B&W grain, need help regarding ASA / EI / Development of negatives / Printing

<p>Hello everybody,</p>

<p>I am new here and totally lost regarding B&W ASA / EI / film development / printing - all in one.<br>

I don't develop myself negatives, but via a lab who I don't meet in person because my local photo-shop is the dispatcher of my films, because the lab is approx. 300 miles away. I had no issues with slide films so I trust them, but I need some help regarding B&W and how to explain to them what I really want.<br>

I intend to shoot following B&W films:<br>

ILFORD 3200 at EI 1600<br>

ILFORD HP5+ 400 at EI 800</p>

<p>So I did my own logical thinking<br>

3200 ASA film shooting at EI 3200 = 0 (standard)<br>

3200 ASA film shooting at EI 1600 = -1 (reduce grain)<br>

400 ASA film shooting at EI 800 = +1 (add grain)</p>

<p>Now without much knowledge but a lot of imagination, I desire or want to have following result: from a film with less grain I want more and from a film with more I want less. So can any of you explain it to me, please? I had in mind not to tell them (the lab) anything and have them develop and print it for me as "normal" e.g. Ilford 3200 at 3200 ASA, but what impact will it make on final result bearing in mind that I shoot it at EI 1600 / or will the result this way be what I want it to be, less grain? Or if I want EI 1600 (-1) result the film must be processed at 1600 ASA too? Because in my head if I shoot at EI 1600 and have it developed at 1600 ASA then it is a 0 (same standard), not a -1 or +1.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photo films are somewhat forgiving should they be over or under exposed. We call this “latitude”. The black & white negative film generally tolerates, without degrading the final image, two stops over-exposure and one stop under exposure. When you deliberately re-rate 3200 ISO to 1600 ISO, you will likely over-expose the film by one f-stop. When you shoot 400 ISO film as if it were 800 ISO, you are deliberately under-exposing one f-stop. In both cases it is unlikely that any degradation will occur; these intentional re-ratings are within the confines of the latitude of negative films. </p>

<p>As you know a negative film is not intended to be viewed; nobody looks at a negative and says “look at Aunt Sally, doesn’t she look good?” We print these negatives on paper and examine the prints. It is important to keep this in mind because during the print- making process we are literally taking the picture again. During this second exposure we substitute paper for film and we are taking a picture of the film. This second re-exposing onto paper affords us the opportunity to correct exposure errors made the first time around. This is why negative film has extended latitude. Because we generally view slide film directly, we do not have this opportunity; thus side film has greatly reduced latitude.</p>

<p>If you intentionally or accidently under-expose and you wish for the lab to compensate, you ask them to “push process”. Conversely, film that has been over-exposed is adjusted by “pull processing. Tell the lab in plain words to push or pull and tell them the extent of the error in terms of “stops”. One stop is a doubling or halving of the correct exposure (2X error). Two stops is a 4X error, three stops is an 8X error.</p>

<p>As to grain: All film images show “grain” or a granularly. Grain may not be noticeable if the prints are small, but enlargements will likely reveal the grain. Fast films, those above 400 ISO, inherently show more grain. The optimum grain structure is achieved when the film is exposed and developed as per the rated ISO. Under-exposure greatly induces a heightened grain. Over-exposed films also show intensified grain structure, however, over-exposure is better tolerated. </p>

<p>Hi Alan,<br>

Thank you for your time. I really appreciate your effort, and you managed to explain it the way I hoped somebody would.</p>

 

<p>To begin with I must admit that as I during my film shooting days was more of a Kodak (in particular Tri-X) fan I don't have much experience with HP5 (and more with FP4) and none with Delta 3200<br>

But as the basic principles apply for both Kodak and Ilford ( and Agfa, Orwo and the other) b/w films of that age I dare making a comment based on my pretty extensive (from the early 70's to late 90's) professional experience shooting and developing b/w films (and making prints from them).</p>

<p>For starters it's important to keep in mind that especially with B/W film, the type (and sensitivity) of the film is a determining factor in the amount of grain and contrast in the final negative.<br>

A low speed film like Kodak Panatomic X (ISO 25) or Inford Pan F (ISO 50) will give a much higher contrast and finer grain negative then the two films you mention.<br>

Ilford 3200 and HP5 are high speed B/W films, with inevitably more grain and lower contrast (although that can be influenced, more on that later)<br>

HP5 has had two variations, the first introduced in 1976 and the second in 1989, of which the latter, relabed HP5 Plus, was 'improved to get a finer grain compared to its predecessor.<br>

3200 Delta (introduced in 1998) has more grain due to its higher sensitivity, but relatively still a pretty fine one.<br>

Between Kodak and Ilford, the latter was the one with a finer grain(and lower contrast), especially with the higher sensitivity emulsions.<br>

That was the reason I personally went for Tri-X (basically my standard B/W film, although I also experimented with TMX 3200, for the extremely coarse grain you can get with it when developed in Rodinal) which had more/coarser, IMO better looking grain, and higher contrast (in particular when push processed).</p>

<p>Both HP5 (plus) and Delta 3200 are 'old fashioned' b/w films, which means that unlike Ilford XP2 and Kodak 400 CN (which can be processed in the same C41 developer as color films), they can be developed in many different types of developer.<br>

E.g. HP5 can be processed in Microphen (and still retain a relatively fine grain if pushed to ISO800), Perceptol (and used at ISO 200) Acufine ( ISO 720) and ID11 (ISO720), with due to the developer (and subsequent ISO) chosen a different character of the negative<br>

The choice of film developer, together with the concentration and temperature of it, in combination the amount of agitation and development time, are determining factors in influencing the (character of the) final negative, from low contract to high contrast, higher or lower density, or more or less grain, while also the brand and type of film IMO are a highly determining factor</p>

<p>It basically boils down to :<br>

overexpose + certain type of developer + shorter development time = lower contrast<br>

underexpose + certain type of developer + longer development time = higher contrast<br>

However keep in mind that a higher temperature of the developer and degree of agitation of the film during the development process are also a , if not more important factor to get more or less contrast and/or grain</p>

<p>Problem with sending a film to a lab is that (unless you use a specialized one that develops the films by hand),they most likely will use a 'standard' developer that will give 'normal' average contrast and 'fine' grain negatives.<br>

Also they usually have a highly mechanized process for developing films with developing machines and consquently, apart from shortening or lengthening the development time, don't have the option to vary the amount of agitation of a film while it runs trough the machine, or similarly do so with the temperature of the film developer</p>

<p>So overexposing a film while the development time remains standard will most likely result in a higher density negative, which when printed risks resulting in more grain.<br>

The higher density will mean that while the high lit parts of the image in the negative gets a higher density, the shadow parts, which would normally be opaque (for the middle tones) to transparent (for the shadows) will now also have a higher density.<br>

And to have a final image in the print with clear but not burnt out highlights, and dark enough shadows and blacks, you would have to use a softer grade paper and paper developer at longer exposure times while printing</p>

<p>Under exposing in combination with standard development will give a thinner, lower density negative, which in its turn will lead to a in itself in all parts thin negative<br>

This will as far as the print is concerned result in easily completely blacked out dark parts, and more importantly blacked out shadows, and grayish, rather then clear, high lights<br>

To get a 'correct' print that means use of harder grade paper and paper developer at shorter exposure times, while that will not automatically result in a finer grain (maybe even the contrary)</p>

<p>Based on my personal experienced (somewhat limited with HP5 and Delta 3200, but pretty extensive with B/W film developing and printing in general) I think you'll most likely get a pretty decent (fine) grain (for a high sensitivity film with HP5 and even the Delta 3200 when exposed and developed correct and normally, simply and inevitably because that was what Ilford was aafter to begin with.<br>

But getting more grain will when using standard chemicals and developing (most likely the case with a lab) will be much harder, if not impossible<br>

Note: some users have reported on the net that Delta 3200 is actually ISO 1000 rather then ISO 3200, so using it at ISO 3200 in combination with Ilfotec DD-X developer will result in more grain. Can't confirm that from personal experience, but seems interesting to know.</p>

<p>If you have to ask here, most likely you should expose film at box speed, and develop at the normal time and temperature. </p>

<p>But otherwise, people using the zone system sometimes do it a little differently. Decreasing exposure (that is, higher EI value) and increased development increases contrast. That is what people do when there isn't enough light for the film that they have.</p>

<p>Conversely, increasing the exposure (lower EI) and decreasing development an appropriate amount will decrease contrast. That can be useful for scenes that have a large variation from dark to light. (Some parts in shade, some in direct sunlight.) Some films have suggested times and EI values on the data sheet. </p>

<p>As for grain, the way that normal contrast films work is that they have silver bromide grains of different sizes. The bigger grains are more sensitive (easier to hit with photons). Smaller grains are less sensitive. The variety of grain sizes gives the film enough dynamic range. Underexposing uses only the larger grains, which tends to cause more visible grain when printed (or scanned). Increasing exposure means using more of the smaller grains, which should give less grain in the image. But a better way is to use a finer grain, lower ISO, film.</p>

<p>TMZ and Delta 3200 have actual ISO ratings of about 1000. The characteristic curve has a little bit different shape, such that the ISO method isn't quite right. They are really designed to be pushed (relative to the ISO value). For Delta 3200, there are times for EI 800, 1600, 3200, 6400, 12500, and maybe more. (Some developers allow for a wider range.) </p>

<p>For most scenes, the variation from light to dark is about eight stops, sometimes a little more, sometimes less. So one or two stops isn't a big difference, but will limit the shadows or highlights a little, depending on which way. For most negative films, a little more exposure is good. </p>

<p>The rated ISO, and recommended EI value for Kodak Tri-X is 400. For EI 800, they suggest no change in development time. There are times for 1600 and 3200. </p>

<p>http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/prod/files/files/products/f4017_TriX.pdf</p>

<p>There are many good films in the ISO 400 range. Kodak describes Tri-X as "very fine grain". <br>

It should be fine for normal enlargements. If you want wall sized images, you want the finest grain films you can find. Unless you like old Panatomic-X, that might be Ilford Pan-F+. </p>

<p>Thank you (Paul and Glen) for taking the trouble to explain me so much about B&W film.<br>

My only experience so far was with reversal film Kodachrome and lately (past few years) with Provia and Velvia, so B&W is a new territory, and all of your knowledge is valuable information to me.<br>

I will get my hands on some B&W films and simply try out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4549066">Glen H</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 28, 2017; 05:10 p.m.</em></p>

<p><em>There are many good films in the ISO 400 range. Kodak describes Tri-X as "very fine grain".</em><br /> <br /> I really wouldn't take the descriptions etc. manufacturers give for their products too seriously.</p>

<p>E.g. back in 1999 Nikon at the introduction of the D1 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1125472340/nikond1-pressrelease boasted this about its high ISO/low light capacities <em> The long shutter speeds work perfectly with the D1's high performance CCD for very low-light photography</em><br /> In reality ISO 400 really was the highest usable ISO, and I'm not even mentioning the magenta cast of the images, very limited battery life (approx 300 shots if you were lucky) or, to put it mildly, quirky menu (In its defense, things like the built quality, the AF, fps and buffer were at that time at the top of their game, and I was a happy user/owner until I after some time upgraded to a D1H/D1X)</p>

<p>As a long time (25+ years) Tri-X user (and fan) I can say that it really wasn't a 'very fine grain' film, no matter low long or short processed in whatever developer (I tried many of them, like Agfa Rodinal, May and Baker Promicrol, D-76, HC110, Acufine, Tetenal Leicanol and many other concoctions photographers would experiment with back in the film shooting days), on the contrary even.<br /> But it was exactly that compared to e.g. HP5 coarser' grain (inevitable considering that it was introduced in 1954) and the, for a 'high' sensitivity film, contrast that gave Tri-X the characteristics which made it the long time favorite of many amateur and pro shooters.<br /> Kodak 'improved' the grain/emulsion with the introduction of the T-Max films in the early 80's, but IMO those new films gave considerably more 'flat' and 'grayish', even if smaller grain, results then Tri-X<br /><br /> This is e.g. (part of) the product description Kodak gave for T-Max P3200 (aka TMZ)<br /> <em>This multi-speed continuous-tone panchromatic black-and-white negative film lets you photograph in situations that were previously impossible. P3200 film provides a notable combination of high to ultra-high film speeds with finer grain than that of other fast black-and-white films on the market</em><br /> <em><br /></em>while this however is how it worked out in reality (ISO 400 in Agfa Rodinal)<br />http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/159141665/large</p><div></div>

Ilford 3200 isn't really ISO 3200. Its true speed is

somewhere around 1600 in Microphen, which IME

gives the "best" speed/grain tradeoff for this film.

Having said that the grain is horrendous and personally I wouldn't even consider using it in

35mm size.

 

I wouldn't worry about special instructions to a commercial lab. Apart from giving the technician a bit of a laugh it'll have no other effect. Chances are the film will be overdeveloped with unprintable highlights anyway.

 

Why not just get yourself a developing tank, a changing bag and a few chemicals? It's the only way you'll get any control over the development process.

Too late to edit.

 

Here's the sort of grain you can expect from Ilford

Delta 3200 exposed at EI3200, compared with the

same scene shot using a Nikon D700 at the same exposure and with the same lens from the same distance.

 

The crop is about 3mm high from close to the centre of the negative.

 

Notice the DSLR shows about one stop more shadow detail. Well, in fact a whole lot more tonality and detail everywhere.<div></div>

<p>I'm with Rodeo Joe. If you want to shoot B&W film, you should process it yourself. Capital cost is low, especially second-hand on eBay. Start with a developer that has good shelf life, for instance Ilford DD-X or Alford Ilfosol 3. <br>

If you want to have a lab process your film, stick with color films, as those processes have to be tightly controlled and predictable. You'll never get consistency with commercial B&W processing, unless you use a very high-end lab.</p>

 

<p>Thanks Joe and John.<br>

I do have suitable bathroom for it, but no experience at all. Purchasing the necessary equipment is not too big deal, only if I had a list of all parts needed for such lab. But on the other hand I have no idea or feeling how to commence such process. But again trying to learn something new is always a pleasant challenge.<br>

Regarding mm, I do shoot on 120mm with a Hasselblad 500 C/M, 80mm t* f/2.8 lens, but on a daily basis Nikon F from late 60's is the choice - simply out of convenience.<br>

Beside the point; can any of you tell which film this is (image below)? I know it is a long shot (maybe) and probably it is more about parameters than film. According to the source this is a b&w film. I like the quantity of grain, and my aim/hope is to achieve the same result, if possible. <br>

<img src="http://oi65.tinypic.com/racdqh.jpg" alt="" width="633" height="731" /></p>

<p>B & W film developing<br>

Developing tank<br />Film spiral<br />Developer of choice<br />Stop Bath<br />Fixer<br />Thermometer.<br>

That's really it for the necessary purchases - the rest is down to environment.<br>

Somewhere REALLY light-tight to load the film into the tank. Best test is to sit in the room / cupboard / whatever for ten minutes with the light out. If at the end of that time you can see anything at all, it ain't light tight. Other alternative is a changing bag (large), but this can make hands sweaty causing problems getting film into the spiral.<br>

Either way, get a gash roll of film and practice with that in daylight, first with your eyes open, then with them shut, until you can load the spiral with confidence. Once you are happy, proceed with the film to be developed (in darkness, of course !)<br>

Once the film is in the tank, all other steps can be carried out in daylight.<br>

HTH<br>

Tony</p>

<p>Another vote for learning to develop your films yourself. Whereas labs have standard processes for colour processes, B+W, while basically simple, offers choices and labs vary enormously in which choices they make, and the care with which they take. You can find numerous posts in which this is discussed.<br>

If you're interested in a particular look then you'll soon be able to take control. Delta3200 in my experience is very grainy indeed: it might suit you. I prefer it in 120 size myself (which incidentally is 60mm wide, not as commonly quotes, 120mm).<br>

I would suggest starting with a normal film (not Delta3200) and go for a normal sort of result. Then venture towards the effects that you may want. I speak from experience: my first roll ever was in 1970 and it was Agfa's ultra high speed Isopan Record and it was so grainy that the results were basically unusable.</p>

<p>Developing your own B&W is really pretty easy. Look around on Ilford's site a bit - http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=9 They have good instructions on the basics and what you need, etc... </p>

<p>Thank you Tony for the list. I will see what is available and for how much.<br>

Bethe, thank you too for the link. <br>

John, what about the quality from the 70's, which B&W films were preferred? I saw some images and keep wondering if there is anything today on the market with the capability of (re)producing same effect like the image below: <img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/12/article-2307861-191EB1FA000005DC-321_964x637.jpg" alt="" width="964" height="637" /></p>

Getting a certain "look" is not about the film used,

nor even the camera. It's in the tonal range and contrast, subject, lighting and composition. Any of your examples could easily have been shot with a digital camera and processed to appear as grainy and contrasty, or as flat and smooth as you like.

 

I'm pretty sure that the beach scene with cars could be faithfully reproduced by throwing a few thousand dollars at hiring classic cars, models and costumes. The picture itself could have been snapped with almost any decent camera and film. Or indeed with a modern digital camera.

 

Remember, anything you see on the web is a digital image; regardless of how it was originally captured. You have to see original prints, not 3rd or 4th hand reproductions, to appreciate the quality or otherwise of a film image.

 

I defy anyone to look at a small thumbnail digital image on an LCD screen and say which film or camera it was shot with. That's not a sensible request.

<p>I have to disagree with you. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea how all b&w are the same. </p>

"Sorry, but I don't buy the idea how all b&w are the

same."

 

That's not actually what I said. I said it was

impossible to tell which film was used from a small digital reproduction. Any given film can be processed and printed to give a whole range of different grain size, contrast and tone quality. Throw different format sizes into the mix, and telling one film from another is mainly guesswork, even looking at an original silver-gelatine print

 

For example: T-max 100 gave very different tone curves and granularity between being developed in D-76 or in T-max developer or in Rodinal. There's no single "look" to any particular film, although it's very difficult to process an inherently fast and grainy film to give fine grain. However you can print a fine-grained negative through a grain screen to simulate coarse grain very convincingly.

 

I developed and printed film for 40 years, both professionally and for my own pleasure. I think I know what I'm talking about. You can "buy" it or not. But don't complain in years to come that you've wasted your time searching for some non-existent holy grail of film and developer combination.

There are enough people giving away darkroom equipment, that you might get some free, but the list above is pretty close.

 

I would add some bottles to put the chemistry in.

 

A changing bag is convenient for loading tanks, unless you have a well light sealed room.

This is not as complex as it seems in all these replies but there is a lot of good information from some experienced photographers. I've been using B&W film since maybe my junior year in high school and that has been a looooong time ago. In my newspaper days I often used 20-30 rolls a week and did my own darkroom work. Still do. What I discovered in all that is that Tri-X is a very versatile film and Plus-X is right behind it. The Ilford films and TMax are also very useful but nothing matches the look I can get from Tri-X. The best way I found to use it was to expose at ISO 400 whenever possible. Develop it in D-76, dilute it 1:1 with water and keep temperature between 67 and 73 degrees F. Best is going to be 68 degrees. Developing time is directly related to temperature and keep all of your temps in chemistry, wash and pre soak within about 2 degrees of the same. That is very important. If you need more film speed you can expose or push TX to ISO 1600 easily. Develop it in Acufine if that still exists and go with the 1:1 dilution again. You get more grain and more contrast in your negatives but I've always liked that in many applications.<BR><BR> If you find ISO 1600 is not enough I wouldn't bother with the 3200 unless you are just forced to. Better to add some light if possible or go to a tripod and slower shutter speed if that gets the job done. If the grain in 35mm B&W film of any kind is just too much or you want to make bigger prints then go to a medium format camera shooting 120 film.<BR><BR> Hasselblad, Mamiya, Bronica all are good and can be purchased for amazingly low prices these days. Many people now will question your sanity for using film at all. Personally I think there has never been a better time to be a photographer because in the same camera bag I have digital and film and my workroom is a complete darkroom along with a computer, film scanner and printers. I can get super results with any of this and enjoy myself. Have fun!!<BR><BR>

 

Rick H.