My first roll of film.

[jani]

Excellent shots. I normally use Kodak CN400. Virtually no grain and smooth skin tones.

 

[gsgary]

Nice shots, now you know what to do put your digital away they are more pleasing than any i have seen you shoot with your digital, try advertising b+w film only weddings and see what happens you may be very suprised

 

[gsgary]

You should stick with digital...

No he shoudn't digital has no soul

 

[roentarre]

This is what a proud dad would do. It is so good to see her from all angles. Films just give that look of grains. Really great.

 

[Kerbouchard]

You should stick with digital...

No he shoudn't digital has no soul

Whatever

 

[o hey tyler]

I take it that ASA400 is ISO 400? If so I'm kind of surprised. Sensor grain on most DSLRs at ISO 400 seems less than that -- but indeed the 'quality' of the grain in film seems somewhat more pleasing.

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image. Digital noise isn't. Digital noise appears much more prevalently in the shadows, or underexposed areas. Film grain definitely has even more pronounced grain at higher ISO/ASA.

Lots of people agree that film grain has a nostalgic quality to it. I often use a processing setup to emulate film grain in a digital image, and I feel that it does a pretty good job. Actually, Schwetty is the one who turned me on to it. Visual Supply Co (VSCO)

Regular Processing:

VSCO

Regular Processing (crop)

VSCO Crop

It's not exactly like film grain, but I dig it.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I dig it! Like what gsgary said, these have soul to them and feel more sentimental. 2 and 8 are just totally awesome.




Out of curiosity, what lab did you use?

Also..if you're shooting 35mm, try shooting XP2 or BW400CN at ISO 200, it'll scan alot better than real B&W off a minilab. Grainy B&W's like Tri-X or HP5 look really crunchy and dusty in comparison.

 

[gsgary]

Here some real grain 26 years out of date Tri-X 400 developed in Ilfotec, shot with M4 40F1.4

them there is GRAIN 16 years out of date Delta 400 developed in rodinal and over agitated, shot with Zorki 4 50F2

 

[Kerbouchard]

Must be a generation gap.

I think these examples look horrible...but then again, Ansel didn't have that much noise/grain, so perhaps it's not a generation gap and it's just poor photography.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Kerb, if I wanted to shoot a landscape, I probably would have shot it with an ASA100.

 

[Helen B]

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

 

[o hey tyler]

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Okay, we'll it is more evenly distributed than digital noise from a sensor.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome. I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

 

[gsgary]

Must be a generation gap.

I think these examples look horrible...but then again, Ansel didn't have that much noise/grain, so perhaps it's not a generation gap and it's just poor photography.

he probably used 25 asa, i take it you have never shot film

 

[gsgary]

Film grain is evenly distributed throughout an image.

No it isn't. Far from it. The behaviour of silver-image film (image made by light passing between distinct, opaque grain clumps) is different from dye-image film (image made by light passing between but mostly though transparent dye clouds), but both have their own graininess characteristics from shadows to highlights because of the way the image is formed (and each layer of colour film has its own graininess characteristic). This is obvious to those of us who are familiar with film images, and it is also obvious if you look at a density vs granularity graph.

Sometimes I wonder how it would feel to know that a subject that you have spent a lifetime, obviously mastering, is now obsolete.

When I entered the work force, I spent many hours debating upon my path, and decided upon one that could not be outsourced and that technology could not overcome. I often wonder what it looks like from the other side of the looking glass.

I won't argue with your point. Honestly, it was over my head and there are very few times that happens to me.

But whatever it is that you are talking about is so far removed from modern photography that an understanding of it in anything beyond a 'feel' is completely irrelevent.

In this case, Tyler's 'feel' that it is a certain way is just as valid as your facts that it is not.

Most colleges in the UK still teach film, Digital has not been properly accepted for fine art and most is still film