A grainy problem...

[lynnb]

Srtiwari, please post samples. That will help.

I shoot XP2, Acros, Tri-X, and HP5+ in 35mm and 120. I have used Rodinal 1:50, D76 1:1, and XTOL with these films (apart from the chromogenic XP2 which I have c-41 processed, although it can be processed in other developers like Rodinal).

All other factors being equal you will always get less apparent grain with larger film sizes as the grain size remains constant while the negative area increases. Therefore grain per unit area is finer.

XP2 gives very smooth results and scans well. As does BW400CN, which I have also used. I find chromogenic films like these much easier to scan on my V700.

XTOL is the smoothest (it also doesn't look like "normal" grain structure) developer I've used, Rodinal the grainiest (particularly with HP5+ on 35mm). On 35mm I've had very tonally-broad, good-scanning results with Acros and Tri-X using both D76 and XTOL.

If you post some samples we can see what you're talking about.

 

[zuiko85]

Wonder if you can still get Bluefire Police film in 35mm and the special soft developer it needs.

 

[Photo_Smith]

actually Ive decided to post again Smith because you got ****ing told.

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.

Please read my posts and stop acting like an angry ignoramus.

The OP has had a problem getting 8x10 without grain, he has had this problem for over 2 years.
Not you I or anyone can verify that he is exposing or developing correctly, he hasn't posted a shot and furthermore we have to really see his negative to know that.

With film the most important (in order) aspects in order to reduce grain are:

Exposure: Over or under will both increase grain.

Development: Over or under development especially combined with poor exposure will also increase grain, as will some types of developer.

Printing /scanning Some enlargers can give more apparent grain because of the callier effect (condenser mainly) and some scanners give false grain though aliasing. Size of print and negative will also matter

Tone and viewing distance Higher tonal values in a print and too close viewing distance can also induce grain.

ALL THIS INFORMATION IS GOOD AS IT RELATES ENTIRELY TO THE OP's PROBLEM.

How about your posts? how do they help the OP? What advice have you given him?
Oh yes!– use Acros (which he already states is way too grainy) in XTOL, where you by your own admission suffer from 'loose methodology in application' You really think that will help the OP with his 3 year issue with grain?
No, mdarnton and Icebear had it right in post 7 and 13 my post just reinstates the basics of grain and how to minimise it.
Now please Red is burning keep it civil or cease posting you are not helping the OP.

 

[sepiareverb]

Development: Over or under development especially combined with poor exposure will also increase grain, as will some types of developer.

I've not come across underdevelopment leading to larger grain myself.

I shoot nearly every film at box speed. Efke 25 and the Rollei Ortho 25 I shoot at 20, Pan F at 40 and Delta 3200 at 1600. Anything else? Box speed. I'll agree metering is important, I tend to look at the scene and give an adjustment based on overall brightness vs dark compared to 'average', which I consider a brick wall or green lawn. When possible I meter an average part of the scene, but I more often make an educated guess as to how far over or under from average the scene is.

I develop with a range of developers, and have my favorites for various films. I agitate for 20 seconds initially and then 3 inversions every half minute.

I choose some films for their grain (Efke 100, HP5+) and choose a developer to accentuate it. I also choose some films for their lack of grain and again choose a developer to minimize it. Developer choice can absolutely influence grain size. Take HP5+ at iso 800 as an example. Run in Rodinal at 1:25 it can be nearly grainless, in HC-110b it gets quite gritty. Same film. same exposure, different developer.

TMAX 100 or Delta 100 exposed at box speed and run in TMAX developer, DD-X or Sprint Film Developer per the manufacturers instructions will deliver a negative with minimal to imperceptible grain in an 8x10 print. If the OP does some simple bracketing on those first few rolls and examines the results some minor fine tuning in development will absolutely deliver the results he is after, if the first roll doesn't.

 

[Kenj8246]

Just to keep this thread going/throw fuel on the fire--take your pick 🙂--here's a shot on Acros 100 exposed at 200 and developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes. Would you see grain if you blew this up to 8X10? Probably, but I'd say it's not very grainy viewed here.


GA645-Acros100 by kenj8246, on Flickr

Kenny

 

[Photo_Smith]

sepiaverb. I should clarify if you expose correctly and underdevelop you will have a negative that need to be corrected in printing or scanning-this can cause more ( appearance of) graininess. Overexposure and underdevelopment will give correspondingly less grain. All this is just proof that exposure is important in order to minimise graininess.

The OP has stated he found Acros/Tmax grainy in a 8x10 print, whatever developer he uses that should ring alarm bells—something is amiss in workflow. Just recommending him to use anyone here's favourite combinations will not really be of help as he has posted the same question before two years ago:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-96169.html

Correct exposure is the foundation of minimising grain, that's all I'm suggesting, the other things I mentioned are important too, nothing radical just common sense.

 

[redisburning]

Oh yes!– use Acros (which he already states is way too grainy)

he stated he used Acros in rodinal, which does show grain at 8x10. I know because I have some prints at that size from that combination. I also have some Acros in Xtol at the same size which show much less. which I talked about in my first post in this thread.

everything you have said has been goddamn useless wrt his problem. you attack the OP's technique which is considerably more rigorous than most, and when you get called out on being wrong, you have but two things to say:

1. no, youre wrong because I said so and Im definitely not wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence
2. you are acting stupid/youre hurting my feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings

like I said you got ****ing told earlier so maybe you should just keep it down instead of proving yourself to be a clown even further.

ultimately you have built your entire argument on the premise that the original poster cannot properly operate a camera meter. a simple thought exercise easily proves the lack of feasibility of your argument: all the OP would have to do is accidentally expose one frame correctly either due to an improper setting or the meter getting fooled and that frame would exhibit noticeably different characteristics from the allegedly underexposed frame.

your argument is literally idiocy incarnate. you can accuse me of being an "ignoramus" if you like. I know that your assertion there is as wrongheaded and empty as the one central to your chest beating in this thread.

tl;dr gtfo.

 

[Photo_Smith]

he stated he used Acros in rodinal, which does show grain at 8x10. I know because I have some prints at that size from that combination. I also have some Acros in Xtol at the same size which show much less. which I talked about in my first post in this thread.

You should be able to get a 8x10 with little or no apparent grain from that combination from 35mm.

everything you have said has been goddamn useless wrt his problem. you attack the OP's technique which is considerably more rigorous than most,

We have no idea of the OP's problem really, he hasn't given his workflow or posted any images-both would help.
I have posted practical and good advice.

and when you get called out on being wrong, you have but two things to say:

1. no, youre wrong because I said so and Im definitely not wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence
2. you are acting stupid/youre hurting my feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings

I have tried to be helpful have given good solid advice, it's not my 'feelings' I just think you could be helpful rather than destructive-you seem to have fairly big issues.

ultimately you have built your entire argument on the premise that the original poster cannot properly operate a camera meter.

No you need to actually read my posts rather than reply to what you think is being said. I have made no 'argument' just given good advice

your argument is literally idiocy incarnate. you can accuse me of being an "ignoramus" if you like. I know that your assertion there is as wrongheaded and empty as the one central to your chest beating in this thread.

tl;dr gtfo.

I'm not making an argument, just stating that correct exposure is the basis of keeping grain at manageable levels-it is that simple.
I mean no disrespect to the OP.

I really think you should calm down and relax. Peace, have a lovely evening-
Take care
Warm regards
Photo_Smith

 

[sepiareverb]

sepiaverb. I should clarify if you expose correctly and underdevelop you will have a negative that need to be corrected in printing or scanning-this can cause more ( appearance of) graininess.

Perhaps in an extreme case yes. But having seen Photo 1 Negatives for the last ten plus years I don't think being off by a stop would increase grain terribly much. I don't scan film, but I've long been under the impression that a somewhat thinner negative scans better. Prints I've done for folks who normally scan have been far thinner (Like at least a stop) than what I prefer for printing in the darkroom and they've been beautifully smooth when wet printed (TMAX100 comes to mind here).

Correct exposure is the foundation of minimising grain, that's all I'm suggesting, the other things I mentioned are important too, nothing radical just common sense.

And shooting at box speed and developing per manufacturers suggestions will get one well within a half stop at worst. This amount of incorrectness is not going to be disastrous for grain.

To the OP: Have you tried Acros or one of the other T/Delta-Grain films in one of the T/Delta developers? These films and developers are designed to work together, and these were developed to produce negatives with a minimum of grain.

 

[Stuart John]

Well if the OP is over exposing a bit then overdeveloping a bit in an honest developer like Rodinal and has a thermometer that reads a bit too low causing developer to be made too hot then it all adds up. To be honest though I've never found B&W film to be that critical. If the OP is used to the clean look of digital then B&W film could look pretty grainy though.

 

[sepiareverb]

This and this might be of help in coming to understand what the correct negative should look like.

There is a great "ring" example in the Ilford Monchrome Darkroom Practice book that shows correct exposure, under-exposure and over-exposure each developed normally, under-developed and over-developed.

 

[Photo_Smith]

And shooting at box speed and developing per manufacturers suggestions will get one well within a half stop at worst. This amount of incorrectness is not going to be disastrous for grain.

To the OP: Have you tried Acros or one of the other T/Delta-Grain films in one of the T/Delta developers? These films and developers are designed to work together, and these were developed to produce negatives with a minimum of grain.

Possibly not, although I have not noticed any grain in a 8x10 print with Acros or any developer, not even Rodinal. The OP seems to get a grain structure he finds objectionable with T Max 100 and Acros in a range of developers.
I have seen many times people under and overexposing, even setting the meter at box and giving makers times can give margins for error that can cause 'grain' to creep in in the upper mid tones–where it looks worse.

There can be only a few things that could cause that, my advice to give correct exposure would be good as we can't verify the workflow or have seen any prints/scans so we have little go on except give generic advice.

It could be a combination of issues causing his problem, underexposure followed by overdevelopment then scanning and over-sharpening etc.
No one knows for sure, as we have seen no negatives or prints/scans and cannot verify the OP's modus.

The OP could try some of the fine grain microfilms like the Adox ones, they come in at ISO20 i my experience and with dedicated developers I can get grain free 12x16 prints without trying.

Edit: that first link is fantastic Sepiaverb, one of the hardest things to explain and understand is what a correctly exposed negative should look like, negative evaluation is something that takes a while to learn and a good negative is crucial to all that follows.
Back in the day we were told to lay the negative on newspaper and if you could see the text thought the high density parts you had underexposed.

 

[srtiwari]

Much better !

Much better !

I am posting 2 images from the rolls of film I just shot and developed, and I'm very pleased- and surprised. I don't recall having this good grain control in the past. Don't know what I was doing incorrectly. This is what I did today-

1. I shot each film 2/3 stop below box speed, metering off what I thought was "middle gray", when light was a bit soft in one case, and not so much the other.
2. I used fresh developer, used distilled water for all steps, maintained temperature control by placing in a water bath, agitated minimally.
3. I then scanned each image directly on the glass using a V700, with "low" sharpening and noise reduction.
4. I then imported to LR4, minimally tweaked sharpening, did NOT adjust exposure or contrast, and down sampled to web manageable sizes, and used 100 % crops here.

As happy as I am with these, I still do not know which of those steps made the crucial difference. Until I know that I'm going to have to continue the same protocol.

ACROS 100 at ISO80, 6x7 frame, in Rodinal 1:75, 14 mins, 68F, only 3 agitations, every 4 mins after the initial

Kodak TMax 400, at ISO320, in TMax developer, 7 mins, 68F, 5 inversions every 30 secs

 

[Kenj8246]

I just see content protected by owner, Subhash. A rights thing.

 

[srtiwari]

I just see content protected by owner, Subhash. A rights thing.

I'm a bit slow today. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.😕
BTW, I love the look of the B+W images on your flickr pages.

 

[Rogrund]

I'm a bit slow today. Perhaps you could explain what you mean.😕

We are not able to see your pics! 🙂

 

[srtiwari]

Why is that ? I can see them...

 

[Rogrund]

Why is that ? I can see them...

I don't know, it just says "content protected by owner".

 

[Photo_Smith]

I can't see your images either 🙂 Your Zenfolio account has your photo as private (just for you) is there a public setting?

Anyhow Good news! I'm very happy that you are happy. Now you need to tie down your workflow and try to keep consistent, if you find what works for you then try to keep it the same you'll be OK.

Try to fix your links, I really would like to see your shots.🙂
Regards
Photo_Smith

 

[Rogrund]

But I'm glad you're pleased with the recent results!