How grainy should Tri-X be (shot at 400)

[alexz]

Another issue that somewhat bothering my starting out my B&W adventure:
shooting Tri-X at the nominal (400) I notice the outcome is quite grainy. I cannot attribute it to improper exposure, however probably better development tweaking is the way to try out (along with shadow contrast one per my previous thread).
Now, having zero previous B&W experience, I cannot judgefully attest how grainy it is and I have never saw another B&W film results. The grainess look may also be contributed by my scanner (Nikon LS-40) because Nikon scanners line is know to exaggerate grain to certain degree due to their RGB led scanning approach. I guess I have no choice but to try to figure my own deelopment/scanning approach to try to leverage grain while preserving other qualities as much as I can (contrast, accutance).

So, the question is: what makes the major influence on grain development-wise ? Under/over development ? Agitation ?
I shoot a lot of family/friend portraiture in various lighting conditions thanks to the convenience of my Leica setup, and excessive grain isn't very flattering to child skin tones (or to young women...). Right now I fight with it using NeatImage software, but I suspect there might be certain sharpness impact as a side effect, so that apparently the ability to control one duign development sounds much more robust way to follow...

The attached are a sample file (resized) and its small crop (non-compressed, from original TIFF) to assess the garin amount I'm talking about.

Please let me know you opinion, advises...

 

[iml]

Development time makes a difference, as does agitation, as does developer, as does exposure. Tri-X at 400 in DD-X or Xtol is qute fine-grained in my experience. But it's difficult to judge whether the results are right with either 100% crops or web jpgs, a print is the best way to decide if you like what you're getting.

Ian

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Hi,

as far as I know trix is loved by a lot of poeple because it has some grain. Your samples dont look much grainier than my typical trix shots. I shoot trix also at 400 and develop for 9 minutes in xtol 1+1.
If you don't like the grain you should switch to tmax, delta, neopan or even a c41 film.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

 

[alexz]

Thank you.
Well, obvious grain is something I didn't used to shooting never B&W before, perhaps this is the main reason it looks a bit weird to me. In fact, I found on street shots grain does actually contributes to the mood of typical street scenic view, however there is another kind of stuff (such as portraiture for instance and of children in particular) where obvious grain may not be as flattering on skin tones.

Perhaps I just shall to keep several different kinds of films for different purposes such as Tri-X for street scenic and some other, less grainy film for dedicated people work...(presumably Tmax or Neopan)...

 

[Santafecino]

Alexz--
You might try Tri-X in HC-110 dilution B. Expose it so that you have some density in "zone 1." Just give it enough exposure so that shadows have some density. I use 200. Then develop in what we in the US call dilution B (it may be different where you are). I get negatives that look like 4x5 when printed--really. The developer makes a lot of difference.
--Lindsay

 

[sepiareverb]

You might try out the T-grain films if you like the speed but don't like the grain. T-Max 400 or Ilford Delta 400 have much smoother looking grain, but will let you shoot the shutter speeds you get wiht Tri-X.

And don't under-estimate your choice of developer in grain development- Microdol-X will give less noticeable grain with Tri-X than HC-110.

Grain and I have had a testy relationship over the years, I went from shooting 35mm Tri-X to Plus-X to Panatomic-X, then moved onto Medium Format seeking less, then to 4x5, 8x10 and even 11x14 film. But since shooting RF cameras, and getting an enlarger that stays aligned perfectly I don't mind grain any more, and in fact will shoot HP5 at 800 and enlarge to 1620. I find it can have a very beautiful effect, and here is where the developer choice comes into play. Experiment a little!

 

[Chris101]

The grain in your example looks fine. The waterspots and dirt are another thing. Grain is just a fact of life in film. I also second the suggestion to try the delta film though. It has quite noticable grain, but it seems more clean than trix grain.

 

[Xmas]

You have to tell your scanner it is a grian film otherwise it may accentuate the grain in its interpolation process.

Noel

P.S. buy the girl an ice cream she makes the cut out, you need to use more photo flow and a film squegee. I'd use a tabular film like delta 400 if you need speed and dont like the grain

 

[andrealed]

Print your negatives, scanning and printing are different things,
(I mean wet darkroom traditional printing). My scans are too much more grainy than the final prints. It's the scanner.
ciao
andrea

 

[troym]

Chiming along with what Andrea said.

I find that when I develop Tri-X (rated at 400 and developed in XTtol 1:1) and print it in a wet darkroom, the prints appear much less grainy than the same negatives appear when scanned.

If you haven't done so already, I would try printing your negatives traditionally. In the alternative, you could seek some advice from folks here on RFF about scanning/digital processing techniques in order to tame the grain. Or, you could try a different film, such as the T-Max or Delta lines.

 

[Chris101]

Scanning grainy film causes artifacting that looks like grain, but is much larger. Scanning at a higher resolution and downsampling in post mostly fixes it, but scanns from silver prints look best to me.

Also in my experience, delta is not that much finer grained than trix. The grain is just ... different.

 

[alexz]

Thanks once again.
Well, in fact, dill. B is exactly what I do, for 6 min 30 sec at 20 deg. C, with first minute of contunuous agitation, then agitate 10 sec at the end of each subsequent minute. Did not get what do you mean by exposing for zone 1 - do you mean overexpose by one stop (at ISO 200) ?

Yes, I think I shell try Tmax/Delta in near future to see how they bring their grain close to my liking where appropiate, but first I intend to experiment with Tri-X a bti more to try to fetch out of it as much as I can...will do in dill. H of HC-110, twice longer times +/-, different agitation approaches, will play with its exposure down to 200 to see what can be done.

Water residue and dirt is something that bothers me indeed - I get a lot of these even though using soaped bath at the end per recommendation of a friend of mine. A good soap bath after rinsing makes less water residue on the upper part of the film when hanging to dry, but as the soap foam creeps down the film - it accumulates on the lower part and apparently dries out there leaving nasty signs.
I hang my films to dry in the bathroom considering it the less dusty environment then the rest of my house, but still it accumulates a lot of such....

Noel, first of all thanks for a warm coment on my little girl, she is indeed cutie - we're still wondering how she made up to be such (she is goldy-blond with bright blue eyes) - no one in our families (at least among these we know in person) has such features...🙂 (though one of my neighbours has blue eye - go figure.....LOL)
What do you mean by photo flow ? What is film squegee ?
What do you mean telling the scanner about the grain nature f the film being scanned ? There is no such kind of setup for Nikon (except of GEM which is artificial grain treatement similar to one I do with NeatImage)...

 

[alexz]

Unfortunately I have no access to wet printing, neither will have such in any forseable future. I just must to tailor my process to scanning. in fact, I always scan at maximum resolution available from my scanner (2900 dpi) and when needed just resample to the final lower one. Of course, resampling to a lower resolution flattens out some grain appearance, but yet on native flat objects (such as clean skin of child) even at lower resolution it still looks a bit rough comparative to a flat (non-grainy) original sacn to begin with...
Perhaps scanning by higher resolution machine and then downsampling would flatten out the grain more noticably without significant impact to sharpness...go figure...

 

[Chris101]

... I think I shell try Tmax/Delta in near future to see how they bring their grain close to my liking ...

Don't confuse those two tabular grain films. The look they achieve is completely different.

What do you mean by photo flow ? What is film squegee ?
What do you mean telling the scanner about the grain nature f the film being scanned ? ...

Kodak's Photoflo is a non-sudsiing detergent that is used as a wetting agent for film in highly diluted form. It leaves no residue, and therefore is better than soap in the final rinse.

A film squeegee is a small double rubber-bladed wiper designed to make very precise scratches on your negatives. Many photogs use their fingers to do the same thing and save the money.

I use a Microtek scanner, and the software lets me designate the film type, and all sorts of compensation are made from that info. Additionally it has screens that can smooth out grain in the scanning process. I don't use that - if I didn't want grain, I'd be shooting digital.

Have fun! Some of the best photographers still shoot with a single black and white film. Their consistency shows.

 

[Tom A]

Tri X is inherently a bit grainy. You dont really "reduce" the size of the grain with developers, but some do enhance it. Rodinal/HC-110 and neofin Blue are high percieved sharpness style of surface- developers while developers with almost fully saturated amounts of Sodium Sulphite gives less defined grain. The classic Tri X developer is the D-76 and diluting this to 1:1 and souping Tri X for 10-10,5 minutes is almost an industrial standard. The Sodium Sulphite is a silver halide solvent and "mushes" up the grain slightly (nice technical term isen't it) and makes it look less pronounced.
Dont overagitate the film as that accentuates the grain too. I only do 2-3 turns every 60 seconds and that gives a smoother appearance. Over exposure is also a grain producer.
I am relatively new to scanning but I have found that if you turn off the ICE function on your Nikon scanner, it behaves better.
There are developers that is easy to mix yourself and that give you less grain though I dont know what the availability of the chemicals is like where you live.
You can also try to cut the speed of the film, by rating it at 200 ASA and cutting the developing time by 20-25% and that will imporove the mid tones and "mask" the grain.
I like Tri X as it is pretty well an universal film and you can adjust it to a variety of light conditions. It is still the standard film for most photo journalists as it a/can be developed almost everywhere and b/handles abuse very well. These guys are shooting digital today, but hidden on their person is usually a Leica M and a 35 or 50mm lens for "just in case" shots, or when the electronics on the DSLr bites the dust.

 

[BillBingham2]

It's been way too long, but I remember the speed (temp) also has some impact on grain too. Too hot (shorter time) helps grain grow. I did miles of Tri X in D-76 at 1:1 and never had a bad grain experience. Grain is sort of like brush strokes on an oil painting.

Your pictures grain looks very different from what I remember of Tri X when I was doing a lot of it. Another thing is did you do it by hand or have it done at a lab? I remember that lab processing (machine) increased grain too.

I need to get my life more together and put in a darkroom.....

B2 (;->

 

[Sisyphus]

Tri-X and Rodinal:

Tri-X is grainy by nature. However, you can control the size of the grain, the sharpness of the grain, depending on what type of developer you use, temperature throughout the development process, agitation, and the length of your processing time.

There is also a difference between grain size and grain sharpness. For example, D-76 will make the grain appear smaller, while Rodinal will make the grain appear larger, yet, it is also sharper.

In order to control the size of the grain, it is best to process your film with a shorter development time. When I use Rodinal I mix it 1:25, when most people mix it 1:50, which keeps my development times shorter, therefore the grain will be less accentuated, but keep in mind it will still be grainy.

If you look on my blog, all the images are photographed with Tri-X, processed in Rodinal 1:25, and the negatives are scanned on less superior scanner than a Nikon.

You can sort of get an idea of what your images might look like!

Best of Luck!

 

[Tom A]

This thread started me thinking about trying an other developer so I mixed up a "Vestal Special". It was concocted by David Vestal and is a simple Metol/Sulphite type. As it is a 2 bath developer the chance of blowing the highlights is diminished. i had a bit of a dog's breakfast of films sitting in the darkroom so I did 2 APX 400, 1 Tri-X and two Agfapan 250 movie stock. I knew that the AP 250 would respond well to it and the Tri X can be trusted too with D-23/D 76 developer. Just finished the run and hung them up to dry. looked fine so far and tomorrow i will see if I can scan and post them.
Another factor that will increase is 'wet time", the time the film spend in liquid. The longer it is wet, the more chance that the grain "bundles up".
If you have access to a microscope, try looking at the film under 80-100 times magnification. If you are testing film/developer combinations this gives you a good idea about changes in grain structure. Tri X in Rodinal looks like it is cut with a scalpel and D76 grain is more diffuse. You can not change the individual grain size as that is determined in manufacturing. What happens is that single grain 'clumps" together and the size of the clumps determines the appearance of grain.
Only way to change grain size is to go to something like "Odells Physical" developer where the original grain is replaced with silver molecules. Virtually grainless but complex to use and it slows your Tri X to about 6-8 ASA!

 

[alexz]

It's been way too long, but I remember the speed (temp) also has some impact on grain too. Too hot (shorter time) helps grain grow. I did miles of Tri X in D-76 at 1:1 and never had a bad grain experience. Grain is sort of like brush strokes on an oil painting.

Your pictures grain looks very different from what I remember of Tri X when I was doing a lot of it. Another thing is did you do it by hand or have it done at a lab? I remember that lab processing (machine) increased grain too.

I need to get my life more together and put in a darkroom.....

B2 (;->

yes, as I mentioned it was done by me in person, in HC-110, dill. B for 6.5 minutes at 20 deg. C but with quite intensive agitation (continuous one during first minute, then 10 seconds at the end of each subsequent minute). After that was intermediate water bath (between developer and fixer) - about 5 minutes in water with little agitation.
I think I'm going to try a bit longer development to gain more shadow contrast but with far less agitation (to keep highlights within bounds and probably somehow influence on grain appearence). Will develop for 7.5 minutes, agitate continuously for the first 30 sec, then 2-3 single agitations per subsequent minute....

BTW, Tom, I'm aware about ICE problematicity with silver films - thus it is off when I scan silver B&W. Leaves a lot to be retouched though afterwards though...perhaps will try to apply some GEM figuring the setting that will reduce the grain affecting sharpness to the minimum...

 

[Tom A]

I just scanned about 14 shots done with Vestal's concoction. I haven't figured out how to load large files onto Rff yet. hey, it is amazing that I can even get them on Flickr!
If you go to Flickr "T &T and Mr B" you can see some of these. There is a section dedicated to developers with about 240 images, done in a variety of developers and films. Not enough resolution to show grain, but tonality shows up quite well. This digital stuff still baffles me! Where do all the lost files go - somewhere there must be this HUGE hard drive that holds all of peoples lost files. Oh, well - I still have several miles of film in the freezer so I am sticking with that for now.
The Vestal is smoother than my current " regular" developer, a Crawley soup called FX 37 or the Phenidone/Vitamine C that I also use. Good sharpness with Vestal and a bit "mushy" grain (saturated Sodium Sulphite solution). It does look like D-75 with a nominally higer speed (1/3-1/2 stop) particularly with APX 400 (still have 4-500 ft of that around).
You can also find the Flickr site by goiung to Rapidwinder.com and look fpr "pictures" on the links.