A grainy problem...

[srtiwari]

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

Do you mean ISO 1600 (which can mean 2 stops underexposed from box speed ), or ISO 1600, AND 2 stops underexposed (i.e., ISO 6400) ?
There is not much grain here at all. Great !

 

[Dana B.]

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.

Sorry, but I can't wrap my brain around this. Say you have lots of sky, which will trick the meter to underexpose. So you meter on the shadows to correct it. But then you say to dial two stops down, meaning restricting more light. Won't this underexpose your image?

 

[redisburning]

I dont understand the logic behind saying it's underexposure.

if it were, then in any instance where the meter got tricked into putting an extra stop of light in (which btw can happen easily) would not demonstrate the problem and the OP would have commented on the inconsistency.

look at the combinations of film he stated he is using, please, before talking about underexposure. just because you hear footprints doesnt mean there are zebras; anyone that rigorous with their developing techniques is going to be able to meter properly and to see so many people talking about underexposure suggests that they didnt read the OP's post very thoroughly.

btw Kenny, while I appreciate that your results wrt grain are good for 1600, there is a huge difference in apparent grain between your shots and mine despite mine being posted at a larger size. if the OP has an expectation of getting results similar to 400 iso speed films from 120, he needs to at least start in the ballpark of getting those results, ie a 100 iso tabular grained film or other films designed for very fine grain combined with grain disolving developers.

I shoot acros in rodinal 1:50 all the time, it is my favorite combination. but it does show noticeable grain, esp. compared to the same film in xtol 1:1.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Sorry, but I can't wrap my brain around this. Say you have lots of sky, which will trick the meter to underexpose. So you meter on the shadows to correct it. But then you say to dial two stops down, meaning restricting more light. Won't this underexpose your image?

The theory is simple. Meter for the first area you want to have emerging detail. If you don't stop down you'll be overexposing so you stop down 2 stops to place the darkest part of the image in the toe of the curve (where density starts to build)

Its really just the zone system, and basic metering.

 

[Kenj8246]

Do you mean ISO 1600 (which can mean 2 stops underexposed from box speed ), or ISO 1600, AND 2 stops underexposed (i.e., ISO 6400) ?
There is not much grain here at all. Great !

I told my Nikon F4S that I had 1600 speed film in the camera; these were shot in aperture priority. Sorry for the confusion. And, thanks.

Kenny

 

[Photo_Smith]

I dont understand the logic behind saying it's underexposure.

if it were, then in any instance where the meter got tricked into putting an extra stop of light in (which btw can happen easily) would not demonstrate the problem and the OP would have commented on the inconsistency.

look at the combinations of film he stated he is using, please, before talking about underexposure. just because you hear footprints doesnt mean there are zebras; anyone that rigorous with their developing techniques is going to be able to meter properly and to see so many people talking about underexposure suggests that they didnt read the OP's post very thoroughly.

I shoot acros in rodinal 1:50 all the time, it is my favorite combination. but it does show noticeable grain, esp. compared to the same film in xtol 1:1.

I think you're confused, the meter is tricked into giving less light, not more but less.
The combination of film and developer the OP is using and the results he is getting (too much grain) mean either too much/little exposure or too bigger enlargement.
The fact you get noticeable grain in a 8x10 from across and any dev combo should give alarm bells that something isn't quite right.
Exposure is the first thing to nail.
Here is Delta 3200 rated at EI6400 in Rodinal

Only correct exposure makes this image possible.

 

[Mablo]

A good part of the 'grain' you see on scanned images is actually not grain at all but scanner induced noise. I'm not a fan of it and sometimes I use "Neat Image" software (the basic version is free) to get rid of the unnecessary noise on my scanned images.

 

[Stuart John]

Most ISO 400 35mm films will show grain in 8x10 prints. I happen to like the grain in 35mm TriX in HC110 printed to 8x10 but I would not go much bigger. Tmax 100 in D76 1:1 gave me the least grain of anything I've tried but I preferred FP4 in D76 1:1 or APX100 in D76 1:0 over Tmax100. Xtol maybe better than D76 but I've never tried it.

 

[redisburning]

I think you're confused, the meter is tricked into giving less light, not more but less.
The combination of film and developer the OP is using and the results he is getting (too much grain) mean either too much/little exposure or too bigger enlargement.
The fact you get noticeable grain in a 8x10 from across and any dev combo should give alarm bells that something isn't quite right.
Exposure is the first thing to nail.
Here is Delta 3200 rated at EI6400 in Rodinal

no, Im really not.

a meter can be tricked to either give to much or too little. if you want to see it happen, go point a center weighted one at a dark subject that is sufficiently large and the meter will put it at 18% grey. a suggestion that a meter will only underexpose is ignorant.

another issue is that you do not seem to be thinking of the OP's expectations for grain, especially when you post photos like you did.

if anyone is confused, it's the OP, because people like you give him bad advice that is an answer to a different question than the one he actually asked.

 

[Photo_Smith]

no, Im really not.

a meter can be tricked to either give to much or too little. if you want to see it happen, go point a center weighted one at a dark subject that is sufficiently large and the meter will put it at 18% grey. a suggestion that a meter will only underexpose is ignorant.

You're confused.
I never suggested a meter will only underexpose-not once, what i have said in the instance (I quoted) as a possibility less light fell on the subject, and stray light can infate measured EV.
I'm fully aware after 35 years in the industry that light meters can over as well as underexpose—both will give increased grain.

The most important metric is exposure, if it isn't right regardless of under or over the result will be increased grain.

So if you follow the simple meter for the emerging shadow, then stop down you will place the emerging detail at the point on the film curve where the exposure can be considered optimal.

This will give minimum grain. Processing and printing can also increase the perception on grain, some developer film combo's and even condenser or diffuser enlargers will give different results.

I'm fully aware I haven't seen any actual photo's from the OP and I have no idea on how much is too much. He has replied to others who have posted that he thought their efforts were Ok so we have a baseline for his tastes.
Also add some scanners can increase grain (perception) and you can buy grain reducer holders. If you read my previous posts you will see....

My advice is sound.

The correct exposure is the most important thing to tie down, one you've got that you have the foundations to build on.

 

[redisburning]

My advice is sound.

The correct exposure is the most important thing to tie down, one you've got that you have the foundations to build on.

Im only going to make one more post on this, for the sake of the OP, because this is frankly a frustrating exercise.


just because you see yourself as an expert on hammering nails with the butt of a screwdiver, doesn't mean your advice is helpful, or even intelligent.

if the OP goes out and shoots with his stated combinations and just give it a stop more exposure he is going to be frustrated and have wasted his time and his film and still think his technique is to blame because some self important people failed to read his post and were too internet alpha to back down. or he could spend a few dollars on the xtol packets, a few rolls of acros, delta 100 or tmax 100 AND APPLY HIS SAME STATED RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY and get where he wants.

 

[Photo_Smith]

Im only going to make one more post on this, for the sake of the OP, because this is frankly a frustrating exercise.

giving the OP suggestions on how to better hit a nail with a screwdriver is not helpful when he needs a ****ing hammer.

just because you see yourself as an expert on hammering nails with the butt of a screwdiver, doesn't mean your advice is helpful, or even intelligent.

if the OP goes out and shoots with his stated combinations and just give it a stop more exposure he is going to be frustrated and have wasted his time and his film and still think his technique is to blame because some self important people failed to read his post and were too internet alpha to back down. or he could spend a few dollars on the xtol packets, a few rolls of acros, delta 100 or tmax 100 AND APPLY HIS SAME STATED RIGOROUS METHODOLOGY and get where he wants.

I'm glad this will be your last post because frankly nothing you have said will help the OP.

Nothing you have accused me of stating has been stated.
I have never suggested blindly giving an extra stop, not once.

What I have done is given him the base information that is key for reducing grain (correct exposure) with any film/developer combination.

The key factor is correct exposure, the others I mentioned matter but exposure is the most iportant.

It would be foolish to just buy XTOL and a 'few rolls' of any film and apply his methodology because he so far seems desperate and isn't getting the results he desires.

To the OP.
Please ignore all red says and head over to here to learn
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps expo neg.html
Red is burning.
Please don't lecture me either, have respect and you will get it back.
To misrepresent what I'm saying might be because of poor comprehension or even a dislike of me personally-I don't know.
One thing is for sure, the best way to reduce grain has been covered in my posts.

 

[srtiwari]

Here's an idea...

Here's an idea...

Gentlemen. Thank you all for trying to help.

I should clarify some things-

1. My negatives are not under/over exposed to any significant degree. I have done this long enough that I can usually get correct exposure. Also, my shooting style is what I would call 'safe', in terms of available light.

2. I try to shoot 1/3- 2/3 stop OVER exposed (from box speed) to capture some shadow detail, except with stand development, where that is not recommended.

3. I have always thought that the "correct" exposure for any subject would depend on its reflectance. Thus,regardless of whether one "reads" the sky or the shadows, if one could adjust to whatever "stops" it is away from "18%gray", the exposure would be correct for the entire image, as long as it fell within the dynamic range of the film. Is this not correct ?


I have an idea that might be a useful test-

I am in the process of shooting some ACROS 100 at ISO 80 in 120 today, and can shoot some expired TMax 400 at ISO 250 tomorrow. I have a choice of developers (Rodinal, HC110, D76, TMax developer, and Diafine). If someone would like to suggest development times etc., I'll be happy to follow instructions, and then scan and post some images. That should allow you to see whether my expectations of the grain are different from yours/mine/everyone else's. This strikes as being even better than scanning and posting any old negatives I might have, where my memory of the development process might be a bit shaky.

So, any suggestions ? I'm just shooting today, so we have time to decide about the rest of it. Again, I do appreciate everyone's attempts to help...

 

[Photo_Smith]

Gentlemen. Thank you all for trying to help.


3. I have always thought that the "correct" exposure for any subject would depend on its reflectance. Thus,regardless of whether one "reads" the sky or the shadows, if one could adjust to whatever "stops" it is away from "18%gray", the exposure would be correct for the entire image, as long as it fell within the dynamic range of the film. Is this not correct ?

Not entirely. There is no perfect exposure-that's not helpful, this might be.

To minimise grain, you need to use the least light possible to expose the darkest shadow. The most common error I see is people placing a grey card in the shadow making a spot meter reading from it and exposing.
This will increase grain just as much as placing the grey card in open sun and metering.

I know you say your exposures are perfect, I'd actually be doubtful if Across is giving you grain in a 8x10"

It is difficult without seeing your idea of grain or seeing your negative to help you.

When you do your test with the Acros tomorrow, humour me.
Do this with one exposure.

Meter from the darkest area you wish to contain detail, take the reading and close down the lens two stops.
Develop the film as normal and when you print print the dark area so it has only slight detail.

Grey cards can be a hindrance especially with spotmeters, I don't use them or advise students to either.
The reason I'm posting these ideas is that this seems to have been a long term problem for you:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-96169.html

Here is some good advice in a thread on Pnet:
http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00OHRX

 

[redisburning]

you deserve zero respect because you were wrong as per OP's latest post and rather than admit it you just keep going deeper. that's laughable, not behavior deserving of respect. please gtfo yourself.

it was so obvious from the original post that Subhash is capable of exposing a frame accurately that to accuse me of poor reading comprehension is the height of irony. your posts are nothing more than an exercise in hubris, and all you can do is say "no it isnt so" when information is laid before you. completely, 100% pathetic.

btw let me bold this since you seem to have trouble catching on : YOUR INFORMATION WAS BAD BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RELEVANT TO THE OP'S PROBLEM.

 

[Moto-Uno]

It's getting pretty hot in here,no?
The Digitaltruth site gives some pretty useful direction for film,developer combos.
Peter

 

[KenR]

Medium format! No grain at all in 8x10 and very little in 11x14 especially for 6x9 negs even with 400 speed films. They are almost, not quite equal to large format 4x5 negs.

 

[Rob-F]

In "The edge of darkness," Barry Thornton points out that grain that is just above the threshold of perception helps the picture to appear as sharp as possible, because the grain gives the eye something to focus on, without intruding itself into the image. I think there is something to that.

When I enlarge a 35mm negative on 8 x 10 paper, I generally print it to about 6.7 x 10 inches, to show the whole negative without cropping. Printing at an enlargement of less than 7 diameters, rather than a full 8, helps to hold down grain to the "threshold of perception" level with films such as Tri-X.

A little grain helps me to focus with my grain magnifier.

Scanning and then printing digitally is a whole other ball game. I may not notice any grain in a 7 x 10 wet print from Tri-X.

 

[clayne]

Chill out guys.

Overexposure is just as likely to (sometimes even more) induce graininess as underexposure is. Of course there's more apparent grain when underexposing because one is usually compensating after the fact to view the photograph within a perceived "normal" brightness level. Also, let me just remind you, grain isn't real - it's an optical illusion formed by the brain's response to micro-patterns. It's suitably ignored or looked past if one concentrates on the substance/message of the photograph rather than the grain itself. Additionally enlargement size has jack to do with anything. Enlarge your Tri-X to 6x9 feet if you like - you'll be adjusting your viewing distance accordingly. If you have your nose in the print, shouting "a-ha! grain! don't try to fool me!", you're focusing on the wrong things.

Personally I don't get what the big deal is here and would like to see some examples of "too much grain" by the OP. It seems like *any* grain is too much for him. If that's the case, get an 8x10 camera and contact print everything.

Anyway, time to go blast some P3200TMZ with Rodinal. Love that grain! Life in the silver.

 

[helen.HH]

If I'm into my Little to No Grain Kicks
I generally shoot Tmax at Box speed or 320
Tmax Developer prefered or HC 110
& Little to NO Agitation
😀