Ricoh 500 ME film camera with 40mm lens next to a roll of Fomapan 100 black-and-white film.

5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

By Shafiur Rahman

I took these photographs at two very different moments. The first were made on the Norfolk coast. I was very unwell at the time. The trip was meant to get me out of the house, to shift the mood, to interrupt the routine of hospitals and waiting. I carried the Ricoh 500 ME, without much intention beyond getting out of the house.

Then the camera sat. For about eighteen months. When I picked it up again, the battery had corroded inside. The camera meter was effectively dead. I cleaned it out with vinegar, put in a hearing aid battery, and it came back to life. I finished the roll close to home, including a double exposure in a graveyard. It felt appropriate. I was still here.

This is a small rangefinder camera from the early 1970s. Compact, mechanical, modest. A 40mm Rikenon lens, a simple meter, and a reputation for doing one thing particularly well – letting you shoot without overthinking. That includes a handy multi-exposure switch. Hence the name “ME.” It’s not a precision instrument. The film is Fomapan 100. Cheap, widely available, and often dismissed for its grain and inconsistency. That’s precisely why I like it.

These five frames are less about the places they depict and more about what the film is doing to them.

Black-and-white double exposure of a statue with tree branches overlaying the figure, creating a textured, grainy effect.

Almost the final frame on the roll. A statue and branches layered into each other. The grain sits across both exposures and binds them together. Without it, the images would feel separate. With it, they kind of morph into a single surface. It turns a technical trick into something more cohesive and less controlled. In digital photography, a double exposure often looks like two transparent layers in Photoshop. Here, because the grain structure is consistent across the entire frame regardless of the light levels of the two exposures, it creates a “material unity.” The statue doesn’t look like it’s on the branches; they look like they are made of the same crumbling stone.

Black-and-white portrait of a woman standing by a railing in a narrow walkway, with visible grain and strong diagonal lines.

A simple portrait, but the grain interferes with clarity. It holds on the clothing, on the structure of the scene, but begins to break down the face. Not enough to lose it, but enough to resist clean reading. Grain here introduces distance. And my wife says the bags under her eyes are gone…so good job!

Black-and-white image of a woman walking along the shoreline between water and rocks, with her reflection in the waterMy wife moving along the edge between sea and rock. The grain softens the sky and water, keeping them from falling into a flat, empty white. It doesn’t dominate the image, but it stops the space from feeling blank or digital. The photograph is about distance and boundary, and the grain just holds that space together.

Black-and-white image of a woman standing on a beach in front of textured cliffs, with visible grain softening the background.Here the grain does something more aggressive. It breaks the cliff face into texture, into something closer to a drawing or a print than a photograph. Detail is lost, but something else is gained. The background becomes unstable, expressive. It is almost as if it has been painted.

Black-and-white image of pinwheels in buckets by the seaside, with a blurred person walking in the background.A seaside stall. Plastic pinwheels, a passing figure, a familiar scene. This is where grain becomes interference. It sits on top of motion and on top of transparency. It disrupts what should be light and decorative. The pinwheels begin to feel ghosted. The image slips away from straightforward documentation.

What Grain Does

Grain is often treated as a flaw. Something to minimise, to correct, to avoid. But I feel that it can bind images together. It interrupts clarity. It adds weight to empty space. It transforms surfaces. It interferes with movement. It shifts the emotional register of what you are looking at.

These photographs were not made carefully. The roll was interrupted, neglected, and almost lost. The camera itself nearly failed. The photographer also went through the mill. The film is imperfect. That is the point.

Grain is not just a characteristic of the film. It is part of the image-making process. It changes what the photograph becomes. In a world of 100-megapixel sensors and AI sharpening that removes every hint of noise, these images feel a bit more real, at least to me. People shouldn’t be afraid of using it.

Share this post:

About The Author

By Shafiur Rahman
Shafiur Rahman is a journalist and documentary filmmaker focusing on the politics of refugee management in South and Southeast Asia. He recently started a substack on film photography called "Ordinary Negatives."
Read More Articles From Shafiur Rahman

Find more similar content on 35mmc

Use the tags below to search for more posts on related topics:

Donate to the upkeep, or contribute to 35mmc for an ad-free experience.

There are two ways to contribute to 35mmc and experience it without the adverts:

Paid Subscription – £3.99 per month and you’ll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).

Subscribe here.

Content contributor – become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.

Sign up here.

Make a donation – If you would simply like to support Hamish Gill and 35mmc financially, you can also do so via ko-fi

Donate to 35mmc here.

Comments

Charles Young on 5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

Comment posted: 19/05/2026

Shafiur: Thanks for sharing your photos. You know how to reduce grain!: use slower film, or a camera with a bigger negative. Even old "box cameras" can take pretty good pictures. I recommend that any photographer take a drawing or a painting class. You learn a lot by slowing down and you learn some hand-eye coordination. A good book on drawing is "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain".
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shafiur Rahman replied:

Comment posted: 19/05/2026

Thanks Charles. I kinda like grain! But you are right, of course. I want to get an old box camera! Any recommendations?

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

David Hume on 5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Hi Shafiur;

Thanks for posting this. I found your analysis of the role that grain plays in the construction and mediation of a photographic image to be highly perceptive, thoughtful, and worthy of consideration. Anyone who's interested in photography but might look casually at a photograph without examining all its elements as deeply as they could has the opportunity to learn from what you've written. I think that you've said a lot here very succinctly. Cheers.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shafiur Rahman replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Thank you - that really means a lot. I was trying to write about grain not just as a technical feature or an aesthetic preference, but as something that actively shapes how an image is read. So I’m very glad that came through. I also wanted to keep it concise rather than turn it into a grand manifesto, so your comment is especially encouraging. Cheers.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Jeffery Luhn on 5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Very evocative images!! I'm always leaning to fine grain, but some subjects benefit from it, as you've displayed. I use Rodinal for tight sharp grain. What did you use?
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shafiur Rahman replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Thanks, Jeffery. This set was developed by Gulabi in Glasgow. They say monochrome films are processed in a roller transport machine with Ilford chemicals. So not Adox.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Jeffery Luhn replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Probably Ilford Ilfotec HC or Ilfotec DD for machine processing. Those are long life developers that can be replenished. I'm surprised that an ISO 100 film would yield such pronounced grain.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Walter Reumkens on 5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

A very interesting article, and I like the photos too. I have the slightly older Ricoh G; the lens is good, but so far I’ve only taken colour photos with it. At €18 in good working order, I just had to buy it. The Fomapan 100 isn’t half bad, especially as the price is very reasonable, at least here in Germany. Many OEM films are manufactured by Foma in the Czech Republic and are much more expensive. However, the films don’t reach their rated sensitivity. The 100 has 64, the 200 has 100, and the 400 has 200 ASA. Thanks for sharing, Shafiur!
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shafiur Rahman replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

I agree with you about Fomapan. Part of its appeal is precisely that combination of affordability and unpredictability. It does seem happier with a bit more light than the box speed suggests. I have also noticed many people rate the 400 closer to 200 ASA. In a way, that slight overexposure probably contributes to the look many of us associate with Foma films - richer shadows and a slightly gentler rendering. Interesting too what you say about OEM films. There is something quite funny about photographers paying premium prices for “mystery emulsions” that often lead back to Foma anyway. And yes, the Ricoh lenses are surprisingly capable. I think these cameras occupy a nice middle ground now: still relatively affordable, compact enough to carry everywhere, and capable of producing images with real character.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Jason Hallen on 5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

I loved your photos and thoughts on grain, Shafiur. Thank you for sharing. Our brains are good at making the leap to interpret a photo as a real scene rather than as the material representation that it is. Your approach is to disrupt this and examine what we actually see on the surface of the photo. Your analysis of grain makes me think more generally of fidelity and noise in representations of reality and the effects they have on our experience of these representations. In addition to grain, we could wonder about dust specs, scratches, flares, development blemishes, etc.

It also makes me think of the pictorialist school of photography from over a century ago. They resisted using photography to achieve life-like documentary images. They wanted photographs that looked like paintings as used all manner of techniques to get that. Again using your approach, how is the experience of looking at pictorialist photographs changed by these painterly techniques?

I'll add another factor to your particular scenario. I've shot a lot on a Sears 35|RF, which is just a rebranded Ricoh 500G, which is pretty much the same camera as your Ricoh 500 ME. (Here's an example: https://www.jasonhallen.com/photo/034). I've been struck by how this 40mm f/2.8 lens renders scenes. I still can't put my finger on it, but I would say the photos from this lens have a special visual cohesion. Truly, it could all be in my head, but humor me. So I'd add the optical quality of the lens to the mix of factors that are fixed in the material representation and thereby make our experience of a photo something more than just recognizing a scene from reality.

Looking forward to more of your posts!

Jason
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shafiur Rahman replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Jason, thank you. this is such a thoughtful response, and I think you’ve articulated something I was circling around without fully naming. Your mention of pictorialism is fascinating. I have just spent the last 20 minutes genning up on them. I started with a page in Bosham’s gallery. Staggering! Here is the page here: https://boshamgallery.com/blog/30-what-is-pictorialism-in-photography-when-photographs-looked-like-paintings-1880-1915/ Those photographers were almost deliberately sabotaging photography’s claim to transparent realism. Soft focus, manipulated printing, painterly surfaces - all of these techniques seem to push the viewer back toward the photograph as artefact rather than window. In a way, perhaps grain, scratches, flares and dust perform a similar function accidentally in analogue photography today. Thank you for that intro! I particularly like your point about the brain “leaping” over the material surface of the photograph in order to recover a scene. I suppose part of what interested me with the Fomapan grain was precisely those moments where the materiality refuses to disappear entirely and where the photograph reminds us that we are looking not at reality itself, but at an object, an interpretation, a translation. And yes. I am very happy to be humoured regarding the Ricoh lens! I know exactly what you mean, even if it is difficult to define technically. There is a coherence to the rendering more than what the specifications alone would suggest. Perhaps it is the combination of focal length, contrast, field curvature, falloff and the gentler rendering of older coatings and all that malarkey. Or perhaps, as you suggest, part of it exists in the imagination once we begin responding emotionally to a certain optical signature. Either way, I think these things matter because photographs are experienced psychologically as much as optically. The technical image and the felt image are not always the same thing. Thank you again for such a generous and intellectually stimulating comment.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

David Hume replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Great comments you two! I happen to be looking at Post War Japanese photography at the moment; Provoke magazine et al. Very different results, but also links back to the Ukiyo-e aesthetic, which, if you’re like me would not mean much as a name, but maybe would be familiar if you think the wood block print of a huge wave with a tiny Mount Fuji in the background. And this, in its way, was an influence on photographers like Daido Moriyama, Takuma Nakahira and Yutaka Takanashi. I find it fascinating to see these connections.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Shafiur Rahman replied:

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

That is a fascinating connection and Daido Moriyama feels especially relevant here because he almost embraced degradation as part of photographic meaning. Grain, blur, high contrast, rough printing, overexposure. all the stuff conventional photographic culture often treats as defects become expressive tools in his work. What interests me about Moriyama is that the image often does not feel like a stable document of reality - more like a trace of perception itself. Fleeting, unstable, emotionally charged, half-remembered. The material roughness of the image becomes inseparable from the experience being conveyed. Perhaps this is also why post-war Japanese photography remains so striking today. It resists the idea that photography’s highest purpose is clean fidelity. Instead, the photograph becomes something more subjective, fractured and tactile. Likw an object that carries the marks of its own making. Which perhaps brings us back to grain again!

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gil Aegerter on 5 Frames with the Ricoh 500 ME – What Grain Does.

Comment posted: 20/05/2026

Well said!
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *