>>4239139Let me help you more.
"Noise in the shadows" of a neg scan is in the brighter parts of the camera capture, ie: the part with the best signal to noise ratio. It's present on the film, and the contrast curve I've used to get to the final edit has made it more visible in that area. I'm quite sure that a good third of the histogram of the original scan has gone missing to get to this edit. That's ok because that's what I wanted, and I can't be fucked to plug in a hard drive and try to find a raw from 2016 to amuse you.
I obviously no longer use a 550D to digitise my film, but old mate Dick Lawson does so I was trying to give him some advice couched as an insult, as is custom on basketweaving chat rooms.
The real point is that even that camera can resolve grain on 35mm film when used correctly. We're talking about resolution, not colour. The reason this has devolved into a bicker about grain vs noise is that you don't seem to understand the difference. And you don't understand the difference because you don't see it in your scans, because you either don't resolve it, or you use lab scans that smear it away.
Film looks the way it does because the representation of any colour is literally a mosaic of the colours available in the film base. I'm trying to show that to you here
>>4239135When you edit for contrast in a darker area, or a less exposed piece of film, then you see more colour "noise" because the Signal to Noise Ratio is lower on the capture medium in that area, and adding contrast will amplify it. That's why over-exposing colour neg looks good.
>>4239045You failed btw, I'm the A7R guy as well, and you selected a bunch of others that are either medium/large format or potato resolution.
You still haven't posted any of your own great scans either.