T-Max 400 and D76 huge grain problem

Hi Guys,

 

Please go easy on me as this is the first time I have developed my own film since high school.

I shot a roll of T-Max 400 135 and also a roll of T-Max 400 120. I processed both, a day apart, in D76 (mixed from powder) and then

scanned using my Epson V550 at 2400dpi.

 

The 120 looks great, sharp, good contrast and fine grain.

The 135 has HUGE grain, to the point where I can't even tell where focus is in the frame.

 

The only difference between processing the two is that the D76 was 1:0 for the 120 and 1:1 for the 135.

I understand that 1:0 produces finer grain but is it really that different? This seems a little extreme.. Or does it sound like I've messed up

somewhere.

 

Thanks in advance!

<p>Huge grain from TMAX 400 (probably the finest grained ISO 400 b/w film except for C41 types) could likely be over development, over exposure, or both. Post a scan if possible. If you hold up a strip of negatives and they look very dark that would support the over development and/or over exposure. Also, if there was an extreme difference in temperature between the developer, rinse, and fixer the film may have suffered reticulation.</p>

<p>Hi Mike,<br>

Thank you for your response. Here's one of the scans as requested, and also a 100% crop for you. I also took a quick shot of the strip that they came from.<br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/img081.jpg">Image 1</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/B.jpg">100% Crop of Image 1</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/FullSizeRender.jpg">Negative Strip</a><br>

Dev and Fix were approx. 20 Degrees C.<br />I did however rinse in cold tap water for 10 minutes.</p>

<p>Doesn't look like reticulation. Not a lot of shadow detail in scan. Might actually be underexposed or underdeveloped which can also increase grain. What time did you use?</p>

<p>If I remember correctly it was around 11 mins Mike.<br>

I pulled the time from the <a href="http://wwwuk.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf">here</a><br>

Does that look like unusually large grain size to you for this film/dev combo?</p>

<p>Looks more like auto adjust tried to correct an underexposed or developed negative. That looks more like digital noise than grain. But hard to tell over the internet.</p>

<p>Hi Larry,<br>

I had everything disabled in the Epson scan software (ICE, Grain Reduction etc. all off!)<br>

I did have unsharp mask set to low but I manually adjusted the levels before hitting scan. This is the file as you see it there is what was produced.</p>

<p>Something just does not seem right. </p>

<p>The 120 scans look great, and they were shot on a toy camera!</p>

<p>A lot of us here at Photo.net use the Massive Development Chart as a starting point. http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Tri-X+400&Developer=D-76&mdc=Search&TempUnits=F<br>

Copy and paste this url and it will take you to the TMY 400 page for D-76. Remember, recommended times are just a starting point. You should run some tests of your own to find the developing time that best fits.</p>

<p>Thanks Mike<br>

I think that URL goes to Tri-X but I switched it to TMAX and it's looking like 400-800 ISO @ 1:1 is around 10.5 mins. I'm sure I was at 11 mins, could half a minute really have caused this?</p>

<p>Nick, your photo of the negative strip shows it to be "400 TX", which is Tri-X, not Tmax. Even so, that doesn't look like grain from the film or from normal processing.</p>

<p>So it's actually Tri-X. Even Tri-X shouldn't be that grainy. I would work on fine tuning the developing time.</p>

<p>Look at the negatives with a good loupe, or use your 50mm lens backwards if you don't have a loupe. Do the negatives look like the scan? If not, you may be a victim of "grain aliasing".<br>

If it is grain aliasing, you may need to use the Epson at 4800dpi on the 35mm film, and then down-resolution in software if you don't want to use that much disk space.<br>

Basic idea is that you want your scanner's sensor resolution to be HIGHER than the resolution of the lens between it and the film, such that the lens serves as an optical low-pass filter.<br>

Another possibility, if the negatives are as grainy as the scans, but the scans are soft, is that you may have a focus problem with the position of the 35mm film holder for your Epson scanner. They do <em>not</em> have autofocus. You have to set the film holder at the height above the glass that is in focus. This is a trial-and-error process.<br>

Do look at discussions about film scanning with Epson scanners on the Digital Darkroom forum here...</p>

I do apologise. I purchased a roll of T-MAX today and I've obviously had that stuck in my head. You were right the first

time Mike, sorry!

 

So yes, this was definitely Tri-X 400. And according to the massive dev chart it should have been 11:27 dev time, so I was

only 27 secs out.

 

I have another roll of Tri-X to process but now I'm a little hesitant to do so. Do you guys think this problem was caused at

the dev stage or could it be a software issue?

<p>Normally exposed Tri-X should receive about 9-10 minutes developing in D-76/ID-11 at 1+1 dilution at 70F. Most recommended times are too long for scanning - longer development only serves to exaggerate grain and contrast, both of which conspire to make scanning more difficult. Longer times should be reserved for optical enlargers using diffused light sources (which includes most so-called "condenser" heads, which also use diffused opal bulbs or opal sheet diffusers).</p>

<p>I would also suspect some problems with the scan. Even at 11-12 minutes in D-76 1+1, Tri-X shouldn't look like that. Try scanning again with almost everything disabled: no unsharp masking, no noise reduction, no dust reduction, etc. If the auto exposure default looks weird, try manually adjusting the histogram (post-preview, pre-scan) to avoid clipping.</p>

<p>And double and triple check your exposures. It's hard to judge from the camera phone snap of the negative, but that frame looks extremely contrasty, like it was underexposed and overdeveloped. Check your metering for accuracy and technique - be sure the meter isn't being fooled by strong backlight, light entering the eyepiece, etc.</p>

<p>I recently scanned some of my earliest 35mm Tri-X negatives, from around 1969-70 when I was 12-13. My technique back then wasn't particularly good, but the negatives appeared normally exposed and developed, and the scans with an older Epson 3170 Photo were remarkably good. But I had to disable noise reduction, dust reduction and used only very low unsharp masking to get natural looking results without excessive grain aliasing artifacts. And I occasionally had to manually adjust curves or the histogram points to get optimal results - auto exposure sometimes was badly fooled.</p>

<p>Thank you for all the responses since my last post, I have read them carefully.<br>

I have just tried another scan of the same frame, both at 2400 and 4800 dpi as suggested, with absolutely all corrections disabled. No improvement unfortunately.<br>

Based on this, and the fact that my 120 seems to scan fine, would you guys agree the problem must lie within the processing?<br>

I have uploaded some additional images of this frame for you if that helps, and also a 120 scan for reference:<br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/img100.jpg">Full Resolution JPEG</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/_D807928.jpg">Negative in Epson carrier</a><br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/_D807923.jpg">Negative through a loupe</a> (apologies for the poor image, however the centre of this frame is how it actually looks to my eye in reality)<br>

<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/img067.jpg">100% Crop from a Holga 120 scan</a> (same scanner/settings, same chemical process although 1:0 rather than 1:1)</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />Based on the photo of your negative strip I believe that your Tri-X is simply underexposed at least 2 f-stops. It`s extremyly difficult to scan even some details from that kind of negatives unless you are working with high end scanners such as Imagon or drum scanners. <br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori ARPS<br />Finland</p>

<p>"A lot of us here at Photo.net use the Massive Development Chart as a starting point"<br /><br />Lots of people use that chart and I'm sure it's fine. But in my experience the developing times recommended by Kodak are just fine and are pretty much guaranteed to give good results. I've been developing film for 40 years and rarely done anything other than what Kodak said and have rarely had a problem. I don't think following the Kodak times is your problem.<br /><br />But what was your temperature? Based on the Kodak chart, for 11 minutes you would have been at 65 degrees. You almost have to put icecubes in the developer to get it that cold. You mix D-76 at 125 degrees and should let it sit a day to cool off. At that point it should be room temperature -- I typically develop at either 72 or 75.<br /><br /><br /></p>

What Craig said about letting the fresh mixed D 76 set for twenty four hours. Not only does the temperature

stabilize but also the chemicals get completely dissolved. The scene looks backlit with the sky behind the subject.

I would try metering off my hand while facing the camera location then reduce the EV by 1 stop. Or use an

incident light meter aimed from the subject location towards the light source. Here is a source

http://www.sekonic.com/classroom/meteringtechniques/benefitsofincident.aspx that explains this further.

<p>The D76 had been mixed and sat for over 24 hours. It was clear as crystal.<br>

I used my cameras meter (which I believe is centre weighted) from the shadows and also checked the reading against my 'light meter' app (not perfect I know but at least it gave me the same reading as my camera). Thanks for the URL Randy, I'll check that out.<br>

I shot the roll at box speed (400), would it be worth setting my ASA to 200 and processing for 400, especially in challenging conditions like this?<br>

Craig - 65 degrees here (UK) is pretty much room temperature.<br>

Also, side question, the next roll of Tri-X 400 I've shot at 800. Shouldn't I increase my dev time for this? Kodak seem to suggest the time covers 400-800.. I don't quite understand how it could be the same!?<br>

Thanks again for all the responses!</p>

<p>"Also, side question, the next roll of Tri-X 400 I've shot at 800. Shouldn't I increase my dev time for this? Kodak seem to suggest the time covers 400-800"<br /><br />If you shoot at 800 you have to "push" the film by developing for extra time. Haven't done this in ages so you need to check the time for a one-stop push either with Kodak or the "massive" chart. You cannot simply develop for the normal time or the film will be underexposed by one stop.<br /><br />I would not recommend shooting at 800 and push processing until you've eliminated your problems with getting good results at the normal speed of 400. <br /><br />As for 200, no need to do that routinely if you are metering and exposing properly. Negative film does have more latitude for overexposure than underexposure, so if in doubt open up a stop when shooting. But if you are metering properly and set your meter at 200 but develop normally for 400, everything will be overexposed by one stop for no particular reason.<br /><br />For the sake of figuring out what's going on, I would go shoot a "normal" roll of film. Go out in bright, midday sun with the sun over your shoulder and shining fully on your subject. Maybe include something more or less average reflectance like green grass. Shoot at f/16 and 1/500 (the sunny f/16 formula for bright daylight). Also bracket a stop or two up and down. Develop normally for 400. Examine your negatives -- not a scan -- very closely to see what you've got. Unless something is very, very wrong, you should be pretty much guaranteed to have good negatives. </p>

<p>Thanks Craig,<br>

I did exactly that today and took notes for each frame. Now I'm just double checking my chemistry before I give it another go.<br>

Someone correct me if I'm wrong with any of the following:<br>

<br />- 135 Tri-X 400<br />- D76 @ 1:0 - 20 Deg C for 6.45 minutes<br />- Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (I mixed 16ml with 984ml water) for 1 minute<br />- Kodak T-Max Fixer @ 1:4 - 20 Deg C for 5 minutes<br />- Cold Water Wash for 10 minutes<br />- Photo-Flo for 1 minute</p>

Sounds right, although the wash water should be

room temperature, not "cold".

 

Also, Google the Ilford method for in-tank

washing. Saves water and time.

 

Let us know how the next roll turns out.

<p>40+ years using D-76 confirmed,for me, that , given our local water supply (note the caveats), it works up to full strength about a week after mixing. Used, just after mixing- weak as (insert name of your least-liked brew here..)<br>

Use distilled water to mix your stock,and wait a week anyway.<br>

And the "cold water wash" is a worry -washing is as essential to the process as any other step. All the film makers advise using wash temps similar to process. Ilford wash method makes this clear?</p>