Fujinon lenses - grain difference

[uncommonfaces]

Hello,

New to the forum and new to LF. I hope I won't ask too many stupid questions, but here goes...

I'm in the process of comparing lenses, looking for the right focal length and specifically, glass that sings in scans. I'm currently comparing a Fujinon W 105mm (multi coated) and a Fujinon W 125mm (single).

- The 105mm, aside from minimal coverage/soft corners, is working really well when scanning, for its acutance and what I feel is a very clean optical character.

- The 125mm is sharper and much better corner to corner, but quite noticeably, results in more visible grain. This is definitely the case in the negs through a loupe as well as scans. I've made exposures of the same scene with both lenses and developed the negs in the same session, temperature/time.

- Film is Delta 100 in ID-11, 1:1.

I can't see anything online about this, but I'm wondering if the different coatings are resulting in more visible grain. Is this a completely mad idea? Or perhaps it's just the difference in focal length, but I have made sure the field of view is close in comparison exposures.

I've been shooting MF for years and don't recall seeing this with different lenses in either darkroom prints or scans.

[Havoc]

Strange, I would expect grain to be a function of exposure and development (with the same film) but I'm only a beginner so I'm curious what the experts will have to say.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I've made exposures of the same scene with both lenses and developed the negs in the same session, temperature/time.

Did you process both films in the same tank together? Were the films of the same lot number?

[alberto_zh]

I also would expect grain to be function of the film and developer, plus the development process. Did you change anything of these three variable? Is manually agitated or rotary processed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luis-F-S]

Is this a completely mad idea? Or perhaps it's just the difference in focal length, but I have made sure the field of view is close in comparison exposures.

Yes, the coating may affect contrast but not grain. Most of the lenses I use are single coated. L

[koraks]

Lenses and grain have nothing to do with each other. If one lens gives more contrast than another, the low contrast lens may appear to emphasize grain in a side by side comparison as the overall contrast is lower, which needs to be corrected in post processing. Particularly when scanning, such a correction may creep into the work flow unnoticed.

You never really know what you've got unless you print optically. But that's just my humble opinion.

[Pere Casals]

I'm wondering if the different coatings are resulting in more visible grain.


First is that you can post well scanned image crops to better show the issue.




I think in two possibilities:


1) Exposure. A mechanical LF shutter when was brand new had a +/- 30% tolerance, this is marked 1/30 can be actually 1/20 or 1/40, so from one shutter to another one it can be a full exposure stop difference. If the shutter is old then the difference can be greater.

Here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/28286548926/in/dateposted-public/) you can see that a film can deliver more or less grain in darker or lighter areas, for example TXP delivers more grain in the darks while hp5 delivers more in the mids. If you change the exposure this can end in a change in the grain of a particular area. This is about grain structure of the film vs shutter accuracy.

Use a shutter tester ($15 to $90) to measure your shutter speed, this is a requisite to nail LF exposures and to know when you have to fix your shutter.


2) Microcontrast. Grain is way less perceived in areas of the scene that have fine and contrasty detail, while it is shown better in smooth areas, like a washed down sky, or out of focus areas.

In certain conditions (sun in the scene...) a single coated lens delivers slightly less contrast than an MC, with less contrast grain is better perceived.

This is IMHO...


There is a 3rd possibility not related to the lens, this is development, as you know a higher time, temperature or dilution have an impact in the grain.

[Doremus Scudder]

I concur with the above. Grain is inherent in the film and affected by development. Grain is more apparent in denser areas of the negative up to a point. With optical prints, dark mid-tones seem to exhibit the most grain. Your lenses are not going to change the graininess of the film.

Lenses do render images with different contrast, which can make grain more or less apparent depending on a number of factors. I imagine this is what you are seeing.

Bottom line: look elsewhere for the cause of your graininess problem. FWIW, I have a hard time imagining that a 100 ISO large-format film developed in a fine-grain developer like ID-11 should exhibit noticeable grain until the enlargement was rather large. There are other things that look like grain (e.g., micro-reticulation) caused by inadequate temperature control during processing that could be your problem as well. Or a scanning artifact?

Best,

Doremus

[David Lobato]

“Grain” will result from an badly underexposed negative and scanned or printed to a normal look. The shutter on one of your lenses could be a bit short on exposure times.

[koraks]

“Grain” will result from an badly underexposed negative
Or gross overexposure.
Or excessive development.
Or boosting contrast during post processing/printing (digital or darkroom).
His shutter may be short, it may be long, it may not be the shutter at all and be related to (post) processing - who knows?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Enough of incidental OT knowledge dumps. Back to scientific metrics, please. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146814-Fujinon-lenses-grain-difference&p=1451273&viewfull=1#post1451273)

[Havoc]

Enough of incidental OT knowledge dumps. Back to scientific metrics, please. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146814-Fujinon-lenses-grain-difference&p=1451273&viewfull=1#post1451273)

Then the best would be:
- to know 100% sure the exposure was identical for both negatives (we know they were developed together)
- put them next to each other and scan in a single go, all auto adjustments of the scan software disabled
- 100% crop of the same area

[Tobias Key]

Different lenses can't increase the granualarity of film. I have a 125mm Fujinon, but the NW version. It's an excellent lens, single coating shouldn't make much of a difference. Obviously something is going on, but without knowing what your workflow is or how you've tested the lenses, and not seeing examples or notes, no-one can give you an answer.

[LabRat]

Grain is an important building block of film images, but the big differences are size of the clumps we can see, the contrast between grain and non-grain areas, do they block up and bridge to the surrounding clumps, and how sharp are the edges of the clumps (acutance)... These set-up what perceive visually, and alter the effect of the image we see...

Not a huge difference between enl lenses in terms of projecting the grain "mask" to the paper evenly, but the lens can affect the visual parameters listed above, giving bias or rejection to the different effects...

Good lenses faithfully reproduce what the conditions above on the negative are, some will balance sharpness and graduation better than other ultra sharp (but colder/harder/contrasty) or a flatter longer scale (that may appear mushier/softer)... Your choice of enl lens can trim this effect slightly...

You get an idea of the type of images you produce, and what works with them... And how you expose/develop/print your materials will send the tonality somewhere you like or dislike...

Steve K

[Jac@stafford.net]

(we know they were developed together)


Not yet. We do not.

LabRat: the OP observed grain via a loupe, not an enlarger projection.

[uncommonfaces]

Thanks all so far,

@ Pere, your suggestion re. shutter speed tolerances/age got me thinking. I've only been shooting these tests in bulb mode, as I'm only getting out early evening or indoors atm. All seems ok at 1 sec up, but will do some testing here too.

I'm conscious of course that only film, exposure and development affect actual grain size. And also that the play between noise and grain in scans makes assessing the digital file in isolation dubious. I'm definitely seeing more visible grain in the 125mm negs on a light box over the 105mm however. The comparison scans below "scale" to what I'm seeing in that sense.

Following the suggestions on contrast, Pere again specifically, the visibility of inherent film grain might be affected by the different resolutions, micro contrast/acutance of each lens? The 125mm clearly has more resolving power and acutance, so maybe the visible grain here is a byproduct? If so, could that indeed lead back to the coatings? Maybe an EBC version of the 125 would be similar to the 105mm (which I think I prefer scan-wise below)?

These are all 100% crops from the respective 4800 dpi neg scans. The 125mm neg was done in fresh developer (tray), the 105mm the morning after in same soup.

180016

[uncommonfaces]

Damn, it's downscaled the image so not very clear.

[Pere Casals]

Damn, it's downscaled the image so not very clear.

For big images, you can upload the image to archive.org or flickr, then use the "From URL" tab and uncheck "Retrieve remote file and reference locally".

[uncommonfaces]

Full size image:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GFHjj2rq2f8/WzlPaNLdPzI/AAAAAAAAA4E/a9YqKfAdZD0wu32LijScU5lZvuvT06IywCLcBGAs/s1600/Fujinons.jpg

[Jac@stafford.net]

So in the final 'analysis' you are really comparing scan output. No? Of course your loupe observations cannot be shown on the 'net so they should be disregarded as impressionistic.

Scanners have their own algorithms for rendering and they are opaque and not subject to proper analysis.

Get over it.

[Pere Casals]

film grain might be affected by the different resolutions, micro contrast/acutance of each lens?

Please see this image: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kesakurpitsa/16654032390/in/dateposted/

You have the front side of the couch in focus and the back side out of focus.

As microcontrast disapears (in the back) grain is perceived, but even this pushed (MF) TX doesn't show grain in the front side of the couch, because microcontrast hides it.

But IMHO the difference in grain of the 105 vs 125 because that should be quite small. An uncoated lens (rather than single coated) should better a difference, IMHO.

The most important factor is if the area has microcontrast or not, and the exposure. In next image you can see in the car different grain depending on the shade of grey, so exposure also modifies the grain in each area:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7486/28114869295_bd8576812b_k.jpg

[uncommonfaces]

Thanks Pere, I see what you are saying. Given it is Delta 100 however at full DoF, I feel this isn't quite what I'm seeing.

I've seen it in all my negs from this lens so far in different scenes and with different scans, which if not direct comparison tests, there is at least of course crossover in densities with exposures made with the 105mm (from which I've not yet seen this in any local area of the negs). Maybe, somehow, all my negs with the 125 so far have been improperly developed and/or scanned and I need to start from development stage again, more methodically.

Here is another example. On the left is the 105mm, boosted with curves to the tonality of the 125mm on the right. Note the bright blurred leaf towards centre of right image, compared with the bright blurred leaves on the left.

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z2OrcFUkxL8/WzlfKcwgL6I/AAAAAAAAA4Q/n9nMdezPpBgDGcbPaudX4mc2056XwxYSACLcBGAs/s1600/Fujinons-2.jpg

[Jac@stafford.net]

If a genuine scientist were to critique your process it would fail miserably. Best to just let go.

[Peter De Smidt]

I just looked at the first comparison. In that one, the image from the 125 has higher contrast. Perhaps that exposure was more on the straight line of the curve than the toe. Have you checked your actual shutter speeds?

[Pere Casals]

I need to start from development stage again, more methodically.

Making accurate tests is a nice way to learn, at least it is my view. When one has technical issues solved it is easy to focus on the subject and on the art, operating the camera and processing with confidence allows for that.

If you don't have a shutter tester you can make a DIY attachment to place a DSLR (without lens) in the camera back (just an angled plating with a hole in the middle for the tripod mount in the camera), it will take a tiny crop of the real negative but this can be enough to check exposures, aperture scales and other.

To compare different sheets, you can place an Stouffer T2115 transmission density wedge on the scanner an then you scan the wedge alongside with the sheet, so you will have a solid density reference to compare, disable all automatic scanner adjustments for that. This converts the scanner into an amazing densitometer.

[uncommonfaces]

If a genuine scientist were to critique your process it would fail miserably. Best to just let go.

The going rates of "genuine scientists" for this matter might prove uneconomical. But I'm not going to let go yet, Jac!

Rolling back on the extremity and pessimism of your post a tad, I do need to look at this issue a bit more methodically, as I've said.

Thanks for the suggestions all. I will work on the issue and update.

[consummate_fritterer]

The going rates of "genuine scientists" for this matter might prove uneconomical. But I'm not going to let go yet, Jac!

Rolling back on the extremity and pessimism of your post a tad, I do need to look at this issue a bit more methodically, as I've said.

Thanks for the suggestions all. I will work on the issue and update.

I completely understand why you need to prove this for yourself. I'm much the same way. It's not that you don't trust others knowledge. It's that you know information is often perpetually passed as fact when true testing/evaluation is lacking. You're a devout pragmatist. Nothing is 'impossible'... there are many so-called 'facts/truths' which can be disproved. However, in this case I agree with the others. Lenses affect overall sharpness, contrast, microcontrast, etc. The only way a lens can affect film grain is if you adjusted other factor(s) to compensate for one of the other variables.

[Bruce Watson]

- The 105mm, aside from minimal coverage/soft corners, is working really well when scanning, for its acutance and what I feel is a very clean optical character.

- The 125mm is sharper and much better corner to corner, but quite noticeably, results in more visible grain. This is definitely the case in the negs through a loupe as well as scans. I've made exposures of the same scene with both lenses and developed the negs in the same session, temperature/time.

As has been said already, lenses can not effect film graininess in any way.

Except... sharper focus does tend to make the graininess stand out more. The lens can't change graininess, but your use of the lens can make what graininess there is more visible. So it's not the lens, it's your focus technique. And this shouldn't be surprising when you think about it. The lens you say gives you "sharper grain" is the longer focal length, which is easier to focus.

You don't need to believe me. It's easy enough to test this for yourself. Make a few exposures with your 125mm lens -- one with your best attempt at perfect focus, then one that's a touch too far, and one that's a touch too short (really, barely enough to see the difference with a loupe on the GG). Stop down to a reasonable aperture (say f/16 or f/22), making each exposure exactly the same. Develop them together to eliminate any processing differences. Look at them on the light table with your loupe. What do you see?

All that said, the light table / loupe have about zero to do with a print. Unless you're making prints above 10x enlargement from your Delta 100 you shouldn't see any graininess to speak of in the print. And from a 5x4 negative (actual image size is 4.88 x 3.88 inches, or 12.4 x 9.94 cm), that's about a 125 x 100 cm print. Which is huge. Are you really printing that size? If not, this discussion is really pointless, which is one of the reasons to get into LF in the first place.

My advice? Stop worrying about graininess and spend that worry time making more photographs. Practice your focus technique, practice using movements, practice your darkroom technique. The more photographs you make, the better you get at making photographs. This is really true of LF.

[DrTang]

Yes, the coating may affect contrast but not grain. Most of the lenses I use are single coated. L..if contrast if low..maybe the scan software or the user is pumping it up causing it to look 'grainier'

[Jac@stafford.net]

The going rates of "genuine scientists" for this matter might prove uneconomical. But I'm not going to let go yet, Jac! And you should not let go.


Rolling back on the extremity and pessimism of your post a tad, I do need to look at this issue a bit more methodically, as I've said.
I apologize for being terse. What I wrote is similar to what I received during undergraduate criticism which was helpful but not enlightening. Enlightenment is the quality we should pursue, learn with joy, not under duress.

I'm approaching old fart age. Lots to relearn.

Very Best,
Jac

[uncommonfaces]

Except... sharper focus does tend to make the graininess stand out more. The lens can't change graininess, but your use of the lens can make what graininess there is more visible. So it's not the lens, it's your focus technique. And this shouldn't be surprising when you think about it. The lens you say gives you "sharper grain" is the longer focal length, which is easier to focus.

You don't need to believe me. It's easy enough to test this for yourself. Make a few exposures with your 125mm lens -- one with your best attempt at perfect focus, then one that's a touch too far, and one that's a touch too short (really, barely enough to see the difference with a loupe on the GG). Stop down to a reasonable aperture (say f/16 or f/22), making each exposure exactly the same. Develop them together to eliminate any processing differences. Look at them on the light table with your loupe. What do you see?

All that said, the light table / loupe have about zero to do with a print. Unless you're making prints above 10x enlargement from your Delta 100 you shouldn't see any graininess to speak of in the print. And from a 5x4 negative (actual image size is 4.88 x 3.88 inches, or 12.4 x 9.94 cm), that's about a 125 x 100 cm print. Which is huge. Are you really printing that size? If not, this discussion is really pointless, which is one of the reasons to get into LF in the first place.


I think this is certainly about sharpness and resolution after some more assessment. The scans are dealing with this in a less flattering way, counterintuitively. I am yet to scan above 4800, but doing so may average some of the noise out. I'll certainly make more pictures first and of course, concentrate on more important aspects of image making. Definitely don't want to get lost down rabbit holes with this.

Like I say, if it wasn't for the small image circle of the 105mm, the results I'm getting are simply nicer on the whole. I'm probably going to continue looking for a lens that gives me similar results around 120mm, even if this does indeed mean a slightly softer image. I'll also see what happens with the scans shooting at f64 on the 125.

I'm very much of the hybrid mindset BTW, for practical, aesthetic and financial reasons. I absolutely believe optical prints are superior for the record. This may be in my future.

[uncommonfaces]

And you should not let go.

I apologize for being terse. What I wrote is similar to what I received during undergraduate criticism which was helpful but not enlightening. Enlightenment is the quality we should pursue, learn with joy, not under duress.

I'm approaching old fart age. Lots to relearn.

Very Best,
Jac

No problem. I wish I had studied photography at uni - I definitely lack discipline in some ways!

[uncommonfaces]

Making accurate tests is a nice way to learn, at least it is my view. When one has technical issues solved it is easy to focus on the subject and on the art, operating the camera and processing with confidence allows for that.

If you don't have a shutter tester you can make a DIY attachment to place a DSLR (without lens) in the camera back (just an angled plating with a hole in the middle for the tripod mount in the camera), it will take a tiny crop of the real negative but this can be enough to check exposures, aperture scales and other.

To compare different sheets, you can place an Stouffer T2115 transmission density wedge on the scanner an then you scan the wedge alongside with the sheet, so you will have a solid density reference to compare, disable all automatic scanner adjustments for that. This converts the scanner into an amazing densitometer.

That's interesting re. density test, thanks.

For shutter test, what I've done tonight actually is make some audio recordings, which I'll get round to assessing.

[Pere Casals]

If you search ebay for shutter tester you will find a $12 photocell that is conneted to a soundcard or smartphone (there is a version for each), then instead recording sound you record in fact the light pulse with Audacity. This delivers a very accurate measurement.

I modified one to be attached to a (Pico) usb oscilloscope... this is more convenient because the trigger feature in the oscilloscope.
180080

[Jac@stafford.net]

I bow out of this thread with only a few suggestions.

Each film must from the same batch.
Each film must be developed in the same tank.
Each film must be exposed the same (in my modest experience LF shutters vary considerably)

If scanning any automation must be disabled.

Those are only the top requisites. There are more.

Best to all,

[rdeloe]

Like the OP I'm using a hybrid workflow (4x5 film, then digital). However, I'm "camera scanning" instead of using a flat bed or drum scanner.

I've already noticed how some bad habits have carried over from my all-digital experience... With my camera scanning setup I'm creating files from 4x5 negatives that contain vastly more information than I need to print at extremely high quality on my current printing system (which can go up to 17" wide). And yet I was getting anxious about what I could see at 1:1 on my computer screen..... That's a ridiculous amount of magnification for a file that will print very well at more than 2.5x the largest size I can currently print. The general thrust of this thread was "don't sweat it", and I think that's good advice.

Regarding the OP's specific question, I think others have covered the ground well. The only thing I want to add/confirm is that scanning a negative is definitely not the same as optical enlargement. All kinds of other variables come into play that have nothing to do (or little to do) with the characteristics of the film. For example, in my own case, at high magnification of the digital file, I noticed artifacts characteristic of the digital sensor I'm using to "scan" the negatives more than the "grain" of the film. Per the previous paragraph, these "artifacts" don't actually matter in prints (so I don't worry about them).

[Bob Salomon]

I bow out of this thread with only a few suggestions.

Each film must from the same batch.
Each film must be developed in the same tank.
Each film must be exposed the same (in my modest experience LF shutters vary considerably)

If scanning any automation must be disabled.

Those are only the top requisites. There are more.

Best to all,

Same exposure.
Same lighting.
Same development, time, temp, exhaustion!

[uncommonfaces]

Like the OP I'm using a hybrid workflow (4x5 film, then digital). However, I'm "camera scanning" instead of using a flat bed or drum scanner.

I've already noticed how some bad habits have carried over from my all-digital experience... With my camera scanning setup I'm creating files from 4x5 negatives that contain vastly more information than I need to print at extremely high quality on my current printing system (which can go up to 17" wide). And yet I was getting anxious about what I could see at 1:1 on my computer screen..... That's a ridiculous amount of magnification for a file that will print very well at more than 2.5x the largest size I can currently print. The general thrust of this thread was "don't sweat it", and I think that's good advice.

Regarding the OP's specific question, I think others have covered the ground well. The only thing I want to add/confirm is that scanning a negative is definitely not the same as optical enlargement. All kinds of other variables come into play that have nothing to do (or little to do) with the characteristics of the film. For example, in my own case, at high magnification of the digital file, I noticed artifacts characteristic of the digital sensor I'm using to "scan" the negatives more than the "grain" of the film. Per the previous paragraph, these "artifacts" don't actually matter in prints (so I don't worry about them).


I've had a break from LF, but will be continuing shortly.

I agree some artifacts don't translate to print. I know where I'm happy with files on pixel level and have a half decent A3+ printer. Certainly when diffraction is also considered, the scans already blow my prosumer DSLR away in every respect -
apart from noise - which may be something I just work around creatively (e.g. more exposure, brighter scenes, trying to avoid areas of smooth tone as much as possible). Such limitations may in fact shape and focus the aesthetic of my work.

I'll try and come back to the thread soon re. the specific concern raised, which with all the sound theory suggested, hasn't yet led to a practical revelation.

[Willie]

Why not find a good 120 film back and shoot alternate frames with each lens of different subject matter?
You develop the roll and have a direct comparison to check out.
Won't eliminate all variables, but those related to processing will be pretty much taken care of.