Digital BW, The Print

I'd like to simulate 2475 Recording Film grain with an inkjet.

Any Photoshop or other suggestions?  

I'm envisioning black-only.

Did you try in PS - Filter, Artistic, Grain?
Mark


On Jan 26, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Djon wrote:
> I'd like to simulate 2475 Recording Film grain with an inkjet.
>


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

Mark, thanks!...I just tried, will play some more with it ...but it's
an "effect" rather than film-like grain.
 
2475 was remarkably long-scaled and the grain was very sharp, part of
the image "itself" rather than an "effect." 


Mark Savoia <mark@c...> wrote:
> Did you try in PS - Filter, Artistic, Grain?
> Mark

Might be one of those things you need to do it in combination with 
several other PS techniques. Have fun!
Mark

On Jan 26, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Djon wrote:

>
>  Mark, thanks!...I just tried, will play some more with it ...but it's
>  an "effect" rather than film-like grain.
>
>  2475 was remarkably long-scaled and the grain was very sharp, part of
>  the image "itself" rather than an "effect."
>


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

see identical question posted today in the "digital darkroom" forum on
Photo.net by John Kelly. Or is that you?

BTW, good to see some who remember Kodak 2475. It was quite a great
low light film back in those days. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:

> 
> I'd like to simulate 2475 Recording Film grain with an inkjet.
> 
> Any Photoshop or other suggestions?  
> 
> I'm envisioning black-only.

Hello Djon,

>I'd like to simulate 2475 Recording Film grain with an inkjet.
>Any Photoshop or other suggestions?  
>I'm envisioning black-only.

I don't know what that film looks like, but I tried for a long time to
get the Tri-X look and never could.  There is not only the grain but
also whatever spectral sensitivity the film has.  

My opinion now, after almost 4 years at it, is that a perfect
replication can't be done.  You are exactly right in your other reply
re the grain tool: it's an effect, and not the film grain itself. 
That's all it can ever be, and therefore is unlikely to ever be
completely satisfactory.

On the other hand, once I finally accepted that I couldn't imitate
Tri-X and let go of my attachment to it, I realized that I can still
make beautiful prints, even if they don't match exactly the look of
what I was used to before.  In fact, I found a whole new range of
expression that I was missing because of my rigid adherence to my
Tri-X quest.  It's a whole new world, and I have at this point let go
of the past completely and am fully embracing digital.  I'm almost
done selling all my film gear.

As for BO printing, it has many fine qualities and is used by lots of
people.  Even though I am experimenting with UT7 ink and like it for
certain things, BO still remains my primary technique.  There are some
articles about it at the link below.

So just dive in there and go for it.  Try lots of thing and you'll
learn an enormous amount.  Over time your preferences will evolve and
your own new style will emerge.  It's great.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" 
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> 
> I'd like to simulate 2475 Recording Film grain with an inkjet.
> 
> Any Photoshop or other suggestions?  
> 
> I'm envisioning black-only.

If you are already envisioning black-only, then your best approach 
might be BO with a printer that has relatively coarse droplets, like 
a 7500 or an 1160. As long as the dither pattern is random and 
doesn't show microbanding, printer dots are probably the 
only 'grain' that don't look like an effect-because they're not, 
they are the picture. The problem is that the BO dots remain the 
same density, and film grain doesn't. If you really want it badly 
enough I suppose you could work out a two-ink setup with QTR, so 
that the upper end of the scale is rendered with light gray dots. 
That of course is a lot of trouble to go to unless you're already 
headed in that direction, so I tend to agree with Clayton on the 
subject: better to treat this as a new medium rather than a 
substitute/simulation of the old way, and learn to love and enjoy 
what it has to offer. 

Steve Karafyllakis

So the trivia question is what did the 2475 stand for? I wasn't the ISO
Mark

On Jan 26, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Bob Michaels wrote:
>
>  BTW, good to see some who remember Kodak 2475. It was quite a great
>  low light film back in those days.
>
>  

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

http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml

Just an internal number for Kodak, looks like.

Daniel

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Mark Savoia wrote:

>
> So the trivia question is what did the 2475 stand for? I wasn't the ISO
> Mark
>
> On Jan 26, 2005, at 9:49 PM, Bob Michaels wrote:
> >
> >  BTW, good to see some who remember Kodak 2475. It was quite a great
> >  low light film back in those days.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

That's no fun, I was expecting some great secret :)
Mark

On Jan 27, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Daniel Ridings wrote:

> http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml
>
>  Just an internal number for Kodak, looks like.
>
>  Daniel
>


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

It came in a very industrial looking box, identified as "Kodak 2475
Recording Film" with a suggested iso of 1000. But everyone pushed it.
You just had to believe it was much faster than TriX because of the
huge grain. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@c...> wrote:

> That's no fun, I was expecting some great secret :)
> Mark
> 
> On Jan 27, 2005, at 7:28 AM, Daniel Ridings wrote:
> 
> > http://www.taphilo.com/photo/kodakfilmnumxref.shtml
> >
> >  Just an internal number for Kodak, looks like.
> >
> >  Daniel
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It was very popular in the early Seventies due mostly to the "look"
which boiled down to the grain the incredibly long tonal scale. Many
users rated it at 800 or even 400 to get the effect they were
after...Kodak introduced a bunch of other "recording film" types with
different numbers that were faster and much finer grain (not
interesting looking)...the difference between "recording films" at
3200 and TriX at that speed is that the recording films had all sorts
of latitude at that rating. 

The main use of these films was surveillance (sp?)....as you can
imagine, that's a dead market these days. Photo hobbiests and pros
used only a tiny percentage of what was produced.



In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Michaels"
<bob@b...> wrote:

> 
> It came in a very industrial looking box, identified as "Kodak 2475
> Recording Film" with a suggested iso of 1000. But everyone pushed it.
> You just had to believe it was much faster than TriX because of the
> huge grain. 
> 
> Bob Michaels
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Djon wrote:

>It was very popular in the early Seventies due mostly to the "look"
>which boiled down to the grain the incredibly long tonal scale.
>
I believe that HIE is a version of Kodak 2475 Recording Film. If you 
wanted, you could shoot it without a filter and the effect should be 
pretty close. If you want absolutely huge grain develop it in Rodinal or 
FX-1.  Alternately, try Bergger film and develop in the same developers. 
Giving a one-stop "push" will increase the grain at the cost of shadow 
separation. Once you get the effect that you want, shoot a couple of 
frames of a smooth, even-toned, light object. Scan the film. Now use 
this on a layer over the image you want to use. Fade it to get the look 
that you'd like.

-Peter

Sounds like a plan ! Nice to know there are still people out there who
remember Photography (capital "P")  :-)


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> Djon wrote:
> 
> >It was very popular in the early Seventies due mostly to the "look"
> >which boiled down to the grain the incredibly long tonal scale.
> >
> I believe that HIE is a version of Kodak 2475 Recording Film. If you 
> wanted, you could shoot it without a filter and the effect should be 
> pretty close. If you want absolutely huge grain develop it in
Rodinal or 
> FX-1.  Alternately, try Bergger film and develop in the same
developers. 

> Giving a one-stop "push" will increase the grain at the cost of shadow 
> separation. Once you get the effect that you want, shoot a couple of 
> frames of a smooth, even-toned, light object. Scan the film. Now use 
> this on a layer over the image you want to use. Fade it to get the look 
> that you'd like.
> 
> -Peter

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
> Djon wrote:
> 
> >
> I believe that HIE is a version of Kodak 2475 Recording Film. If 
you 
> wanted, you could shoot it without a filter and the effect should 
be 
> pretty close. If you want absolutely huge grain develop it in 
Rodinal or 


I want to try the technique simulating HIE for my some of my digital 
infra red camera where grain would help the image that is on 
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html, which was intended for 
PS7 (last item on the webpage).  For this I would appreciate someone 
sending me a strip of clear but high grain processed HIE (or other 
Infra red emulsion) on 120 or larger format so that I can try the 
process.  I haven't yet tried the PS8 grain plugin.  Can anyone help 
me with a processed film strip?  

I hope this is also of interest to the original poster.

Thanks,


Colin

i used this film almost exclusively in the 70s--wonderful stuff.  pulled to
200 ISO, and developed in a mixture of HC110 with a follow-up bath of
balanced alkali it produced almost grainless 35mm negatives.  i really miss
it.

kenb

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Michaels [mailto:bob@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:12 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2475 Recording Film grain: how ?
> 
> 
> 
> It came in a very industrial looking box, identified as 
> "Kodak 2475 Recording Film" with a suggested iso of 1000. But 
> everyone pushed it.
> You just had to believe it was much faster than TriX because 
> of the huge grain. 
> 
> Bob Michaels

"...it produced almost grainless 35mm negatives."

Really? Why not just shoot Tech Pan?

Absolutly grainless 16x20"s from a 35mm neg. Has a Micro Omega 
Criticle Grain Focuser, had a he## of a time trying to find grain to 
focus on.

Scott


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Brookner" 
<kenb@b...> wrote:
> 
> 
> i used this film almost exclusively in the 70s--wonderful stuff.  
pulled to
> 200 ISO, and developed in a mixture of HC110 with a follow-up bath 
of
> balanced alkali it produced almost grainless 35mm negatives.  i 
really miss

> it.
> 
> kenb
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob Michaels [mailto:bob@b...] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 5:12 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 2475 Recording Film grain: how ?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It came in a very industrial looking box, identified as 
> > "Kodak 2475 Recording Film" with a suggested iso of 1000. But 
> > everyone pushed it.
> > You just had to believe it was much faster than TriX because 
> > of the huge grain. 
> > 
> > Bob Michaels

i liked the tonal scale with pulled 2475 better than what i got with tech
pan at the time.  the balanced alkali kept the highlights from burning out
and also brought up some detail in the shadows.  to be honest, i didn't
shoot much tech pan since 2475 was a winner for me--i don't remember whether
tech pan had an anti-halation substrate or not, but 2475 didn't and i could
use that for some interesting effects.

so, pure artistic choice...  :)

kenb

____________________

> 
> "...it produced almost grainless 35mm negatives."
> 
> Really? Why not just shoot Tech Pan?
> 
> Absolutly grainless 16x20"s from a 35mm neg. Has a Micro 
> Omega Criticle Grain Focuser, had a he## of a time trying to 
> find grain to focus on.
> 
> Scott