Variation in graininess with the same lens . . .

[j.lukow]

OK my more experienced compadres

I've been shooting heavily with one lens the Tamron CF TeleMacro zoom 80-210 f1:3.8 . . .

I've done aquite a few shots in the garden and first here are the samples . . .
1: A pink miniature columbine . . .

2: a peony

3: clematis blooms (grainy shot)

3B: clematis blooms (good shot)


All the rest of the shots on the roll are clear and not grainy

Now #2 - the print looks less grainy because they brightened it up.

3+3B: same plant, same lens, shot within seconds of each other . . .

Any ideas guys?
Jim

[poilu]

usually the more underexposed is the shot, the more grainy it's get
have you used manual or auto exposure ?

[j.lukow]

With these shots using thge Minolta I run the auto exposure most of the time.

Though I tell you, I don't remember playing with the fstop and the shots were done in the same session.

Jim

[Orio]

Uneven liquid rotations in the development tank?

[Rob Leslie]

I looks to me as if it may be Scanner Noise.
Have you examined the negs on a light table at x8?
Are you scanning at 8 bit 0r 16bit? If 8 bit and you are doing adjustments to levels, colour balance etc you may be introducing noise?
I would always suspect the scanner and PP before anything else.
Which of the Tamron 70-210 f3.8 do you have, the early 03 or latter 103 model?

[j.lukow]

My Epson Perfection 2400 Photo scanner is doing the scans as 48 bit colour images - the graininess appears upon scanning with no adjustments and the other frames are OK
My Tamron is the non SP version (Its not at hand), but most of the other images are shot with that same lens and no problems

Orio - If it was from the processing why would it be only a couple frames that aren't even beside each other?

The though I've been bouncing around in my head was if its an issue with the film. The film is pretty basic stuff - Fuji packaged for the outlet. Now what I'm wondering is - if at the instants these grainy shots show up am I pushing the limits of the film too far? Seems plausible . . .

Jim

[Rob Leslie]

'The graininess appears upon scanning with no adjustments and the other frames are OK'

I have no doubt the problem is your scanning and PP.

[Laurence]

It would seem pretty unlikely that the film would do something like this, Jim.

To me, it looks like "scanner noise", or SOMETHING with the scanning...

I wish I had better ideas here....are you saying that all scans were basically the automated scans with no "human" changes between scans?

Man, I am certainly stumped on this one.

[j.lukow]

[j.lukow]

I forgot something, an admission, I'm a lazy photographer, so I tend to use one ASA of film. This is through "years of satisfactory results" - I was satisfied with the commercial prints so I never "reprocessed" it (via scanning). This ASA is 400, and I also know that current 400 speed film doesn't have the graininess of the past versions.

If this admission has thrown people off, I'm sorry - that is if it has any validity . . .

Jim

[Rob Leslie]

'Auto' will give you different results with 'Successive frames on same strip' the same as a camera will give you different results with the same scene when set to auto.
For consistant results with both always use manual. The user should always be more intelligent or at least have a better idea of what is required than the machine.
Due to your past experience with commercial prints you may never have noticed this or had any cause to worry about it, the lab sorted out the problems.

[j.lukow]

After mulling things over and being the stubborn type a tried a couple things.My problem with the concept of scanner noise is that it doesn't occur that regularly - and its timing is inconsistant. Why did it occur when I tried to tweak out the graininess - and the other frames were clear still?

So . . .

1 - I rescanned the suspect frame . . .
a: The suspect frame as originally scanned and posted . . .



b: the suspect frame rescanned . . .





2: Following Rob's earlier advice I took a closer look at the suspect frame and compared to the others it doesn't look as clear.

Back to the rescan . . .
The original was scanned in professional mode with auto exposure,
The rescan was scanned in full auto mode (as was the one before it - which proves to me that the auto mode gives consistant results but those are very like the photofinishers, so . . .)

I think the lesson learned here for myself is do bring into consideration the film and possibly look into scanning software that allows for film type adjustment!

Jim

[Laurence]

[Rob Leslie]

Well there certainly is a big difference, which does show the problem was the scanning and not the film?

As for the lesson that full auto mode gives consistant results, shouldn't that read inconsistant results?

('The rescan was scanned in full auto mode (as was the one before it - which proves to me that the auto mode gives consistant results but those are very like the photofinishers, so . . .)'

Perhaps the best lesson is never accept that the first or even second or third scan will be the best you can do.

[j.lukow]

[j.lukow]

Well Jules confirmed that the problem is most certainly film oriented.