soooooo... this is film... 400 ISO Ilford b&w... shot using a pentax MZ-M... the noise is killing me... any thoughts as to what is causing this? i would have thought 400 ISO could do a little better?
shot last Saturday when the mist was rampant...
i've cropped this a bit (basically chopped a strip off the bottom) and no other editing... i was debating whether some processing would be appropriate, but in any event, after attempting a few tweaks in LR, i thought it just made things worse...
It does seem a bit noisy for 400, especially in the background. I'd expect some of this from expired film, but I'm thinking maybe processing had more to do with it. Contrasts are really strong, almost too strong, so I suspect it may not have been left in the developer long enough... but that's just a guess.
@grizzlysghost hmm... i tend to have faith in the place i had it developed... i don't think the film was expired, but it had been sitting in the camera for at least a year, i should think (half the exposures from when i last used it, and half from last weekend)...
I'm not sure what you mean by noise, but it is hard for me to see because am on a mobile device. Might be too much grain. Might be how it was scanned. Did you scan or was it done for you? At what DPI was it scanned. Editing can accentuate. I only edit in ColorEfex after removing dust. Sometimes I add a little detail, I use tonal contrast to adjust at low levels or negative levels, and sometimes pro contrast. I don't use silvered ex with film. I usually only make minor corrections. It could also be how it was developed too. I like the misty wintriness. It is actually hard to photograph mist so I think you are doing well.
Don't know about Ilford film, 400 grainy compared to slower film, but the grain here does add some atmosphere to background. Did you use same paper as before?
This looks like it may have been in the developer too long, like way to long. I used to push processing 400 speed film quite a bit which is a process of underexposing the negative and over developing the time which give you high contrast grainy negatives which can work well for some images. The way that I used to do it allowed me to shoot iso 400 two stops faster so it would be like shooting iso 1600. Do all of the negatives on the roll look like this?
@tigerdreamer tx Karen... no - not changing direction... just playing around... there was some film talk on the discussion boards and it reminded me that i had a film camera and i had some film... so i took it with me when i went out on the weekend...
@peterdegraaff@soren@trinda tx for the feedback guys... just to answer some Qs... i turned the film in to be printed at what i am relatively certain is a reputable spot and i had them provide me with a disk (but no prints)... i don't know what they did for scanning other than the detail in the EXIF... i can't really tell much from the negatives... the only editing i did was to crop in lightroom - chopped off a bit from the bottom - but otherwise no zooming in on the shot... all the images on the disk show an appreciable amount of noise (grain) - whether the shot is from over a year ago, or this past weekend...
@tigerdreamer Actually, I defer to Jake's judgement; he's the one with real experience in the dark room (I just dabble). Besides, I'm sure Northy prefers it longer rather than too short... ... ... :p
@nanderson i think it's actually a small museum or something... it's in a park in the middle of west end Toronto - near the pond where i took my mist shots... and yeah, i think closed for the winter...
@northy haha..thanks! I have a 35mm Fujica that will only take mercury batteries which they do not sell in the US...I have checked around quite a bit...any ideas? It is the only model that won't take the new batteries..yay:)
It would be fun to use it!
Can't get digital noise on analog film! Grain on the film? A bad batch of film? If you really must, take the scanned jpeg, the big one, into Lightroom and remove the artifacts. Also, you might want to adjust the sharpness anyway to suit web view. No idea how good (or bad) or flexible your scanner is, and what options for producing a jpeg are. The original file doesn't look very large and who knows what artifacts might have crept in to produce this grain.
@frankhymus tx Frank... actually, i had the processors scan it for me... i did try some clean up work in lightroom, but round the end result less pleasing than just leaving the noise (grain) as is)...
maybe i'll take the negs in and ask for some prints just to see what comes back...
Love the composition and the tone of the photo…I'd have to agree with the others on the development of your film. Ilford 400 is a pretty good film but fast films are grainy to begin with and it's easy to process them incorrectly. But I think your shot works good with the noise in it.
Fascinating to read the thread -- and to see what you are doing with film. Makes me think of college and learning to use a dark room for developing. I will say it's a lot easier in the digital age!
@northy I think you should ask the processors to rescan the negatives. Tell them you are not happy with level of noise. If you get prints, make sure the are done in a darkroom traditionally using developers and not just printed off a scan. When I scan 35mm I usually do it at a minimum of 1600dpi although some people do it much higher. The more dpi, the larger the file, and the more you can blow it up on the computer screen to work with. I work with my scans at a magnification level where I can see the individual film grain if needed. I clone out dust and other artefacts with the brush tip at 3dpi only. I wish could get it smaller.
I like the image as it is ;- from a hard lesson that I've still only partly learnt, - the photographer is often too close to his own image to view it objectively, which is why I sometimes ruin a promising image by playing around with it beyond whatever it actually needed.
hey. nice to see some film. I know what you mean, I'd call it noise too but Frank Hymus says thats just digital?!? I sometimes shoot with 400 ISO and my darker shots are terrible with noise and my better exposed shots perfect and clear, so I wonder if its on the cusp of film-speed for grain between the clearer slower film and the murkier faster film. I like the shot though, although the blackness of the trees detracts the eye from the focal point. Maybe even though they are a good lab they left it floating somewhere too long.
not long enough, too long, Well that was very helpful for Northy. :)
It would be fun to use it!
maybe i'll take the negs in and ask for some prints just to see what comes back...