Help me tame the grain

[briandaly]

HP5+ in Rodinal Special (not Rodinal) 1+30 for 8 mins in tank. 4 inversions initially and at start of each 60 secs.
I've seen much finer grain with this film, so wonder what I'm doing wrong.

Also, does it help to underexpose if the film is to be scanned (in order to create a thinner negative)?

 

[Pherdinand]

sometimes grain can get 'amplified' when you scan the film. Might be the problem, if it is unusually high.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Also, does it help to underexpose if the film is to be scanned (in order to create a thinner negative)?

I've do better by reducing development time rather than reducing exposure when I scan.

 

[briandaly]

Thanks Pherdinind. I thought this might be a factor, so I scanned some C-41 lab-processed film (which the lab had also scanned). The C41 scans from my scanner were practically grain-free (close to those form the lab scan).
Here's an example of a C41 lab-processed negative scan - same scanner as the first image posted. Hardly any grain visible at this size.

 

[briandaly]

I've do better by reducing development time rather than reducing exposure when I scan.

Bob,
So you'd recommend over-exposing and under-developing?
Or simply under developing with normal exposure?

 

[Bob Michaels]

Bob,
So you'd recommend over-exposing and under-developing?
Or simply under developing with normal exposure?

I guess you would say under developing with normal exposure. I shoot Neopan 400 at an e.i. of 250 when I develop it in Rodinal. But I don't consider that overexposing.

 

[kaiyen]

Expose the minimum amount required to get the shadow detail you want. No more, no less. Definitely not less.

Develop a bit les than normal - a slightly thinner negative is easier to scan.

C-41 film has no grain. They use dye clouds, not silver grain.

 

[briandaly]

Expose the minimum amount required to get the shadow detail you want. No more, no less. Definitely not less.

Develop a bit les than normal - a slightly thinner negative is easier to scan.

C-41 film has no grain. They use dye clouds, not silver grain.

I've 2 exposed rolls of HP5+ ready to process. I'll try 6 mins instead of 8 in the developer this time.
Any advice on agitation? Should I also reduce this (or increase it to compensate to shorter development time)?

 

[briandaly]

I guess you would say under developing with normal exposure. I shoot Neopan 400 at an e.i. of 250 when I develop it in Rodinal. But I don't consider that overexposing.

Bob,

I'm 25 exposures into my first roll of Neopan 400. Why would you consider EI 250 a natural index for this film, rather than 400? I've read here (mainly from Keith's posts) that this film has very fine grain. Any tips for developing it?

 

[kaiyen]

I've 2 exposed rolls of HP5+ ready to process. I'll try 6 mins instead of 8 in the developer this time.
Any advice on agitation? Should I also reduce this (or increase it to compensate to shorter development time)?

Try to keep your agitation methods the same, always. Always always. Just adjust time. otherwise you have too many factors going on at once.

Try just a 15-20% change. That would be about 6:45. 6 minutes is safer, certainly, but probably no need to go that far.

Rodinal is a speed-decreasing developer. For some, 250 is the "normal" EI for many 400 speed film stocks in Rodinal. You're unlikely to get box speed with anything short of probably Microphen or XTOL.

 

[rich815]

Is it possible with the brighter background here you or your camera metered a bit aggressively and as a result you under exposed the shadows? Then after or during scanning when you compensated for such you cranked up to see into the shadows and because they were under-exposed you saw more grain than typical...

Personally, as Bob mentions, I tend to shot slightly lower on my ASA and then pull back maybe 10% in the development time for scanning purposes. You want a good exposure on the neg in the first place but by pulling back exposure ensure not too contrasty or dense a negative for scanning.

 

[briandaly]

@Kaiyen, thanks for the tip on agitation.

@Rich815, anything is possible. The metering may be off and I also suspect that the scanner software compensates during scanning. I'm going to try reduced development and see how it affects grain.

 

[titrisol]

I do not see anything wrong with the sax picture
Grain is there, but it is fine for a scanned HP5 negative (35mm)
Since these are your first rolls, consistency is far more important. I would concentrate more in obtaining negatives that have full tonal range rather than fine grain, and that look like that all the time.
If you want finer grain use DDX or Xtol.

If you are going to cut development try 7 minutes (15% less), not 6 (25% less). Keep temperature, agitation constant
And BRACKET the roll you will test in that way you'll find your personal film SPEED so that next time you expose in that way and develop in a consistent manner.

 

[briandaly]

Thanks for the suggestions.
I cut back development from 8 to 7 mins and am seeing much less grain.
Same film (HP5+) but big improvement over first image, as far as grain is concerned.

 

[photophorous]

Agitation, exposure, and time have an effect, but you will see a much bigger difference by changing the developer. For scanning, I get much better results with D76 straight than I get with D76 diluted 1:1. I also get better results with DDX.

Paul

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agitation, exposure, and time have an effect, but you will see a much bigger difference by changing the developer. For scanning, I get much better results with D76 straight than I get with D76 diluted 1:1. I also get better results with DDX.

Paul

Dear Paul,

Heartily seconded. Rodinal, whether Special or not, is a dev you use for tonality, NOT for fine grain. It also gives quite poor speed with HP5 (Ilford's tests, not mine).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[hans voralberg]

I'm third, if you want fine grain, use a fine grain dev. DDX is well suited for HP5, try really gentle agitation and high concentration short time as well. Mine is 5-6 min for 1:4 dillution, rate @ 250

 

[rich815]

I think you're wrongly comparing apples to oranges here in terms of the image subject matter and how it may have been exposed. You seem to imply that if you had cut back the development time on that original image you posted that you would have seen less grain. I highly doubt that, in fact that would have had the neg even more underdeveloped and likely resulted in more grain in the look. Your two images here could hardly be more different. The top one a dark fellow against a light wall, which I surmised, may have resulted in him being underexposed and thus when "lightened" or dodged showed the grain so evidently---to your dissatisfaction. The second image has a much more even lighting throughout and would have been less inclined to "fool" the meter into you setting for under exposure. I think you're seeing the result of a better exposure in the second example and thus better grain, not because you cut the development time. If you go forward thinking to solve your grain issue is to merely cut development time I think you're bound to be disappointed.

Thanks for the suggestions.
I cut back development from 8 to 7 mins and am seeing much less grain.
Same film (HP5+) but big improvement over first image, as far as grain is concerned.

 

[David Goldfarb]

Use a high-sulfite developer, like D-76, and you'll get finer grain.