Camerosity wrote:
Here's what another Kodak publication that applies strictly to black-and-white films says on the subject:

"Large, even-toned areas in the mid-tones of a photograph will appear more grainy than dark- or light-toned areas or areas that include fine detail.”
- Kodak Professional Black-and White Films, Pub. F-5 (1984), Page 33

Do you have a link? I'd love to read it.

Hector Fernandez wrote:
Digital...I knew it hahahahahaa.

Yes you were, but probably for the wrong reason.As Kaouthia  stated those artifacts on the nose are a result of jpeg compression and are not present on the full res in any shape or form. They could have just as easily been present in a scanned negative/photo after linking on here via flickr.

Leggy Mountbatten wrote:
Actually, that bokeh looks just like one of those old 55's. Those lenses had terrible bokeh, and this image does (look at the double-line bokeh in the upper left).

Of course it does, thats what it is. I was alluding to another false argument earlier that suggested the bokeh was to modern for it to be  film.

Terrible bokeh? Nah not to me. Its a classic lens in build and rendering and only £10 too!

Camerosity wrote:
Here's what another Kodak publication that applies strictly to black-and-white films says on the subject:

"Large, even-toned areas in the mid-tones of a photograph will appear more grainy than dark- or light-toned areas or areas that include fine detail.”
- Kodak Professional Black-and White Films, Pub. F-5 (1984), Page 33

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Do you have a link? I'd love to read it.

Not to the complete publication. It is excerpted on Page 9 of this web site:

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic … lution.pdf

I used to have the book, but I'm sure it was an earlier edition. If I still have it, it's in a box somewhere in the basement.