Significant grain on photos taken in moderate-low lighting?

I printed a couple of pictures that were shot under "normal" afternoon room lighting. Some of them came out with a grain that became more prominent when I increased the magenta. Other pictures taken on the same roll did not have nearly as much grain, or none noticeable at all.

 

Here is a scrap print from a project to hopefully show this:

 

 

Again, this was taken in the afternoon with relatively strong lighting coming from the window.

 

What causes grain, and is there any way to control it? Is there a way to increase contrast without making grain more visible? Or, alternatively, is there a way to reduce the appearance of the grain during printing?

 

My apologies if this question is elementary; I am completely new to black and white photography. Thanks in advance!

Large even toned areas tend to show grain. Increasing contrast will make it worse. The small cures involve processing, different developers and such. The large cure is slower film.

+1 to Conrad's answer.

 

Also using a slower film, or larger format, will definitely help. T-Max 100, for example, is practically grainless if properly exposed and processed. OTOH, there's nothing you can do with a film like Ilford Delta3200 that will stop it having golf-ball sized grain.

 

What film did you use?

Also, underexposure and either pushing or adjusting the exposure (and contrast) during

printing or scanning tends to show grain.

 

Strong light through the window might cause the meter to underexpose the rest.

(See the recent thread on shadows and highlights.)

Also, underexposure and either pushing or adjusting the exposure (and contrast) during

printing or scanning tends to show grain.

 

Strong light through the window might cause the meter to underexpose the rest.

(See the recent thread on shadows and highlights.)

Thank you, I wasn't aware that strong light could cause underexposure. I'll be sure to check out the thread.

+1 to Conrad's answer.

 

Also using a slower film, or larger format, will definitely help. T-Max 100, for example, is practically grainless if properly exposed and processed. OTOH, there's nothing you can do with a film like Ilford Delta3200 that will stop it having golf-ball sized grain.

 

What film did you use?

I used Ilford HP5 Plus 400, and I believe I had the ISO on my camera set to around 800. Thanks for the suggestions!

Large even toned areas tend to show grain. Increasing contrast will make it worse. The small cures involve processing, different developers and such. The large cure is slower film.

I never thought of the part about even tones! Thank you for your response. I'll look into using slower film.

I used Ilford HP5 Plus 400, and I believe I had the ISO on my camera set to around 800.

Why? I mean why did you set the light meter differently from the film speed?

 

Did you think the film was going to magically get more sensitive, just because you wished it so?

 

Film manufacturers don't print those numbers on the box for fun! If it says '400' then that's the best speed you're gonna get from that film. End of story.

Why? I mean why did you set the light meter differently from the film speed?

 

Did you think the film was going to magically get more sensitive, just because you wished it so?

 

Film manufacturers don't print those numbers on the box for fun! If it says '400' then that's the best speed you're gonna get from that film. End of story.

 

Well, not completely.

 

But yes, if there is no other reason.

 

Note, though, that for both Tri-X an TMax400, Kodak recommends the same development time for EI 800 exposure.

(I didn't look to see that Ilford says.)

 

It seems that they believe it has enough safety margin for that.

 

That means, though, that you don't have that safety margin somewhere else, where you

might need it, such as cases that fool light meters.

 

In the days of manual cameras, or even external light meters, I would always set the meter to the

appropriate value, and then adjust later. With the Nikon FM, the LEDs indicate when you are within

one stop of the indicated exposure.

 

Most cameras now have an exposure offset, so you can offset without actually changing the set value.

 

But if you have to ask, then you should use the box speed.

Again, this was taken in the afternoon with relatively strong lighting coming from the window.

 

Yes strong light coming in the window, but not directly lighting up most of the subject,

but also where it could easily fool the exposure meter.

 

The camera doesn't know that you didn't want a picture of the window.

Always a good idea to know how your camera meters, say center-weighted over xx% of the image, or some diameter.

Note, though, that for both Tri-X an TMax400, Kodak recommends the same development time for EI 800 exposure.

(I didn't look to see that Ilford says.)

 

It seems that they believe it has enough safety margin for that.

I'm sure the technical bods at Kodak know perfectly well that using E.I. 800 will result in one stop underexposure and consequent loss of shadow detail - detail that cannot be clawed back by simply over-developing.

 

I'm also sure that the marketing team (who probably have a far bigger budget and certainly more clout) have had a hand in the preparation of those technical publications. Said marketing team are perfectly aware that perpetuating the myth of being able to 'push' film speed is in the interest of sales. Since potential buyers will just go to a competitor that advocates the lie.

 

Like flash Guide Number inflation, once one manufacturer gets away with it; they all do it!

I'm sure the technical bods at Kodak know perfectly well that using E.I. 800 will result in one stop underexposure and consequent loss of shadow detail - detail that cannot be clawed back by simply over-developing.

 

I'm also sure that the marketing team (who probably have a far bigger budget and certainly more clout) have had a hand in the preparation of those technical publications. Said marketing team are perfectly aware that perpetuating the myth of being able to 'push' film speed is in the interest of sales. Since potential buyers will just go to a competitor that advocates the lie.

 

Like flash Guide Number inflation, once one manufacturer gets away with it; they all do it!

 

Specifically, they say: "Push processing allows film to be exposed at higher speeds, however, push processing will

not produce optimum quality. There will be some loss in shadow detail, an increase in graininess, and an increase in contrast.

The degree of these effects varies from slight to very significant depending on the amount of underexposure and push processing.

The results are usually excellent with a 2-stop push, and acceptable with 3-stop push depending on the lighting and the scene contrast."

 

I suspect part of the reason to push is to get a negative that is human viewable.

Even when the paper (or scanner) can get the low density image out, we might not

believe it. Besides, we have to be able to select the negative.

 

It seems, though, that they believe that increased development doesn't help with one stop

underexposure, where you just move a little down the curve.

 

I suspect also that one reason that push seems to work, is that many push-needing

scenes have low contrast. The contrast increase helps, even if you don't get anything

that you wouldn't otherwise have. But there is a tiny difference in the bottom of the curve.

I'm also sure that the marketing team (who probably have a far bigger budget and certainly more clout)

 

The essence of much in that is in this conversation and in other conversations, too.

 

I think the clear separation of mathematical facts from marketing hyperbole is a good first step: once separated, folk can choose to follow the guidelines based upon marketing hyperbole. But it is important to know and understand, which, is what.

 

WW

But it is important to know and understand, which, is what.

Sadly, an increasingly difficult task.

Setting the ISO or your interpretation of it is one thing. How your metering is interpreting the scene is another. Maybe the bright window on the left has resulted in some unexpected underexposure, which in addition to setting the film speed on one full stop over box speed has resulted in no margin for error. The walls are pale and probably should have led to you increasing the indicated exposure a bit.

Setting the ISO or your interpretation of it is one thing. How your metering is interpreting the scene is another. Maybe the bright window on the left has resulted in some unexpected underexposure, which in addition to setting the film speed on one full stop over box speed has resulted in no margin for error. The walls are pale and probably should have led to you increasing the indicated exposure a bit.

 

Yes.

 

Also, large areas of uniform surface show grain that more interesting textures can hide.

You also have to remember that what you see as 'grain' in a positive scan or print, is actually the space between microscopic filaments of silver in the negative. Therefore any underexposure causes less silver to be deposited and more space between, which shows as larger black specks in the positive.

 

Hence underexposure results in bigger 'grain', and is rarely a good idea in any circumstance.