Shel,
--- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmmm .... rereading my post I can see that I should have
chosen
> my words more carefully. Perhaps "mask" was not the best
choice.
> Mitigate, reduce, soften, temper, obscure, veil, might have
been
> better choices. In any case, I'd ~think~ that the sharpness of
> the grain as appearing on a final print would be reduced. A
poor
> quality lens has poor micro contrast, lower acutance,
sometimes
> softer focus in corners or at edges, and so on. All of these
> things could easily effect what the eye perceives. ...
I disagree completely. No camera lens can make any difference
whatever in the appearance of the grain from a film negative.
Only processing can make a difference. An empirical proof is the
very existence of grain focusing devices ... The theory upon
which they operate is that when the grain is in focus, the
negative is as sharp as it can get. Which makes perfect sense
since when you're focusing the grain of an image, you're
focusing based on the gelatin-silver emulsion, not the
appearance of sharpness of the image formed by the lens.
> ... If a poor
> quality enlarging lens can soften photographic print, why not
the
> same with a poor quality taking lens.
A soft enlarging lens will soften both grain and image detail
equally, but can't effect the quality of grain on the negative.
A soft taking lens will affect the image quality but not the
quality of the grain itself. Only development and handling will
do that.
Developing chemistry with a high content of anhydrous sodium
sulfite will erode the edges of the silver grains, costing
apparent sharpness and softening the appearance of grain.
Similarly, underexposure combined with heavy agitation and high
temperature development, fast shifts in emulsion temperature
while developing, will increase grain clumping, causing it to
become more prominent.
Godfrey
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
