Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Burn some Portra 400 @ 320. Beautiful film.

Paulco2 Loc: Gettysburg PA

At least with the technology available in the film heyday, higher ISO sensitivity was achieved with larger silver halide bundles (the light sensor of film). Thus, as stated above, higher ISO films naturally have more grain. Think of these silver halide bundles as pixels in the digital world, the bigger the pixel, the more grain will appear in the picture.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Was the print in question cropped . If so grain(noise) might be apparent. I used to shoot Panatomic X pushed 4 stops (32ASA developed at 400), Souped in Diafine. I have 11X14 grainless (to the naked eye) prints

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

The higher the ISO, usually the higher the grain.

Did you try changing The ISO to lower setting to see if grain goes away?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

What film are you using? Color or B&W? Is it push processed to ISO 800?

ELNikkor

800 film is grainier than digital images on my D750 at ISO 800. If you want to shoot film with less grain, shoot 200 or 400 and over-expose 1/3 stop.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The F5 is an old film camera, so you used film! ISO 800 film is grainy. You’re looking at clumps of silver if it is B&W, or dye clouds formed around clumps of silver if it’s color.

Sometimes you can “push” ISO 400 film (underexpose to a higher “ISO” or truly, exposure index) from 400 to 800 with less grain than ISO 800 native film.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

ORWO = brand. http://www.orwona.com

ORTHO is any film that cannot see red light (such as litho films we used decades ago).

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I just looked at B&H website to see what ISO/ASA 800 films are available. All I see are color negative films: Cinestill (tungsten balanced), Kodak Portra (daylight) and Lomography (daylight).

Maybe I missed something, but I see no black and white film faster than ISO/ASA 400, so am guessing the "ISO 800" film you shot was color neg and you had to send it out for machine processing. All three of the above films use commonly avail. C-41 process, which is impractical to do at home or even in a fairly advanced personal darkroom. With C-41 film you are at the mercy of the people doing the developing: Are the chemicals in the machine fresh? Are they using the correct or optimal processing settings for the particular film?

When I shot film I developed my own B&W and used three films almost exclusively:
- Fuji Acros (ISO/ASA 100)
- Kodak Tri-X (ISO/ASA 400)
- Ilford HP5 (ISO/ASA 400)

The last two I push processed to ISO 800 at times, even to ISO 1600 occasionally. They get grainy, but that's often part of the beauty of the images made with them. Some developer chemistry can be used to minimize grain.

Prior to Fuji Acros (wonderfully rich film), I used Kodak 32 and 25 ASA B&W films when I was looking for minimum grain. But once Acros came available with equally fine grain at ASA 100, I switched to it.

Frankly, it's been so many years now since I processed any, I forget what developing chemistry I used with the various B&W films. I know I used different ones depending upon whether I was pushing a film or not, or when I was going for a particular "look" in the negatives.

If I were shooting B&W today, I'd want to be able to scan it to be able to work the images digitally and do my own prints via an inkjet (i.e., without a darkroom). To do that I'd use "chromogenic" B&W film, which isn't practical to develop yourself, uses the same C-41 machine processing as most color neg film. Usually what comes back from the processor is rather low contrast, but it scans much better than traditional silver halide B&W film. I'm aware of only one chromogenic film being offered in 35mm today: Ilford HP2.

With color I preferred to shoot slides (aka "transparencies"):

- Fuji Velvia 50
- Fuji Velvia 100
- Kodak Ektachrome 100VS
- Kodak Ektachrome 200

I think all the above are E-6 process, which can be sent out for development but is also possible to do at home with fairly advanced darkroom equipment. I did some of that, particularly with medium format and large format film I had trouble getting done by a lab with less than a 2 week turn-around time. As I recall, temperature control and timing were really critical, had to be much more closely controlled than with B&W film negative (except for chromogenic/C-41 B&W).

I experimented with several ISO/ASA 400 slide films but was never happy with the results.

When I needed ISO/ASA 400 I switched to color neg film. The color neg films I used were mostly:

- Kodak Portra 160
- Kodak Portra 400
- Fuji Superia 400

I think all of those are C-41 processed.

I occasionally used some specialized films such as infrared (both color and B&W). I see a lot of special effects films available now, which look like they might be fun to experiment with: Lomo, Kono, Revolog, Rollei and more.

Some film today didn't exist years ago, so I never experimented with it and don't know its qualities. Likewise, some of the film I used back in the Dark Ages is no longer made. I'm not sure which of the above are available and which are not. I didn't list some I know are no longer made, such as Kodachrome 64.

Shooting film can really make you appreciate the versatility of digital! If we wanted a certain "look", we had to select a film that would give it and/or process the film a certain way. And, once chosen you had to shoot the entire roll that way. For example, if you planned to "push" one image, you had to push all the images on the roll. We had to use a lot more filters, too... color correction, color conversion, warming, cooling, and many more. Today you can do all that with a digital camera's white balance setting, plus can change WB, ISO, etc. from shot to shot, if you wish.

Have fun!

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

FYI, per the "experts" on the saying above, "Expose for... ." Not "experts" on this site. For digital, which is more similar to slides, the saying should be, "Expose for the highlights, develop for the shadows." So, for digital it is opposite of film and the same as slides.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Send me your E mail address. I’ll send you the high res file of the attached image. Shot on 35mm Portra 400 @ 320 with no post processing. Almost grainless.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

Processing is a factor in grain. Kodak used to have a b&w developer, Microdol-X, which gave finer grain than the "ordinary" stuff, like D-76.
I'm not really up on all the chemicals available now. Look for yourself to see what processing options there are for you to do yourself or have a lab do.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

ISO 800 and I believe it was Fuji who introduced a roll of film with that speed in the 80's was very acceptable at the time when ISO 400 was pretty grainy. Even for medium format the grain was apparent. I remember looking at many enlargements from that film that I found very acceptable at the time but objectionable during these digital times. The first enlargements I saw at that ISO speed with digital blew my head. Grain was practically imperceptible and that was a few years ago.

If you are going to be using film get the idea that at ISO 400 grain could be an objection. For best results use a denoise program. If using b&w film cutting down the development improves the grain performance.

Photocraig

Hi Burgee,
I shot film from the 50's to 2015. But across the board, even in Digital, the best way to get grainy shots is to UNDEREXPOSE the shot in the first place. Higher ISO/ASA film is by definition grainy. But properly exposed, perhaps 1/3-1/2 stop over exposed, should yield good results.

Each film emulsion is different. What film are you using? Are you sure you're seeing grain?? Often grungy prints are the products of old chemistry and sloppy processing and printing. If you're into film, I suggest getting a tank and developing yourself to get control of the process--yup, get a GOOD thermometer, too. OR, find a good film processor and spend the money for good professional grade results.

Post a scanned image, folks here can help.
Welcome,
C

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I used Kodacolor 800 a few times at the end of the film era. I did not notice grain, but I had the lab produce 6"x4" prints and I looked at the scene at once {not at an individual spot with a magnifying glass}. Standards have changed in the last ten years, with people wanting photos that have both ISO higher than we had then and are sharper than even ISO 100 film delivered then.