srtiwari
Daktari
Are they visible now ?
A grainy problem...
- Thread starter srtiwari
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 99
- Views 8K
Are they visible now ?
srtiwari
Daktari
No feedback yet as to whether anyone else can see the images. I would imagine they can since I can, even after logging out.
In any case I greatly appreciate all the time and effort put in by very generous RFFers in helping me, particularly by Photo-Smith and Redisburning. If you are able to see the images, please put in your comments re; grain etc. One picture shows Newton's rings despite using ANR glass.
In any case I greatly appreciate all the time and effort put in by very generous RFFers in helping me, particularly by Photo-Smith and Redisburning. If you are able to see the images, please put in your comments re; grain etc. One picture shows Newton's rings despite using ANR glass.
Rogrund
Antti Sivén
No, I still can't see them. I'm sure someone will chime in with a solution soon.
srtiwari
Daktari
Sorry to be such a pest, but are they now visible ?
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 4:58 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
Alright, turn off any sharpening, period. Don't let the scanning software do anything but scan.
Additionally, there seems to be a feeling of overall glaze of graininess to the images that strikes me as artificial grain being introduced by the scanning process. I'd go so far as to say it looks kind of like reticulation, but you kept your temperature under control and Kodak films aren't particularly prone to it so I doubt it is literal reticulation.
Turn all the scanner stuff off, clean-up in Lightroom or whatever, and at most use low sharpening on output. Do not over-sharpen! Make sure you're scanning in 12-16bit, not 8.
Also, while the v700 is alright with medium format, it does not hold a candle to the Nikons or even the Opticfilm 120. This of course doesn't mean it will add grain, or anything, but it will lend itself to a general softness. In fact, you may be over-sharpening in compensation of the v700s lower abilities to scan negatives and that in itself is what is accentuating apparent grain.
srtiwari
Daktari
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
Now here's an example of what I was referring to.
Kenny's image here, is considerably smoother in terms of grain and tonality than mine. I would be very happy with his kind of result. 😀
srtiwari
Daktari
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.
Here's another !
A very fast film, developed in Rodinal ! And yet, has wonderful absence of grain. Very nice !
srtiwari
Daktari
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
Works for me.
Kenny
This would work for me too, particularly Tri-X at 1600 !
redisburning
Well-known
something is still wrong, IMO.
look, here is my acros 100 in rodinal 1:50, shot at a hard 100 with what I assure you is a zero ****s given level of rigourness to my developing, scanned on the predecessor to your scanner, the Epson 4990:
butters by redisburning, on Flickr
and your 35 seems pretty far off from what I get from 400 speed t-grained film, see this:
Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
that's rodinal 1:50 too. so I develop at a higher concentration, at who knows what temperature (I live in Texas, so presumably high). I don't know how you feel, but I feel like my results are in a completely different ballpark. If you agree, I think we're all going to have to take a fundamentally different approach to this.
at this point to feel comfortably giving you any further advice I would have to see your negatives.
look, here is my acros 100 in rodinal 1:50, shot at a hard 100 with what I assure you is a zero ****s given level of rigourness to my developing, scanned on the predecessor to your scanner, the Epson 4990:
butters by redisburning, on Flickr
and your 35 seems pretty far off from what I get from 400 speed t-grained film, see this:
Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
that's rodinal 1:50 too. so I develop at a higher concentration, at who knows what temperature (I live in Texas, so presumably high). I don't know how you feel, but I feel like my results are in a completely different ballpark. If you agree, I think we're all going to have to take a fundamentally different approach to this.
at this point to feel comfortably giving you any further advice I would have to see your negatives.
srtiwari
Daktari
redisburning, I completely agree with you.
I looked at your picture of the dog in its original size on Flickr, and its great ! That level of smooth grain, I have never quite managed to create.
So.....now what ?
I looked at your picture of the dog in its original size on Flickr, and its great ! That level of smooth grain, I have never quite managed to create.
So.....now what ?
redisburning
Well-known
ok, well I feel like we have eliminated underexposure, over-agitation and generally inconsistent developing as culprits.
the problem may be your scans. are you using epson scan? someone earlier posted some advice, I'd try that. I personally use viewscan and put my 120 straight on the glass. I do use a dedicated 35mm scanner though.
if the problem is your negative, then maybe it's a time issue. what is your time and temperature combination for acros in rodinal? I don't recall you mentioning that.
I still think you ought to really consider acros with a grain dissolving developer anyway. you said you have D76, maybe give that a try? that is regardless of fixing this, I think it will better fit your expectations.
the problem may be your scans. are you using epson scan? someone earlier posted some advice, I'd try that. I personally use viewscan and put my 120 straight on the glass. I do use a dedicated 35mm scanner though.
if the problem is your negative, then maybe it's a time issue. what is your time and temperature combination for acros in rodinal? I don't recall you mentioning that.
I still think you ought to really consider acros with a grain dissolving developer anyway. you said you have D76, maybe give that a try? that is regardless of fixing this, I think it will better fit your expectations.
Landshark
Well-known
Now what?
Use what works for you on a consistant basis, not what works for someone else.
Use what works for you on a consistant basis, not what works for someone else.
srtiwari
Daktari
You've come in late into the conversation, so you may not know. But, its whats not working is what we're trying to nail down...
srtiwari
Daktari
Redisburning, I am currently running 2 more films, both in 35mm- Agfa APX100 at 80 ISO, and Tri-X at 1000 ISO. Haven't decided on developing the APX, but will do Diafine the Tri-x.
I realize that I will not get fine grain, but its all relative. Its just that I seem to be getting much more grain than anyone else.
I realize that I will not get fine grain, but its all relative. Its just that I seem to be getting much more grain than anyone else.
Kenj8246
Well-known
Subhash, I would be pleased to have made either one of your images. Both are good images, IMO.
The old Cadillac was shot on Acros 100 rated at 200 and shot with a Fuji GA645 in aperture priority mode...it--the camera--metered and picked the speed for f5.6. I developed it in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes at 20C. Normal agitation: 30 seconds initially and then 10 seconds every minute thereafter. My agitations are something I try to keep consistent, meaning slow and gentle. All things being equal, less agitation means less contrast and less grain FOR ME. The '57 Chevy is 35mm Arista Premium 400 rated at 1600 (I needed the shutter speed in this museum) and developed in Xtol 1+1 for 13:15 at 20C, normal agitation again. Both these times come straight off the Massive Dev chart at www.digitaltruthphoto.com. A very good resource, if only a starting point.
As another poster has said, find out what works for you and be consistent with it. That, IMO, is the main thing. Consistency.
Kenny
The old Cadillac was shot on Acros 100 rated at 200 and shot with a Fuji GA645 in aperture priority mode...it--the camera--metered and picked the speed for f5.6. I developed it in Rodinal 1:50 for 14 minutes at 20C. Normal agitation: 30 seconds initially and then 10 seconds every minute thereafter. My agitations are something I try to keep consistent, meaning slow and gentle. All things being equal, less agitation means less contrast and less grain FOR ME. The '57 Chevy is 35mm Arista Premium 400 rated at 1600 (I needed the shutter speed in this museum) and developed in Xtol 1+1 for 13:15 at 20C, normal agitation again. Both these times come straight off the Massive Dev chart at www.digitaltruthphoto.com. A very good resource, if only a starting point.
As another poster has said, find out what works for you and be consistent with it. That, IMO, is the main thing. Consistency.
Kenny
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 4:58 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
It feels like this is more process related to the scanning and not the film processing itself (unless there's something you're not telling us, like washing it in 90F water - but I doubt that).
These are 5x7 print (MGIV RC) scans of optically enlarged TMAX 3200 (Acros and TMY are much more fine grained) negatives, XTOL, using an Epson v700:
In Transit by kediwah, on Flickr
Albatross by kediwah, on Flickr
You'll notice the grain, which is not particularly in your face or impossible to ignore, but if your Acros, TMX, or TMY negatives look as grainy or grainier than these then something else is going on.
Now Acros has never been anything but ridiculously sharp for me, this is 35mm, Rodinal, scanned with a Nikon LS-5000:
Astound by kediwah, on Flickr
In fact, the last one even has a fine layer of white particulate crap all over the negative, but it's impossible to see unless it's viewed 100%. Your medium format negatives should be sharper and even more fine-grained for the same picture area.
These are 5x7 print (MGIV RC) scans of optically enlarged TMAX 3200 (Acros and TMY are much more fine grained) negatives, XTOL, using an Epson v700:
In Transit by kediwah, on Flickr
Albatross by kediwah, on Flickr
You'll notice the grain, which is not particularly in your face or impossible to ignore, but if your Acros, TMX, or TMY negatives look as grainy or grainier than these then something else is going on.
Now Acros has never been anything but ridiculously sharp for me, this is 35mm, Rodinal, scanned with a Nikon LS-5000:
Astound by kediwah, on Flickr
In fact, the last one even has a fine layer of white particulate crap all over the negative, but it's impossible to see unless it's viewed 100%. Your medium format negatives should be sharper and even more fine-grained for the same picture area.
Last edited:
srtiwari
Daktari
Like I said, I have no idea what to do next.
Assuming that the problem is the scanning, why is no one else having the same problem. After all, aren't all these scanned images ?
Clayne, your images have a creaminess that I'm trying to achieve. It is seen less in the last image, but I think that has to do with the subject matter...
Assuming that the problem is the scanning, why is no one else having the same problem. After all, aren't all these scanned images ?
Clayne, your images have a creaminess that I'm trying to achieve. It is seen less in the last image, but I think that has to do with the subject matter...
Laviolette
Established
Thanks for these links...they are very informative.
clayne
shoot film or die
- Local time
- 4:58 AM
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2008
- Messages
- 763
Well first things first, I guarantee you the film you're shooting with and the equipment you're using is capable of producing the results you want. So don't worry on that part. In fact, it may already be in your images, but it's not being pulled out of them.
1. What software do you use to scan?
2. What resolution and bit-depth are you scanning at?
3. Other than sharpness, what else do you do to the images typically?
1. What software do you use to scan?
2. What resolution and bit-depth are you scanning at?
3. Other than sharpness, what else do you do to the images typically?
srtiwari
Daktari
1. V700 with Epson scan, though I also have access to a Nikon 9000. I don't use it as much, since my OSX 10.8 does not do Nikon scan, and the Vuescan is "fiddly".
2. Always try 4000 dpi with the Epson, and 16 bit Gray.
3. very little. Actually since LR4 is nondestructive, and has immediate feedback, it is unlikely to be the problem, since I would reverse instantly, anything that I saw worsening the grain.
2. Always try 4000 dpi with the Epson, and 16 bit Gray.
3. very little. Actually since LR4 is nondestructive, and has immediate feedback, it is unlikely to be the problem, since I would reverse instantly, anything that I saw worsening the grain.
