Ilford FP4 - why so much grain?

M

meste

meste
Local time
11:42 PM
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
51
I am new to film, I mean I am new after a break of 20 years should I say. Anyhow, I developed Ilford FP4 in two places where they use Kodak D76 and Ilford ID11 (the same would say people) and the result is... but I let you to decide if this is how should it get out:

http://www.meste.ro/temp/

you will find 4 images, ___web and ____crop. The web is the whole image optimised for web. The crop one is a crop at 100%. The film was scanned at DPI 4000 with Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED at max quality.

Any feedback would be great - maybe this is how ISO 125 should look like at 100% or ...

thanks,
meste
 
First I would check the negative density against a light source. Is it too dense then they overdeveloped it which increases grain.
Second, the nikon scanner are that sharp that you will always get pretty grainy scans.


Fabian
 
Film scanners generally exagerate grain from B+W negs. The problem is whats called grain aliasing, I'm sure there are other posts.
That said, FP4 isn't particularly fine grained film for its speed. If you are looking for fine grain, the t-grain films will be better for your uses.
 
It's not a Nikon scanner issue. I use an LS-4000 (for 6 years now) and an LS-9000 and get great scans with B&W films. When you have someone else develop your film you lose a lot of control. Plus often in the past I have found labs too often over-cook a bit resulting in prominent grain. I'd learn to do it yourself and tweak your exposure and development to get the look you most want. It's not hard and time very well spent....if you want the best that is.

Here's a link to my FP4 scans on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=38698047@N00&q=FP4&m=text

All of the 35mm was scanned on a Nikon LS-4000. Only got the LS-9000 recently so the MF you see in that link is mostly scanned on an Epson but I can report the 9000 is as good or better on my B&W MF scans as well.

That said here are some LS-9000 scans:

Fuji Acros:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=530951246&size=o

Ilford PanF+ 50:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=530210684&size=o

Ilford HP5+:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=507318297&size=o
 
meste: I agree with that the processing is "off" ... overdeveloped, probably a transport-roller machine which means constant agitation, as it were.

With b&w, there are so many more variables than with colour neg or chromes. "Easy does it" is my mantra.
 
I would agree that third-party processing adds a variable that is hard to decipher.

I would guess either the chemicals were too warm or the film was overagitated -- maybe a combination of both. Hard to say.

And scanning seems to be similar to using a condenser enlarger -- it tends to accentuate the grain and dust spots.
 
Well, respectively, I have to say it MAY be a combination of processing and scanning.
From personal experience using the exact same negative in both scanners, the Minolta with its flourescent bulb gave a smoother, less grainy image than the Nikon with the LED. The Nikon was a great scanner in other respects though. :)
I like the enlarger analogy. Maybe the LED is like the condenser and the fluorescent like the diffuser? :confused:
 
ZeissFan said:
And scanning seems to be similar to using a condenser enlarger -- it tends to accentuate the grain and dust spots.
Click to expand...

Uh? Is that true? I have used condenser enlargers for years (and I still do) and I never found anything similar to what is shown in these images.

What would it be the reason for a condenser anlarger to accentuate grain (I don't even mention dust spots because there should be no dust spot anywhere when enlarging!!!)?

GLF
 
The condenser creates a highly concentrated light source. This has the effect of increasing apparent sharpness but the downside is that everything is rendered very sharply including the grain, dust etc. When developing for a condenser it's customary to reduce development a little to reduce grain clumping and overall contrast. Scanning can also benefit from this regime in my experience.
 
thanks for all your input, it made me do a lot of thinking.

thanks rich815 for the images you post that show various differences between films.

Few more details to share with you - the person that developed my film (cause it is not a lab) does that for years and it shown me Fuji Neopan 400 scanns which I though there were ISO 100 - I never saw anything like that, so I asked for the film to look at it with my own eyes - and it was true. He used the same chemicals and same procedures. Even if he would have used too much aggitation when developing or too warm liquids, it would probably throw off by 10-15% the granulity. But from what I see, could it be that I just got a bad Ilford FP4+ lot?

Aside this I am investigating the scanner issue, but I am buying my own scanner soon so i will be able to play with it to get the max output

thanks,
meste

http://www.meste.ro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom