Fujinon lenses - grain difference

[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/kesaku...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:

[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/-Z2OrcFUkx...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