James Markus wrote:
Jim, Film grain depends on a number of factors.
Thanks for the description. I did scan with my Z5ii and a 90mm Tarmon 1:1 macro, saved both jpg and raw (NEF) files. I used that lens for all the old slides I've posted and never thought they had a problem. Then again, I don't think I could have gotten good film pics from that distance with my 200mm in the old days. At first I tried inverting the raw files, found them harder to work with and wasn't sure I liked what I saw without major manual manipulation. So I went to the jpg's the way I did with the previous roll. But I should try re-scanning them with different camera settings in case that makes a difference. The raw files were darker and converted to a different color balance than the jpg's.
For the nesting herons shots that I didn't like the herons were 150 to 200 yards away. The same pics with the Z5ii and even a Canon videocam with 1200 pixel horizontal resolution captured more detail. But its still a looong shot.
Of course I have no control over the developing other than the choice of lab. I would have thought my local Hunts would be pretty good.
It's an interesting game. The Z5ii sure makes it easy, makes me wonder why I'm bothering with film except for the challenge and the fun of it.
Addendum: You are telling me to embrace the grain. I told my sweetie to embrace her mistakes. She gave me a hug. Well, I suppose grain is an element of the artistic experience. Or I could apply smoothing early in the editing. Or I could decide that super-long-distance film shots with the 300mm is pushing the limits, which I was I expected before I tried it.
Well, I suppose grain is an element of the artistic experience. Or I could apply smoothing early in the editing. Or I could decide that super-long-distance film shots with the 300mm is pushing the limits, which I was I expected before I tried it.