Tri-X 400 grain w/ different developers

[Arjay]

I just developed my first two rolls of TRi-X 400 which I developed in Prescysol EF - a fine grain tanning and staining compensating developer.

While it seems that I didn't make any serious mistakes in the process, my scans using a Coolscan V ED show a film grain that is somewhat different from what I expected - it resembles that of a chromogenic (color technology) BW film like Kodak BW400 CN.

100% scale sample scan


Can you show me the grain structure you obtained on Tri-X 400 usiing other developers (pls state E.I value and if push or pull processing was used)?

Other than on developers, how is grain structure dependent on scanning technique and resolution?

 

[charjohncarter]

Tri in Rodinal 1+50 (35mm)

Tri in HC-110h (35mm)

Not much difference to see here, but Rodinal has more grain.

 

[mfogiel]

I would suggest you go through this old thread:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82050&highlight=magic+combination
For me, Prescysol EF gives nice grain, although you might prefer the Rodinal/Acufine type of grain, or (with some sharpening ) D76 grain. The good aspect of Prescysol EF is that you need almost no sharpening in post processing, and therefore the grain is less aparent. For me though, Prescysol is not delivering the right type of tonality for landscapes, due to excessively compensating action. I think that if you desire some grain and excellent tonality, D76 1+1 or Rodinal 1+50 semi stand are hard to beat. I am now testing DD-X to see if it gets any better.

 

[Arjay]

Thank you mfogiel, the very thread you mentioned brought me to Prescysol EF.

I must admit I wasn't sure what to expect - I just liked the tonality in your example pictures. What struck me with them was the rather rich tonality in the darker image regions (this is something I came to appreciate when converting digitally captured color images into BW). This is something that I found to be lacking in many images I've seen here on RFF.

You're right, this film/developer combo produces excellent acutance and very rich tonalities in shadow areas (this is a definite bonus if one does some postprocessing after the scan). I also like the fact that Prescysol EF lets me use the film at box speed. It's just the way that the grain comes across on my scanner that is irritating: It really reminds me of chromogenic film - I suppose that's the developer's tanning action.

But maybe my findings are also biased by my workflow: Perhaps I scanned with excessive resolution - my Coolscan V does 4000dpi - that's some 23 megapixels of resolution, speaking in digital terms.

Anyway, I'm interested to see what other developers deliver in terms of grain.

 

[Bingley]

Tri-X at iso 250 in HC 110h + 2.5 ml Rodinal, 11.5 mins @ 20C:

Tri-X at iso 400 in Rodinal 1:60, 12 mins. @ 20C:

 

[mfogiel]

To me, the grain of TriX in Prescysol is quite different than in a chromogenic film. Excuse me for the picture size, but otherwise it will be hard to see it, so here is Tri X in Prescysol EF

Here XP2

Tri X in D76 1+1

Tri X in DD-X

Tri X in Xtol 1+2

Tri X in Diafine

Tri X in Acufine 1+3

Tri X in Rodinal 1+60

 

[t.s.k.]

Thanks mfogiel! That was really helpful.

Any scanner info? Similar settings?

 

[Ronald M]

Tri at EI200. D76 stock. 4.5 min at 68

Forget everything you every read about short developing times and soft images from too much sodium sulfite. Just try 6 exposures which is 12" of film.

Best you drop the loaded reel into the tank in the dark, cap and agitate. I can do C41 for 3.25 min so this is a snap. drain the last 10 sec. Fix, no ss or water stop. It makes more grain. Believe it.

People look at them and do not believe they are Tri X.

 

[kg4nih]

TriX @ EI 250. HC110-h + 2.5mm Rodinal, 11.5 minutes, 68F (charjohncarter's soup)

 

[mfogiel]

The scanner, as mentioned above, is Nikon CS 9000 and I use Vuescan. The grain could be a bit more apparent on the DD X and the Diafine shot than usual, because I applied a little sharpening. Anyway the point has been to show the type of grain, rather than absolute size. It is also quite apparent, that the grain in the shadows is much more evident than in the higlights, especially in the Prescysol example.

 

[elude]

You might want to use NikonScan's GEM for fast film; moderate or increase it depending on the size of your print, it works perfectly.
I do +1 up to +4 for 400 and 800 iso Tri-X, adjusted if I developped in Rodinal or in D-76 which are completely different.

 

[kg4nih]

I have a L5000 & use VueScan. I found that locking the film base and using the settings at this link helpful.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/ishootfilm/discuss/72157608204093047/

I also turnoff all "automatic" sharpening throughout my workflow.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Usually (by an extraordinary coincidence) more speed = bigger grain.

Apart from very old developers such as Rodinal which give huge grain with mediocre speed.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Turtle]

The exceptions to the above rule are developers like Xtol, where you get very fine grain and good speed or DDX where you get good speed with all films and very fine grain with most (but not all).

I also no longer use tanning devs unless I am shooting scenes with hot highlights. Its hard to beat a bog standard developer for general use and I regularly use the two above. I also use rodinal for some films and often mix with Xtol for 'in between' grain.

 

[Tom A]

You cant really change the size of the individual grain in a film. that size is fixed. However the 'clumping" of grain which is typical for most MQ developers and coupled with the edge softening effect of almost saturated Sodium Sulphite makes these developers appear less grainy, though a bit 'mushy".
Surface type developers like Rodinal and, to some extent, HC 110 separates the individual grain with an almost "etching" like effect. This accentuates black and white transitional areas and edges look sharper. You can also get the Mackie line effect - sharp, bright edges.
If you have access to a microscope - stick a negative developed in a classic developer like D 76 in it and look at the grain structure and then try one done in Rodinal - they looks different, with the grain more defined in the Rodinal.
Pyro developers are a mix between the two. Sharp, relief edges but less clumping than the MQ style. If you look at a Pyro (PMK/Pyrocat) negative at an oblique angel, you can really see how the gelatin is etched away, with distinct edges and a 3D look to it. Grainclumping is more than Rodinal, but less than MQ developers.
C41 type chromgenic films are a different animal altogether. It is a dye substrate and though virtually grainless, what grain there is tend to show up as long 'chains". usually you dont see it in moderate size prints - but when you start printing 16x20 and bigger it can become a bit offensive. You also have a lot of "spots" showing up between the chains.
I find that for most scanned stuff, Rodinal works well, but if I have to wet print larger - an MQ developer is considerably smoother in appearance albeit with less "bite" than Rodinal/HC110.

 

[Dmitry S. Pyrin]

Tri-X in rodinal 1+100 stand. 70min.

 

[totifoto]

@800 in xtol 1:1. thats how I shoot it 90% of the time.

 

[charjohncarter]

Also, here is a list of film in different developers. You have to be careful to compare 35mm with 35mm or 120 with 120.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bw_film-dev_combinations/discuss/80107/

 

[RayPA]

Might be slightly off topic, but: Weren't staining and tanning developers formulated in such a way that the real benefit is derived when enlarging the negative in a traditional (ok...analog) process. Do you get the benefit of such developers when using a scanner (as opposed to enlargers)? I thought I read somewhere that you do not. (???)


/

 

[mfogiel]

Normally, these developrs are giving you extra sharpnes and great tonality to start with, which is already someting. As to the extra smoothness given by the stain, in order to exploit it better in scanning, you should scan in RGB mode and desaturate. I haven't done that normally, as I like some grain, but this is what's recommended.