BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: To Be Categorized

Grainy?

To love this question, log in above
April 28, 2001

Any chance you can upload a scan of your photos? We can tell lots more by seeing rather than reading.

Here are the things that make photos grainy. Someone might be able to add more, but here are the most common.

1) Large nitrate grains on the original film (Not the case in the FUji 200 you use) This happens more on faster films as well as films intentionally designed that way (for artistic effects)

2) Underexposure. Exposing poorly means that compensation has to be applied during printing, and that makes the photo greyish and grainy.

3) Overexposure. Once again, compensation needs to be doing during printing, but most likely, the photo will be whitish.

4) Poor processing. I don't know the exact reason behind it, but I do know that a professional 3 day lab is much better than the 1 hour labs. For example Colour Control Centre in Sydney actually hand develop your photos, adjusting each one if exposure or colour balance is poor, and the resolving power of their equipment is incredible. Photos are crystal sharp with no grain (Admittedly, I was also using 100 speed film)

If I've missed any, someone please feel free to add.

Regards,

Ken.

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2001

To love this comment, log in above
April 28, 2001

I looked up the specs on the EOS IX Lite. The built-in flash has a woefully low Guide Number of 32 (ISO 100 film, in feet). Converting to ISO 200, this is a GN of about 46, still woefully low for your lens speed (f/4.5~5.6). Theoretically, at maximum possible flash output with your film speed (ISO 200) and the widest lens opening of your lens, the maximum range for the flash is 8-10 feet. (8 feet at 55mm [f/5.6] and 10 feet at 22mm [f/4.5].) I suspect your problem is the very weak built-in flash . . . especially if you are using the "red-eye" feature which may dissipate some of its capacity before firing for the exposure.

Try an external flash that puts out a lot more light. Your EOS IX Lite is made to use the Canon Speedlite 220EX or 380EX. Compared to the built-in flash GN of 32, the 220EX has a GN of 72 and the 380EX a GN of about 125 giving you a much greater flash range. The flash tube in an external will also be farther away from your lens, greatly reducing red-eye risk.

As an aside, I'm disappointed built-in integral SLR flashes are so horribly weak (not just Canon, but Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, etc.). You're not alone in this problem. The reason for these weak flashes is preventing unacceptably high battery consumption because they run off of the camera batteries. External ones for a "hot shoe" run off their own cells, usually "AA" size. I wouldn't use a flash with a GN less than 66 or 67 (ISO 100 in feet) and prefer those with a GN rating of 110-150.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
April 29, 2001

What if you're going for a photo that has a lot of black w/just a few highlights? Or is really burned out (overexposed). Is the compensation that makes it grainy/white really made during PRINTING, or is it in developing? Meaning will the negative be fine so you can take to a special shop to have printed so its not grainy?
Thanks

To love this comment, log in above
April 29, 2001

	Indianapolis Canal Walk by Night Mamiya M645; 80mm f/2.8 Sekkor C; f/2.8 @ 1/2 second; Kodak Portra 160VC John A. Lind

The answer to this gets a little technical about film emulsions, so here goes . . .

First, a caveat:
The graininess you mention applies to negative films, not to transparency or slide films. Severe underexposure . . . or very, very dark subject material leaves negatives very "thin," meaning they're nearly clear.

It's not caused by film developing if it was done properly. The film developer cannot tell before developing the film what's on it. Therefore, the developer will assume it's properly exposed unless you tell them otherwise (pushed or pulled) and they can compensate in processing for it. Very few consumer labs, if any, can handle developing pushed or pulled films. Most would not even know what you're talking about!

The "grainy" effect is often caused by both the film and the print. Film emulsions have grains of different sizes. The larger grains react to light faster. Thus, if severe underexposure occurs, only the very largest of the emulsion grains on the film reacted. Thus, a part of the graininess occured when you made the photograph on the film.

A print is a photograph of the film image. It's much like film with an emulsion and an opaque paper backing. Automated consumer print machines assume properly exposed negatives that average to about 18% gray and will try to make a print that averages to about 18% gray. [18% gray is what humans perceive as half-way between white and black.]

When an automated consumer print processing machine encounters a badly underexposed negative that's nearly clear, it will still try to make a print averaging 18% gray. To do so, it has to expose the negative print paper for a much shorter time than it would with a negative that does average 18% gray. The same thing occurs as did in underexposing the negative film. Only the very largest grains in the print emulsion had a chance to react to the light. This makes the graininess even worse.

Footnote (you mentioned very dark subject material):
I've done night city-scapes of buildings at a distance. They produce extremely thin negatives, just as a severe underexposure would. Properly printed, they're very dark images with tiny points of light. There is also none of the graininess. Very few automated consumer print processors (if any) can print negatives like these correctly. Nearly all pro labs use much more sophisticated analyzers, even for their "machine prints." They will typically do a much better job of printing these night city-scapes by looking for the few highlights and shadows, not just the average . . . making the large regions black that should be black. I'm uploading one of the night city-scapes that was properly printed. The scan does not do it justice . . . you can see the larger objects such as desks and doors in people's offices through the very tiny windows! You wouldn't get that detail if it were grainy.

-- John

To love this comment, log in above
April 30, 2001