Brancbūth Posted January 24, 2022 Share #121 Posted January 24, 2022 Advertisement (gone after registration) 18 minutes ago, Doc Henry said: Hi , the silver grain has same size for all films but the picture size is bigger when you change the format from 135mm to 4x5 or 8x10, look at this table below . Digital Phase One IQ 180 digital is far behind and beaten by the film. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Thank you so much for the clarification and the table. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 24, 2022 Posted January 24, 2022 Hi Brancbūth, Take a look here Starter but capable film camera for 2022?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
spydrxx Posted January 24, 2022 Share #122 Posted January 24, 2022 17 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said: I have heard the same, but never really found it to be true, but I have only shot film for about twenty years. Maybe it was more like that in the 80s and 90s? I have certainly heard it repeated a lot. I will grant that Kodachrome was warmer than Fuji slide films, but I did not find that to be the case with e100g and Provia…maybe Fuji was slightly colder? But I would not say it had or has a greenish tone. The little I used Fuji, it seemed to have a more saturated green rather than overall toning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brancbūth Posted January 24, 2022 Share #123 Posted January 24, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, otto.f said: Not that I know; noise is perhaps a bit strange a concept for B&W, but for color film we talk about noise, if the film can't handle dark area's on a clean way, you'll see all kinds pickles in different colors. Every color film will be evaluated on the noise characteristics, read the texts when you want to order one: https://www.fotoimpex.com/films/kodak-500t-color-negative-film-vision3-7219-50-ft-super-8-cartridge.html?cache=1643043448 MF has less visual grain, but also less noise, because you've got a larger surface per detail of the image to carry But "noise" only pertains to the scanning of the film, right? Per your link: "And when scanning low-light scenes, VISION3 500T Color Negative Film yields higher signal-to-noise ratios for unprecedented image quality." This just refers to how the sensor processes low-light information in the scanning process. It's an artifact of the analog ---> digital conversion, but not an inherent quality of the film, if I'm not mistaken. *edit: yeah, I think I'm mistaken. I'm reading about s/n ratio as it pertains to radiology, and it seems quite a bit less nuanced than I thought. Edited January 24, 2022 by Brancbūth Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan2z Posted January 24, 2022 Share #124 Posted January 24, 2022 1 hour ago, aksclix said: Yes, I’ve calibrated my expectations accordingly.. 😌 Some friendly advice : Stay out of this thread for a while or you're going to be overwhelmed with information/opinions. Take your FM2 out for some nice photo walks, shoot some film and enjoy the process. When you see your results you can make adjustments as necessary to hone your technique. If you ultimately aren't satisfied with what you're getting from 35mm, then consider moving to MF. But all of the skills you develop shooting 35mm will transfer directly to MF so you won't be wasting your time. Most importantly, have fun! 7 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted January 24, 2022 Share #125 Posted January 24, 2022 It's always seemed to me that there's more to grain than the grain itself. It happens occasionally here and at other fora that digital photographers post about their disappointment upon seeing their film results. In many if not most cases the films will have been scanned by a lab which invariably leaves a very large amount of the decision-making to people who have no clue about how the photographer wants the image to look. It's a one size fits all approach that in reality fits nobody. In other cases the disappointment is due to the fact that the learning curve that scanning and digitising involves is underestimated. Film will not be as "easy" as digital appears to be. It requires thought during exposure, developing (if one has control over that) and scanning. The grain will obviously be there in film photos, to a greater or lesser extent, and it is often mentioned as that strange thing that gives film photos their special look. But in reality it's only part of the reason. Film photos are obviously at first the result of the meeting of the chemicals with the medium and that's, more broadly, where the 'magic' happens. How much grain will be visible depends on a number of factors, such as film format, how well a particular frame was exposed, the lens used, development, scanning, post-processing and most importantly the film stock used. All of these, and probably other, factors will affect the graininess of the result. There are many things one can do to mitigate grain, should one want to. For instance in post it's possible to almost remove it through clever use of grain and noise reduction tools and by adjusting things like black point and shadows. Certain film scanners are more notorious than others for causing noise in shadow areas of a frame or more generally on under- or poorly exposed frames. Nikon Coolscans for instance. They struggle to produce noise-free shadow areas even on quite well exposed frames and struggle a lot with underexposed film (and take ages to munch through such a frame). The old Minolta scanners were supposedly more capable at handling such films. My Flextight X1 doesn't bat an eye at the densest of C41 or E6 frames, but that's an entirely different category of scanner. Those who use a DSLR to digitise can probably chime in on this too. My experience in this respect is limited since my scanners are still operational. Here are a few examples, in case it helps, to give an indication of how grain and noise might look. These are 100% scans but none was scanned at the scanners' max resolution. They have all been post-processed, incl. sharpened. 120 film Kodak T-Max in HC-110(B) scanned on X1 (approx 4000x4000px) Kodak Ektar 100 scanned on X1 (approx 4000x4000px) Fuji Neopan Acros 100 in HC100E scanned on X1 (approx 2800x2800px) Fuji Provia 100 scanned on X1 (approx 3000x3000px) Fuji Provia 400X (expired) scanned on Coolscan 9000 (wet mount, approx 4000x4000px) 35mm film Fuji Velvia 100 (expired) scanned on Coolscan 9000 (approx 2700x1800px) Fuji Superia 1600 (expired) scanned on Coolscan 9000 (approx 2700x1800px) Fuji Superia 400 at ISO100 scanned on X1 (approx 3900x2600px) Agfa Vista 200 scanned on X1 (approx 2600x3800px) Kodak Gold 200 at ISO400 scanned on Coolscan 9000 (crop of a 2700x1800px frame) Kodak Ektachrome 200 scanned on X1 (approx 4000x2600px) Kodak Portra 400 (35mm) scanned on X1 (approx 3900x2600px) Ilford XP2 Super at ISO400 (35mm) in HC-110 scanned on X1 (approx 1700x2600px) 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted January 25, 2022 Share #126 Posted January 25, 2022 (edited) Hi Philip , excellent demonstration .... and in connection with the grains, the "resolution" of the film Best. Henry https://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital?fbclid=IwAR2gBycUJl9PEbGocM4zpVHFRq2GnBsu8zJFGr-_GH5oiJsZlzwqDyv38SE Edited January 25, 2022 by Doc Henry 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted January 28, 2022 Author Share #127 Posted January 28, 2022 Advertisement (gone after registration) My first crappy film roll is out for developing! hoping it wasn't a disastrous start! Should have the images by Tuesday or so.. 😑 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huss Posted January 29, 2022 Share #128 Posted January 29, 2022 If you want to have some real fun, get a bottle of Cinestill DF96 Monobath and develop B&W film yourself. The name monobath means it is just one liquid that is used for all the steps, and it is reusable - pour it back into the bottle when you're done! It just makes things very simple if you have limited space and/or desire to get into the nitty gritty of film developing. Aaaand, you can shoot/develop/scan your film all in the same day! No waiting for the lab etc. I use it, then scan the film with my digicam. It gives excellent results! Plus costs about $1.50 a roll to develop as the bottle lasts for about 16 rolls. HP5 developed with CInestill DF96: Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 5 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/328815-starter-but-capable-film-camera-for-2022/?do=findComment&comment=4370839'>More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share #129 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) Hmmm… I am into my 4th roll of film now!! I ended up buying a used Pentax 645n as well.. just cuz I had the 120 f/4 I kept from my 645z days.. yet to process anything after my first roll. Will soon find out if film is for me! 😌 I am enjoying the shooting experience BUT this is quite expensive $ wise and ⏱ wise.. I think there’s good ROI if you developed at home.. but $50 per roll of film for (buying + processing 36 or 16 shots) isn’t sustainable for me 😑 I’ll hold on to one of the FM2/645n eventually and then shoot on film occasionally.. hope the results change my mind 😁 Edited February 5, 2022 by aksclix 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan2z Posted February 5, 2022 Share #130 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, aksclix said: but $50 per roll of film for (buying + processing 36 or 16 shots) isn’t sustainable for me 😑 Wow, which film are you shooting and what are you paying for processing?! The lab I used to use to process my film charges $10/roll for 35mm and $9.75/roll for 120. A roll of 35mm Tri-X is currently $10.49 at BH Photo here in the US. So that's $20/roll for the film and processing. If you decide to stick with film, you may want to seriously consider home processing. It's fun and you'll save a ton of money. Edited February 5, 2022 by logan2z 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted February 5, 2022 Share #131 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) If I dev in my home lab , it costs me with the purchases of chemicals, the Paterson tank which have been largely amortized since 10 years, less than 2. 30 USD per Black White roll and a little more for the color , and the work is well done even on Sundays when the labs close.😀 Best Edited February 5, 2022 by Doc Henry 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted February 5, 2022 Share #132 Posted February 5, 2022 8 hours ago, aksclix said: I think there’s good ROI if you developed at home.. but $50 per roll of film for (buying + processing 36 or 16 shots) isn’t sustainable for me And unsustainable for most of us. You aren't having the whole roll printed are you? All you need is a digital contact sheet at most, then choose the good ones for printing, or set your digital camera up for 'scanning' and only have the film processed and returned to you. As others have said doing the processing and scanning at home is the cheapest solution, and the most fun, but I wouldn't find spending $50 per roll fun even if every single photo was great. And of course not every photo will be great, but the experiments are what make for the eventual keeper, a good average would be three or four keepers from a roll of 36, or two or three from MF, if you are able to be critical of your own work. That puts your $50 into perspective. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share #133 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, logan2z said: Wow, which film are you shooting and what are you paying for processing?! The lab I used to use to process my film charges $10/roll for 35mm and $9.75/roll for 120. A roll of 35mm Tri-X is currently $10.49 at BH Photo here in the US. So that's $20/roll for the film and processing. If you decide to stick with film, you may want to seriously consider home processing. It's fun and you'll save a ton of money. Ektar 100 came at $36 for 2 film rolls on Amazon. + $28 for scanned digital copies + $5 for printing on 4x6 (so, 18+33) portra 400 was $15 per roll (so 15+33) portra 400 120 film was $60 for a 5pk $20 for processing this I guess.. (so $32 for 16 shots.. no prints) I am in San Jose, California Edited February 5, 2022 by aksclix Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share #134 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, 250swb said: You aren't having the whole roll printed are you? 4x6 prints were just $5 extra so I ordered this first time.. will not get them printed next time.. 4x6 isn’t too small for me anyway Edited February 5, 2022 by aksclix Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Henry Posted February 5, 2022 Share #135 Posted February 5, 2022 ... more economical in all areas and then what a pleasure to get these prints out while watching the image come out little by little, it's magic ... instead of being in front of his computer with its laser printer software ... and if printer doesn't get blocked ! Best Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! 4 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/328815-starter-but-capable-film-camera-for-2022/?do=findComment&comment=4377053'>More sharing options...
Danner Posted February 5, 2022 Share #136 Posted February 5, 2022 If possible, a home B&W darkroom set-up with enlarger is the way to go for analog photography. Not too expensive and very enjoyable. You have a great deal of control over the final product, and IMHO, nothing looks better than a well produced silver-gelatin print. 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan2z Posted February 5, 2022 Share #137 Posted February 5, 2022 4 hours ago, aksclix said: Ektar 100 came at $36 for 2 film rolls on Amazon. + $28 for scanned digital copies + $5 for printing on 4x6 (so, 18+33) portra 400 was $15 per roll (so 15+33) portra 400 120 film was $60 for a 5pk $20 for processing this I guess.. (so $32 for 16 shots.. no prints) I am in San Jose, California Ahh, yes, the scanning prices are a killer. When I used a lab I chose the process-only option. I scan myself at home with an inexpensive Epson V550 which is good enough for sharing images on social media and for making digital proof sheets. The 'keepers' are printed in my darkroom at home. Switch to home scanning (and processing when you feel comfortable) and you'll save a bundle. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
logan2z Posted February 5, 2022 Share #138 Posted February 5, 2022 4 hours ago, aksclix said: Ektar 100 came at $36 for 2 film rolls on Amazon. It's $16/roll at BH. Not a huge difference but it all adds up. Since you're in the Bay Area, an even better option is Glass Key in San Francisco. They sell Ektar 100 for $11.99 a roll. https://www.glasskeyphoto.com/film35/ektar-100-35mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share #139 Posted February 5, 2022 1 hour ago, logan2z said: inexpensive Epson V550 That’s like $550 how about the Kodak slide n scan? Compact and has great reviews from the looks of it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 5, 2022 Author Share #140 Posted February 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, logan2z said: It's $16/roll at BH. Not a huge difference but it all adds up. Since you're in the Bay Area, an even better option is Glass Key in San Francisco. They sell Ektar 100 for $11.99 a roll. https://www.glasskeyphoto.com/film35/ektar-100-35mm I am 55 miles away from that place .. Edited February 5, 2022 by aksclix Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now