Grainy Tri-X 400?

IMO, given the limited films we have available, and commercial developers, brewing your own is the only thing that makes sense. Shoot me a PM with your email if you want a copy of my developer spreadsheet.

 

I don't take issue with DIY developers-in fact I have prepared plenty of my own. As a chemist, I always have tweaks and modifications to existing formulae or new ideas on my mind, and also quite often have what I need at hand.

 

With that said, the commercial developers still around-like D76, HC110, and Rodinal-do work quite well. Mixing your own developers adds another variable, and I think that when learning the process there's a lot of validity to using commercial chemistry for the sake of getting your process down.

For some historical perspective on "grain", here is an old article from Modern Photography(1948-10).

 

Right now, we're back into the no-grain attitude, except that nowadays it's noise, not grain.

Embrace grain/noise, it can be your friend.

Grain? Why mess around? Texture Screens! Anybody remember those?

 

OTOH, if no grain is your thing, find a copy of Champlin on Fine Grain, by Harry Champlin, 1938. Also his other book, Brilliance-Graduation-Sharpness with the Miniature Camera, also 1938. I doubt much of either applies to modern films, but you never know. Unfortunately, his final formulation, #16, used a proprietary compound whose composition is lost to history. Too bad, because the microphotographs of the grain structure were fairly impressive.

Edited October 18, 2017 by conrad_hoffman

A few things to keep in mind..... scanners emphasize film grain, so what you see is much more apparent than what you would see in a darkroom print. Also, Dektol is a paper developer, not a film developer. Can you use it w/ film? Sure, and I and plenty of people have, but it would either be because you wanted to get a specific look, or because that's all you had. It will definitely give you a lot of grain. Grain can be a result of a lot of different things like developer choice, how aggressively the film is agitated, exposure, all that. Tri-X is grainy by nature in 35mm, and it's one of it's most prized attributes as it's a beautiful grain. In 120 it is a different beast, and in 4X5 I didn't see any grain at all in my shots. Very smooth, yet it retained that wonderful Tri-X look. Try it in Rodinal sometime if you want to see grain. The two films were made for each other, and I personally love that look, but it won't give you the tonality of D76. I've been buying old cans of Kodak Mic-X for years on eBay or Etsy and it is always good, so that and Freestyle are good sources for this developer. At full strength it gives a tight, almost grainless look, but you lose a stop on the exposure end.

 

Did you shoot it at 400? A lot of people go w/ 200 or 250, and I am convinced that Tri-X is actually a 250 ISO film that Kodak decided to call 400 just for marketing purposes. It shoots very well at lots of exposures, and I have shot it at 100 and developed it normally and got beautiful prints, although the blacks were blocked up a little. Still, for the right occasion it can look good. And I agree, grain in colour is not a nice thing to see because of the reason Glen stated, but grain in B&W is really cool. A lot of today's digital shooters who never shot film don't understand this, and make the mistake of thinking it will look like their shots that were desaturated, which only compounds the error as digital is not grain, it is noise. I used to dislike Acros myself, but some people on APUG convinced me otherwise. It can look very nice indeed, but it has to be developed properly to get any tonality and character.

Edited October 29, 2017 by steve_mareno|1

Thanks Steve, yes, exposed at 400. So if I shoot at 200 it may result in a finer grain? I don't have the option of adjusting the developing time just yet and I'll be continuing to get the lab to do the processing (although i plan to roll my own in the future). I like the grain too, but would be curious to see what a finer grain looks like with this film. So worth a try at 200 with standard lab development? I did ask the lab to make no level correction on the scans and I have to say that the exposures all looked correct to me, I don't think I made any level adjustment on the images above. Will shooting at 200 change that?

It has been a lifetime since I posted but this showed up and I have just the example in one of my film tests. Your example looks to me as it was pushed at least 2 stops. Yes, it is overly grainy and the midtones are gone.

 

This is a 50% crop of a 35mm frame. Tmax for comparison. I shoot Trix more than Tmax because the tonality is unmatchable.

Edited October 31, 2017 by mauro_franic

To your question about Ilford:

 

Acros' grain structure is shaped like TMAX. I extensively tested both side by side. Tmax has slightly smaller grain and has slightly more detail. Acros is sharper (so often scans of soft contrast scenes may show more detail than Tmax) and has more interesting tonality.

Tmax is also at least half a stop slower. Here is the low contrast test.

The resolution advantage of TMAX over Acros is irrelevant. In 35mm format they both resolve approximately the same as my 42MP Sony A7RII. Trix resolves much less but I like it the most.

 

The wavelength response is very different. If you look at the 100% crops above, TMAX outpaces Acros on the lamp in the far back. Acros outpaces Tmax on the grass.

Edited October 31, 2017 by mauro_franic

Note in your images the lack of mid grays. This is the midtones response test.

And as pointed out, the Noritsu introduces weird noise patterns (although it doesn't seem to be your problem).

 

See comparison of the Coolscan and the Noritsu with the Mamiya 7II and Portra 400. Also A7RII.

Edited October 31, 2017 by mauro_franic

I suspect the scans were sharpened and you're seeing artifacts.

Try asking for zero setting or a minus setting on the scan sharpening next time.