diagnose my rubbish negative/scan pls?

[simonSE15]

can anyone tell me what ha caused my negative to look like this? it has a horrible grainy, low contrast look.

the photo was taken on a dull day. tri-x 400, f/5.6, 1/125.

developed at home in rodinal (1 + 50) for 12 minutes. agitated every minute, 2 inversions. I have to admit I dont check the temperature at all. 😱

I have a feeling its more the developing than poor exposure but may be wrong. any thoughts anyone?

 

[Tuolumne]

How was it scanned?

/T

 

[simonSE15]

How was it scanned?

using siverfast on canon 8800f. cant really improve it in scanning.

If all your negs are like this, it could be "reticulation" caused by sudden temperature change during processing.

I'm not very particular about the washing so the cold water could be an explanation.

would using a different developer help?

 

[simonSE15]

A cold wash will definitely do this.

In fact it's not the temp that causes the problem, but the sudden change in temp.

thanks for the help.

is tri-x more prone to this than other film stock?

how should I wash my film? I dont really want to leave the water running.

 

[Harry S.]

Get a 1L bottle of water, get it to a temperature within a few degrees of the other chemicals.

easy!

 

[Joao]

Reticulation

Reticulation

If all your negs are like this, it could be "reticulation" caused by sudden temperature change during processing.

If you magnify the scans, you can clearly see if it is reticulation - it looks like a net spread all over the image, makes the image look like a mosaic made with very small pieces.
Joao

 

[Sparrow]

I tried to induce that reticulation thing once by washing in iced water and couldn’t get it to work, it would have been a Ilford film however, HP5 probably.

I'm not sure Ive ever seen reticulation in real life, just in books

 

[ZorkiKat]

Wouldn't blame reticulation immediately. It's hard to see from the attached jpg if it's indeed reticulation. Besides, the texture is TOO big to be reticulation.

What appears to be in the picture is plenty of NOISE. Some scanners or software are prone to create this, especially with silver negatives. Settings can influence this.

Reticulation too is hard to achieve with modern emulsions. Even on purpose. TriX among them. How much colder was the wash water compared to the processing solutions? I've tried to do this myself, but couldn't do it. IMO it's isn't easy to do, even with deliberate intent, after the film has been fixed with a hardening fixer. You DID use hardening fixer, did you? If not, then reticulation could be possible- only if the temperature difference is more than 10 degrees Centigrade.

The only time that I did get reticulation was with a roll of Fuji Neopan 400, with a very warm stop bath (from 20C developer to a 32 C -that's room temp here in the tropics- stop bath). And then the crackled pattern can only be seen with a 10X magnification.

The film emulsion too has to be considerably softened chemically to induce reticulation. With standard processing methods, softening is usually avoided.

As for the LOW CONTRAST scan- don't expect to get the picture to come out right from the straight scan. BW negs are more difficult to handle. The resulting scan should always be considered as rough material meant to be tweaked in photoshop or some other editing software. Remember- Scanners and there Software are brainless devices which use numbers and algorithms to define what a picture should be. It's up to our better knowldege to restore what these machines missed.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Agitating constantly in Rodinal will give you insane grain, will it not?

 

[ZorkiKat]

Before rushing off to use the "ilford" method, please note some prerequisites. The method will not work and may do more bad than good, unless the following has been done or used:

1. Rapid, non-hardening fixer is used. Rapid fixer means film spends less time in fixer and takes less of the harmful thiosulphate compounds in. Non-hardening fixer means that the gelatin emulsion is more permeable and any retained reagent easily leaches out.

2. You are living in a 'temperate' climate or currently in a season where the wash water
can be less than 20C.

In the tropics or during hot weather, the stand-by all purpose acid-hardening fixer should be the only type used for fixing film. Hardening is necessary to prevent the gelatin from frilling or lifting off the film. This, I suppose is a worse situation than reticulation.

When hardening fixers are used, the Ilford method will not work. The tried and proven method of washing for a certain amount of time - be it 30 mins in running water, or using 8 changes of water at five minute intervals, or using a hypo clearing agent in conjunction with shortened wash times- would be better. Long wash times are necessary when the wash water is colder, but times as short at 10 minutes would suffice if the wash water is around 25 - 28 C. I have negatives washed this way, many over 18 years old, which are still as good as they were when newly dried.

Keeping wash water at less than 25 C, 28-30 being the average, here in tropical climes is difficult. But it's safe, and will not cause the gelatin to reticulate or soften too much to cause frilling or lifting. as long as the film has been hardened.

 

[simonSE15]

thanks for all the help everyone.

Im not 100% convinced the cold water has done it, although it might have at least contributed.

I know its not a scanning problem because I got this from a tri-x neg I sent to the lab:

The first pic I posted looks like when I have to lighten underexposed digital pics, so I am sure I have a poor negative. Although the lighting conditions are obviously different in the 2 examples I have given.

Agitating constantly in Rodinal will give you insane grain, will it not?

I heard this.

Possibly I overagtitated, underdeveloped? But I'm sure it's something Ive done wrong with developing. Am going to try the stand methond next time and see what happens. 🙁

 

[mh2000]

Yes. Delta and TM don't do it so easily.

(It happened to me once with TX... and I had another emulsion in the tank at the same time which didn't reticulate. No, that example doesn't look like reticulation to me).

thanks for the help.

is tri-x more prone to this than other film stock?

how should I wash my film? I dont really want to leave the water running.

 

[eli griggs]

I once had a roll of Tri-X reticulate terribly on me while developing another photographers work, a daylong shoot for a models' book that he was paid very well for. The location was extra special as was the supporting cast of stylists, make-up, wardrobe and other models brought in as support; in other words a major effort that could not be re-shot.

What was really weird was the roll was one of five in a steel tank, had been stored with the rest of the film in the fridge, from the same fresh brick bought from a 'pro' camera shop and not a hint of anything wrong with any other film from that or subsequent runs.

I have never had any other film, mine or others, reticulate on me and to this day, I wonder 'what happened'?

Eli