too much grain, little dynamic range? what am i doing wrong here?

[marius]

hello - i very recently started developing my own film, but i have not had much luck yet. i get very grainy results, with little dynamic range. the same seems to happen both with tri-x and hp5+

i've attached two scans from the same roll of tri-x@400, developed in dd-x 1+4 @ 8m at 20C. i know these have scratches & dust specs as well, something else i am working on.

here's my whole procedure. all water is at 20+/-.5 C

1. pre-soak for 1m
2. dd-x 1+4 for 8m. 4 inversions immediately, then on the top of each minute.
3. stop bath: 3x fill with water and agitate for 10 seconds each
4. fix: lauder chemicals "formula 763" for 6 minutes, same agitation routine as developing
5. wash: fill & invert 5x; refill & invert 10x; refill and invert 20x; then refill and invert 20x for the next 10 minutes
6. wetting agent: a tiny amount of kodak photo-flo, then filling slowly with water to submerge film. let it stay for 30s, then empty.
7. dry: hang to dry in bathroom for ~3 hrs

they are scanned with a nikon coolscan V ED, using nikon scan, b&w neg setting; some levels in CS3 after.

any ideas, tips, would be appreciated! marius.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Should work, assuming the dev times are more or less right, though there's no need for the pre-soak.

What EI are you using? Try bracketing +/- 1 stop. Too little exposure gives poor tonality for wet printing, though this can normally be fixed (more or less) in Photoshop. Too much gives big grain and potentially 'blown' highlights if the neg is too dense for the scanner to penetrate.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[venchka]

The promenade shot looks like Tri-X to me. Flat lighting so lower contrast. Maybe you can tweak the scan files a little. The aerial shot is a whole other can of worms. Lots of haze. Hard to judge this one. Unless you're in the air on a frosty morning, aerials are tough.

Try some D-76, 1:1, 20C for 11 minutes. Or Xtol 1:1 for whatever amount of time Kodak says for Tri-X.

 

[eric rose]

have you printed them? I find that scanned negs always look grainier than when printed. I've used dd-x with delta films but not with HP5 or TX. My favourite soup for 4x5 is PyroCat-HD for both films but in 35mm d-76. You might be over aggitating if you are doing 4 inversion every minute. I usually do 3 slow inversions that take a total of 10 sec's to complete. Not 10's each but 3 in 10's just to be clear.

Also you might want to rate the film at either 320 or 200 (I use 200asa) and do some testing from there. If you underexpose (rate at 400asa) and then over develop, as what might be happening here, you will get the results you have described. I have no experience with the fixer you are using so can't comment.

Good luck and keep at it!

 

[feenej]

I thought maybe underexposure too.

 

[Roger Vadim]

wow, the arial shot looks great!
just saw a phantastic book of a recent show at the Photomuseum Winthertur (Switzerland) of a New York based photographer called Zoe Leonard.

http://www.fotomuseum.ch/index.php?id=22

She did a whole series with arials simmilr to yours. great body of work.

needless to say that i like your shot. The other looks like Tri-x to me. Its the old school 35mm look.

Try to expose Tri-x to 250 ASA and reduce the development time 15 - 20% (pull the film). It takes a while to get used to all the different possibilities and modes of a film. try things out, bracket exposure and try to find your E.I. (ASA). make notes. have fun. shoot a lot.

Well, you know all that anyway.

-Michael

 

[charjohncarter]

I agree with both Rogers, bracket. And no kidding, 'it takes a while to get use to all the different possibilities and modes of a film.'

 

[marius]

thanks guys for the helpful replies. i'm going to be keepin' on keepin' on!