laki_topalovic
Newbie
Hi guys,
I just scanned roll of TriX exposed according to the "famous push method" that I have seen popular here
- underexpose then push in Rodinal.
So , the stats :
TriX 400 -> 3200 ASA
Kiev 4a
Minolta autometer IVf
Rodinal 1+50 (8ml of developer in water)
temp 19 or 20 deg
dev. time - 30min.
---------------------------------
Agitation scheme is 30s initial, then 5inv every 5minutes. First 30s I imitate drum process. rotating the tank inclined, little bit forward than back, then forward again. The rest I simply inverse the tank 5 times every 5 minutes.
Fixer is Ilford rapid fix, stop is alc. vinegar in water. Really really dont know what happened.... This is a small slice of the 100% frame I scanned in Minolta scan elite 5400, at 2700DPI. I scanned it as BW NEGATIVE, could that be the problem?
Thank you all
I just scanned roll of TriX exposed according to the "famous push method" that I have seen popular here
- underexpose then push in Rodinal.So , the stats :
TriX 400 -> 3200 ASA
Kiev 4a
Minolta autometer IVf
Rodinal 1+50 (8ml of developer in water)
temp 19 or 20 deg
dev. time - 30min.
---------------------------------
Agitation scheme is 30s initial, then 5inv every 5minutes. First 30s I imitate drum process. rotating the tank inclined, little bit forward than back, then forward again. The rest I simply inverse the tank 5 times every 5 minutes.
Fixer is Ilford rapid fix, stop is alc. vinegar in water. Really really dont know what happened.... This is a small slice of the 100% frame I scanned in Minolta scan elite 5400, at 2700DPI. I scanned it as BW NEGATIVE, could that be the problem?
Thank you all
Attachments
Last edited:
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I'm not sure what you mean. You pushed the film 3 stops. It's got grain. That's what happens when you push film
allan
allan
MadMan2k
Well-known
Yeah, IMO pushing film tends to work best when the majority of the picture is dark, with random patterns, then the grain seems more natural.
dagabel
Established
For my first roll of TriX I shot at 1200 - 1600, developed in Diafine and scanned using the B&W negative setting on a Minolta Dual Scan III. I was really disappointed in what I thought was the high level of grain, but I think it was scanner noise.
After a little more research, I started scanning as a color transparency (e.g., http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip11.html), and am much happier with the results for TriX. This method reduces the contrast, but then I get to play with adding it back using the Curves tool in the Gimp.
Duane
After a little more research, I started scanning as a color transparency (e.g., http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip11.html), and am much happier with the results for TriX. This method reduces the contrast, but then I get to play with adding it back using the Curves tool in the Gimp.
Duane
Lonely Driver
Established
laki_topalovic said:Hi guys,
I just scanned roll of TriX exposed according to the "famous push method" that I have seen popular here
So , the stats :
TriX 400 -> 3200 ASA
Kiev 4a
Minolta autometer IVf
Rodinal 1+50 (8ml of developer in water)
temp 19 or 20 deg
dev. time - 30min.
---------------------------------
Agitation scheme is 30s initial, then 5inv every 5minutes. First 30s I imitate drum process. rotating the tank inclined, little bit forward than back, then forward again. The rest I simply inverse the tank 5 times every 5 minutes.
Fixer is Ilford rapid fix, stop is alc. vinegar in water. Really really dont know what happened.... This is a small slice of the 100% frame I scanned in Minolta scan elite 5400, at 2700DPI. I scanned it as BW NEGATIVE, could that be the problem?
Thank you all
Naw, I think the problem is that you shot it at 3200 ASA - I've shot with native 3200 film and my shots look somewhat similar.
Athena
Well-known
Allan,kaiyen said:I'm not sure what you mean. You pushed the film 3 stops. It's got grain. That's what happens when you push film
allan
Thanks.
I was beginning to wonder whether my mind had totally unravelled when I did the 3-stop math and tried to understand the grain complaint!
Plus, this seems to be a zoomed in shot via a digital scanner onto a website!
How many more vaiables do we want to add to degreade the image?!
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I would say that's about normal.
You generally don't push film for the sake of pushing film. You do it for a reason: the lighting situation demands it, you're wanting a certain look, etc. The grain is supposed to be there and it's going to be even more pronounced when pushing.
Show us the whole finished image. From the crop, I see nothing wrong.
You generally don't push film for the sake of pushing film. You do it for a reason: the lighting situation demands it, you're wanting a certain look, etc. The grain is supposed to be there and it's going to be even more pronounced when pushing.
Show us the whole finished image. From the crop, I see nothing wrong.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
It's true that pushing exaggerates the appearance of grain, but it's also true that if you printed this negative via the conventional wet process instead of scanning it, the result would look much less grainy.
The reason is grain aliasing, a phenomenon caused by the interaction of the randomly-arranged film grains with the regularly-spaced sensitivity "pits" of the scanner's CCD array. You can do various things (defocus the scanner, apply filters, etc.) to make it less obvious, but you can't completely get rid of it.
If you do a search of RFF, you'll find other threads with a more extensive discussion of this topic. The short summary is that it's an artifact caused by scanning, that it's worse with conventional b&w films because their grain structure is more sharp-edged, that the effect varies depending on your film and scanner, and that you can't completely get rid of it because it's inherent in the sampling process.
The reason is grain aliasing, a phenomenon caused by the interaction of the randomly-arranged film grains with the regularly-spaced sensitivity "pits" of the scanner's CCD array. You can do various things (defocus the scanner, apply filters, etc.) to make it less obvious, but you can't completely get rid of it.
If you do a search of RFF, you'll find other threads with a more extensive discussion of this topic. The short summary is that it's an artifact caused by scanning, that it's worse with conventional b&w films because their grain structure is more sharp-edged, that the effect varies depending on your film and scanner, and that you can't completely get rid of it because it's inherent in the sampling process.
Toby
On the alert
Pushing increases grain but Rodinal tends to be grainy even at normal ISO's. I'd use neopan 1600 and T-max developer for this kind of work
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Someone at this forum a few weeks ago discussed this, and how to improve your resulting image in PS. I don't remember his/her name but it was an excellent essay. So good, that I printed it. The thread or whatever you call this topics was 'sharpness on scanned 35mm'. You might be able to find it. It is worth looking for. My copy is in print, but if you can't find it I will scan it for you. I understand you are worried about grain from developing, but to me some of it is augmented by the scan.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Looks like someone beat me to it. But with my thread name you should be able to find it.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Here's a tip: scan at higher resolution, say 4800 dpi, use some software (like neatimage) to do a GENTLE grain reduction, sharpen carefully, then downsize the image to around 50% the original pixel dimensions. This will average out the grain and give a smoother result if done properly. You'll have to experiment with different settings to see what works best for your taste and setup.
Good luck!
Good luck!