What should I do to avoid grain on film?

Since about one month, I develop my own films. (Before, I brought my

films to a studio and after that, I was doing the printing at home.)

So, since I develop my films, I noticed a grain much more evident on

the pictures. The film I use is from Ilford (Delta 100 Pro) and

Ilfotec DD-X as a developer for about 11:30 minutes at 21 degrees.

What is wrong? The best sample of the evidence of grain I'm writing

about can be seen in my portfolio at the picture named: "Coin

laundry". Thanks in advance for your advice. Thierry

I think that "Coin Laundry" is a very nice image as is. Based on the print, it may be slightly

underexposed, but development looks about right. Not much improvement needed there,

and I don't find the grain to be excessive for the shooting conditions.

 

In general, overdevelopment makes grain worse, as does increasing developer dilution (for

solvent developers such as Xtol, D76/ID11, and DDX). Obviously, faster films will have

more prominent grain. The trick is to get to know a one or two all-purpose developers (for

me, that's Xtol) and three or four films very well.

 

Based on Massive Dev Chart times you are in the ballpark for stock DDX and Delta 100 at

box speed. If you are consistently dissatisfied with your results with this film/dev combo,

try shooting it at progressively lower EI's and decrease your development times to match,

see what happens.

 

But honestly, looking at your portfolio, I don't see where you have much to complain

about! :)

Thanks Michael! Did you mean that if I use Delta 100 and shoot as if it was a ASA 50, and I reduce the time when I develop, I should get something I would appreciate better? I'm scared to be underexposed in these circumstances.

Over agitation can also increse grain. Are you following the reccomended agitation for the

film?

Try Efke 25, no grain to speak of.

 

Cheers.<div></div>

Nice shots. Even when you scan from the print, grain will usually look a bit worse. How does the print compare with the scan? You should develop your film aiming to print with a #3 filter. The old wisdom was #2, but current wisdom says negative quality improves with slightly less development. That can go hand in hand with shooting at a bit lower EI, though overexposure will make things worse, not better. Expose just enough for the shadow detail you want, and no more. I've never used DD-X, but you might investigate different developers. Generally, high dilutions will make the grain stand out, and low dilutions will subdue it. Wanna know what I really think? IMO, your tonal quality is good, and it suits your images, so don't mess with it. Learn to enjoy a bit of grain!

"...I'm scared to be underexposed in these circumstances..."...rating at 50 vice 100 is not underexposing...it's actually overexposing.

<br><br>

judging by the DOF I'm guessing you had a small aperture.....f/11? Coupled with 100 ISO film, your shutterspeed was what?....if it's over 1/2 second, according to <a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/100_Delta.pdf"><u>Ilford's spec sheet</u></a> on this stuff, you have to lengthen the time for reciprocity failure.

<br><br>

as stated above, excess agitation can couse increased grain...again, see Ilford's spec sheet. Are you keeping all the other chemicals within 1 degree C? If not, this can cause reticulation. Most of the time this is thought of as a massive type thing....but, sometimes it is so minor it actually looks a lot like film grain. What you could be doing is have the film at 21 degrees C....then throw it it a stop bath at 19 C, and then in fixer at 24 C......this can cause the film base to crack........just like if you took ice and thru it in 21 C water......craaaccckkkkk!

If you are scanning your negatives, then you want them thin ie as little exposure as you can get away with. DDX isn't a very fine grain developer. I scan, and find Xtol 1+1 is about perfect. Scanned at 5400 they are virtually grainless and print up to A3+ with no visible grain. So yes you could change your film, but it's excellent, so change your developer instead.

To reduce grain, overexpose and underdevelop. Also, I agree, the large depth-of-field indeed indicates f/11 to f/16, which means that if your exposure times are in the 1/2 second range you'll start to see reciprocity failure as it is.

 

Reciprocity failure means you need to add time (or open up the aperture) to give it even more exposure, so if you took the meter reading as gospel and exposed 1/2 second, you'll underexpose, which leads to even more grain when you compensate in the printing.

Your grain does seem excessive for 100 speed film. Try using XTol, undiluted, for 8 minutes maybe 8.5 minutes. That will reduce your grain and produce fine negatives...considering its Delta :)

 

And this statement "You should develop your film aiming to print with a #3 filter. The old wisdom was #2, but current wisdom says negative quality improves with slightly less development." is just wrong. First, there is no "conventional wisdom" that you should print on a #3...I have to wonder who's wisdom came up with that. 2nd. printing on a higher filter will show grain more than on a lower filter. I could go on but dinners ready so all I can say is do a test roll like I suggested above, then look at the results. Post back here if you find the results not better. And keep your chemical temperatures constant thru the entire process.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

Thierry,

I don't think the Coin Laundry photo has excessive grain for an existing light photo. If you get a drum scan from your film, instead of scanning the print, you'll get better overall digital (second generation) image quality, at a price. I do think that some grain is good for the urban scenes in your portfolio, especially the subway car. Your portfolio is very good, but I must ask, what is with the guy holding the egg?

 

If you really want to escape grain, go with a larger format than you currently use.<div></div>

The #3 vs #2 business has been discussed at length, though I can't find the original references. It also has to do with format. The benefits of reduced development won't show up as much with large format, but for 35mm the increase in negative quality is significant. Obviously the same negative will show more grain as the paper contrast is increased. The catch is that by reducing development and increasing the paper grade one step to compensate, the improvements in grain and sharpness occurring with the negative happen faster than the increase in visibility due to the paper change. This assumes correct exposure and such. Obviously paper grades aren't very consistent, and films differ in their response to developers, so it's not an iron clad rule that has to be followed, but it's also not patently wrong. Hopefully someone can recall where this was originally brought up.

One reference, anyway- http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/zone_system.shtml

 

Right hand side, a few screens down.

I think it might be the temperature of my stop bath and fix... I thought that being close of the right temperature was only important with the developer. So, I'll start from there. If I don't get what I expect, then, I'll change my DD-X for Xtol... Thank again for your help! I can't believe how many people responded to me. This website is absolutely amazing and its members are very nice and helpful! Merci beaucoup. Thierry

Certain developers will reduce grain as well. Ilford's Perceptol is very good at reducing it. I went from Diafine to Perceptol and was amazed; it's so smooth...almost too smooth. Of course, with Perceptol and Kodak's MicrodolX, you may lose some "speed" on your film.

 

Just another suggestion.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240802772/sr=8-1/qid=1140808275/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9083294-3543911?%5Fencoding=UTF8

. . .your wash water tem can affect grain as well. A simple way to control this without

expensive equipment is to have sevral jugs of water on hand for rinsing. If you are using a

16 oz ( 500ml) tank, 2 gallons (8 liters) should be sufficient. You would have to fill them in

advance and keep them with your chemicals and clearing agent. When you rinse after

fixing, fill and empty the tank a couple times with the water from the jugs, use your

clearing agent as directed, then use the rest of the water to rinse.

 

This may seem like a hassle because it requires more time and attention during the wash

but it works. You dont have to keep dripping water into the tank, you can fill then empty a

few minutes later.

 

The way it was explained to me.: even if your processing and fixing are at consistant

tempreture, if your wash water is significantly higher or lower in tempreture it can cause

expansion or shrinking of the emultion during this phase. The results may be seen in the

grain pattern of the negative. Some photographers used to use this as an effect. If you are

more than +/- 5 F (2 C) in your wash, you may have a problem. Warmer water is worse.

I had a problem like this as well, and noticed that it only happened when i was using my telephoto lens, making me think it was lens distortion. If i use my prime lens, i never get that. But i am just a basic photo student, and i could have easily overagitated or something. Although, i seriously never get that grain with any of my other lens. Ps. i use that same film, but develop in D-76.

Conrad, regarding the grade 2 versus grade 3 controversy and finer grain, greater sharpness. Kodak recommended scaling 35mm negatives to grade 3 paper in at least one of its film guides from the 70s (which I'm looking for now). Ansel Adams also recommended it in his first set of photo books: eg, the chapter on the 'miniature camera out of doors' in Natural Light Photography, 1952. More recently, Barry Thornton wrote about it in Edge of Darkness.

 

For a long time I had assumed that more or less whatever you gained from reducing film development you later lost by using a higher contrast paper. Then once by mistake I used Rodinal 1:100 with 1:50 times and had to print on grades 4 and 5. I had two rolls of under-developed film (fortunately bracketed) to compare with 4 of normally developed, and all of the same subject: Shores Acres on the Oregon coast. The prints from the under-developed film were clearly sharper and had finer grain than the normally developed film. This was obvious in the 6x9 inch prints I usually make.

 

I am convinced of the value of this approach for 35mm, although like so much in photography, everyone should try it for themselves and decide. There is one drawback: loss of film speed, roughly 1/2 stop.