A grainy problem...

[srtiwari]

I know many people here like grain in their images- I am, unfortunately, not one of them, but cannot seem to get away from it. In fact, I envy those on RFF who produce beautiful images with very acceptable grain (size and shape). But I cannot seem to achieve this. Despite trying various combinations that seem to work for many - Acros/Rodinal, Tri-X /D76, TMax400/TMax etc., I end up with too much grain. I have tried various things, such as meticulous temperature control, distilled water, minimal agitation, fresh developer, and many scanner adjustments, all without much success. I use a nikon 9000 + Vuescan, and have a Epson V700 if I need, but cannot quite get it all right. And I'm not talking about pixel peeping at 100% magnification, either. I just want to be able to make prints as large as 8x10 from my 35mm, and 20x30 off of my MF gear, without objectionable grain.

What is even more ironic, is that I have negatives from the mid 1950s taken by a relative with a Rolleiflex TLR, that shows beautifully smooth, grainless tonality. Of course, I have no idea what film/developer combo they used. But, mine cannot be a scanning problem, since I can scan and print this negative very happily.

Amongst other things, I have considered actually asking one of our RFF experts for training in person, or, alternatively, selling all my 35mm and MF gear, and going fully digital, but I keep coming across wonderful film images on RFF that keep me trying to work this out.

Aside from continuing to try, is there any other advice anyone can give me ? Any tips or tricks ? I keep thinking there is something fundamental I'm not doing correctly. I'd appreciate any ideas anyone would have.

 

[sepiareverb]

Delta 100 in DD-X or Sprint Developer. If that is too grainy you need to go to an 810 camera.

 

[Vics]

Show us some examples so we know how mudh is "too much."

 

[mike rosenlof]

at some point, if you're grain averse, larger or slower film is your best choice. Or Digital. I'm a film lover (many formats) but I do think digital has surpassed 35mm in many ways. (my opinion, not trying to get off topic!)

You are correct about the Rollei, there's quite a difference between 35mm and medium format.

Delta100, PanF and TMX are all considerably finer grain than Tri-X or Delta 400. You make like them better than the faster films, but then you may loose sharpness unless you're using a tripod.

Lots of tradeoffs.

 

[Morry Katz]

I process Delta 400 in HC110 dilution B for 9.5 min with agitation every minute. For
Delta 100 I also use HC110 dilution B but for 7.5 minutes. The grain is minimal in both cases. My prints are usually on 11 X 14 paper. Try it, you'll like the results.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Hard to say without seeing your original negs. 35mm Tri-X will show grain in an 8x10 print, there's just no escaping it. Acros or Tmax 100, even developed in Rodinal, should not show grain in an 8x10 print from a 35mm neg.

That ancient neg you are comparing to was probably a 25 or 50 speed film; back then, 100 was a fast film and 400 was ultra-high speed. The thing is, Ilford Pan-F (ISO-50) has about the same grain as Tmax 100, so modern slow films don't get you much.

 

[mdarnton]

A couple of causes you might not have thought of:
1/ Underexposure (EI400 is too high for Tri-X, for instance)
2/ Poor temp control through the developing process (plus or minus a degree or so is good)
3/ Excessive wet time (fast developers, efficient and fast washing are better)

These are all things that people used to know when film was king, that somehow have been forgotten along the way, I guess.

 

[drewbarb]

Reducing your agitation- in time, number of inversions, or vigorous-ness- should help keep your grain under control. Beyond this basic advise, I must agree with the others here that we need to see what you are producing now before we can be much help.

 

[DNG]

Hard to say w/o an sample..

I use Tmax 400 @ 400 in HC110 B,(1:31) 6m at 20c, with a 3 min prewash, and a 30s initial agitation, then 5s every min...with Charcoal filtered water for mixing and washing..
my final wash is 15m (at 3 changes per min), I use chems ONCE, and Dump.. IE: I only mix 300ml or 600ml at a time.
I don't get grainy results at all...

You may want to do an ISO test with your preferred film and developer from ISO 100-1600 and develop at the BOX speed. Then pick the ISO that has the best Tonal range and contrast. And make that you Preferred ISO for THAT FILM & DEVELOPER DILUTION.

That is all I can think of......if it can help...

 

[kchoquette]

In my experience liquid based developers USUALLY bring out grain in *****s. Rodinal, HC-110.

But if you're shooting medium format, this shouldn't be much of a problem at all. I've got a friend who's shooting HP5+ (an inherently grainy/classic film) and develops with D76 to some amazingly smooth results. And when he uses Tri-X and this combination, it's cleaner than digital.

 

[Noll]

Without seeing what you describe, all I will say is that part of the problem could be the process of flatbed scanning itself - no matter what settings you use. For whatever reason, I find that my V500 exaggerates the appearance of grain while smearing fine detail. The few times I've used a V700 was better but not by a whole lot. Using either a dedicated film scanner or digital camera and macro lens helps in this regard. There is a lot more on those negs than even the V700 will pick up.

 

[redisburning]

you are in completely the wrong ballpark with ANY 400 iso film, sorry.

try Acros in Xtol 1:1 or another fine grain, aka edge dissolving, developer. consider, for example, this image in said combination


Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr

this is basically grainless, even in a scan.

I invite you to peruse my photo stream and if you happen to like anything you see, let me know and I will tell you what I did. but if you do, know that my methodology is a bit loose in application.

 

[icebear]

A couple of causes you might not have thought of:
1/ Underexposure (EI400 is too high for Tri-X, for instance)
2/ Poor temp control through the developing process (plus or minus a degree or so is good)
3/ Excessive wet time (fast developers, efficient and fast washing are better)

These are all things that people used to know when film was king, that somehow have been forgotten along the way, I guess.

Highlight above - also my thought...
Without all the options for film/developer/parameter combinations the very first thing that defines grain is the exposure.

Have you ever had overexposed negatives (completely black areas) or are your negatives usually on the thinner side (only light gray)? Maybe you just need to catch a generous helping of light.

 

[clayne]

Absolutely need to see an example.

Even though I shoot Tri-x at 250 when possible, EI400 is not going to make it grainy. On the flip-side, I have P3200TMZ prints that are quite low grain.

The LS-9000 is fairly alright as far as keeping grain in control, so I don't think it's a scanner issue. Even negs I've scanned with the 5000 were not excessively grainy.

If you're viewing 8x10 prints from 2 inches away you're gonna have a problem.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I agree with Icebear above underexposure (and scanning) will increase the perceived grain.
I have no problem getting grain free prints from 400ISO films on 8x10 providing that:
I rate the films at 200-320 (depending on the developer)
I meter for the emerging shadow detail, then stop down 2 stops.
I print the negative optically on real silver photo paper.

Using TMX or Acros with a fine grain developer like Ilford Perceptol, Adox Atomal etc should give negative that will blow up to 8x10 with no detectable grain.

Underexposure, scanning, film format, viewing distance, even the tones in the print can all increase the perceived grain.

I'd have to like others have stated see examples of what you think is excessive grain.

 

[srtiwari]

I've thrown away my last few rolls in disgust, but will shoot and develop again this weekend, and then post them. From the responses, I realize that underexposure may be an issue, as I usually shoot at box speed.
I appreciate all the feedback.

 

[Photo_Smith]

It's not so much 'box speed' that is the issue, rather how you meter. If you shoot a landscape with lots of sky your meter will give a false reading and underexpose, same with backlit subjects (in this case you might be rating your film at 800-1600EI without realising)
Meter for the part you want to have almost (not quite, emerging detail) black, stop down about two stops and you'll be nearer the place you want to be.

I would start by rating box speed but metering correctly, keep processing and all other things consistent (developer and film), hone the settings from there.

 

[thegman]

Have you considered trying Kodak BW400CN, or maybe Ilford XP2 Super? Kodak says BW400CN "features the finest grain available today in a professional chromogenic film.". I think Ilford XP2 is pretty much the same to my eye.

Then of course there is the ultra-slow film, like ADOX 25 and the like.

Finally, you could try Ektar 100 or Portra 400 and convert the scanned results to B&W. There is a comparison out there of Ektar 100 showing about the same resolution as a Canon 5D MkII, so that should easily be enough for 8x10 prints.

 

[Dwig]

I agree with Icebear above underexposure (and scanning) will increase the perceived grain. ...

+1

Also, underdevelopment will lead, indirectly, to increased grain. Anything that results in a thin, low contrast negative will lead to increased visibility of the grain when the scanning and PP process is forced to increase contrast.

An additional issue occurs when using any high resolution scanning system (read: one that resolves the grain) followed by sharpening during PP. The sharpening will sharpen the grain making it much more visible. The software will see the edges of the grain as the edge to sharpen.

 

[Kenj8246]

Great pics, they ain't but these are Arista Premium 400 exposed at 1600. 2 stops underexposed. Developed in Xtol 1+1. Granted, you'll see grain in a large print but I'm happy with the combo and result.


F4S-AP400 76 by kenj8246, on Flickr


F4S-AP400 14 by kenj8246, on Flickr

Works for me.

Kenny