Digital BW, The Print

Now this subject is starting to come back to me.

Color negative film should actually have less inherent grain than color
transparency film.  This because neg. film is a single process (development) and
transparency film is really double processed.  It starts off as a negative and
then it is 'reversed' (which is why they call it 'reversal' film) chemically.

BTW:  The original reversal films had to be flashed with light to reverse them
before 'redevelopment'.

So...It is definitely something odd in the algorithms that is causing scanners
to show more grain in color neg. film as compared to color transparency film.

Also, the neg. film should have a much longer tonal range (more information)
than reversal film.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Alessandro Pardi wrote:

>  Harvey,
>
> I never thought (or heard) about it but it makes a lot of sense. The lower
> Dmax in neg. film, also, makes it necessary to increase contrast, to get
> acceptable images, therefore emphasizing grain. I have to say, though, that
> I get excellent results with Portra400BW with respect to grain...
>
> Alessandro Pardi
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> As I recall, form the scanner lists, in general, color neg. films on all
> scanners appear grainier than transparency films because of  the algorithms
> used
> to get rid of the orange mask.
>
> <snip>
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
>
> Todd Flashner wrote:
>
> >  Any Idea why that is? I mean in conventional photography I don't notice
> > C-prints as being much more (any more?) grainy than R-prints or Cibas. Why
> > do PMT scanners record neg film as so much more grainy than chromes?
> >
> > Todd
> >
> > > Todd,
> > >
> > > I don't shoot 35mm so I can not really opine on the grain of a 35mm
> scan. I
> >  >  so shoot 120 and 4x5 and scan T-Max 100 and Fuji Astia regularly. I
> have scanned
> > > Kodak Portra Neg film with good results, but obviously negative films is
> > > granier than transparency film.
> > >
> > > Mike
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]