was near/past expiration date, the grain might appear worse than if the film was very fresh.

[majid]

Check your negatives to see if they are underexposed. The printer can compensate somewhat by jacking up the contrast settings, but that usually leads to increased grain in the print and loss of tonal smoothness.

 

For available light photography, I find I usually need ISO 1600 or 3200, and that's with a Leica that I can handhold to a lower shutter speed due to lack of mirror slap. You might have unrealistic expectations of how low you can go with color negative film.

[michael_barnes1]

So if I am understanding correctly, underexposing leads to more grain, therefore correct exposure (or slightly overexposed) along with fresh film will provide results closer to what I am expecting.

 

I will try some more tests and not give up completely on faster films.

 

Thank you all for your help. I trust the experience that you all have.

Michael

[oskar_ojala]

I really can't say about the grain on the lily (since I don't know how big the image is on the negative, full-frame?), but it does look underexposed. Also, I think Portra NC has a bit coarse grain for general photography, the new UC is very fine grained. I haven't used Kodak's professional 800 offerings, but I was satisfied with the grain of Fuji NPZ (note that grain clearly goes up from 400 to 800, my acceptable grain might not be your acceptable grain).

 

Some light meters don't handle low light very well, I have my friend complaining all the time that his camera underexposes in low light. Try to bracket in both directions and see how it turns out.

[andy_piper2]

With color (or any chromogenic) negative film - i.e., those where the final negative image is composed of dye clouds instead of silver crystals - underexposure is the kiss of death as far as grain is concerned.

 

The problem is that, when underexposed, the dye clouds forming from the silver specks during development don't grow large enough to overlap, so you get gaps that print as dark 'grain' speckles. The MORE you expose the film (within limits) the bigger the dye-clouds grow, and the more they blend together, creating a seamless, "grainless" image.

 

In addition you gain color and saturation with more exposure. The 'gaps' between dye clouds don't have any color (dye) associated with them, so they muddy up the colors (like adding monochromatic gray 'noise' to an image in Photoshop).

 

So it is USUALLY best to err on the side of overexposure with any chromogenic negative film - if you must err. If your meter leans towards underexposure, set the meter to a film speed at least a stop slower than 'normal' - and don't meter directly from a white calla lily!

 

Nice big rich dye clouds WILL (like real clouds) reduce edge sharpness a little. Me, I'll take the color, smooth grain, and saturation and live with the tiny loss of resolution.

 

I recently shot a roll of Portra 400UC with an untested meter - which turned out to be 2/3rds of a stop under. The normally beautiful, saturated, grainless Portra became a thin, grainy mess of colored speckles in a gray/brown background.

 

The same principle (absent color/saturation) also applies to chromogenic B&W films: Portra B+W, TMax 400CN, XP2, etc. Exposure should be generous, not stingy.

[EricM]

Andy, thank you!

[bill_tuthill]

Michael, it's possible that your callow lily scan is underexposed,

while the negative could be fine. That grain is about what I'd

expect from Portra 400VC.

 

I've always found 400VC to be far grainier than its official

PGI=48 rating. Back before I switched to Portra 400UC for its

insanely fine grain (like most 100 speeds in sun, better in shadows)

I used Supra 800, officially PGI=50. When bought fresh and properly

exposed at EI 640, I got finer-grain results from it than from 400VC.

In fact I sold several 20x30" enlargements made from Supra 800.

[michael_barnes1]

Andy,

Thank you for that response. You said exactly what I needed to hear.

Regards,

Michael