Grain and agitation

[olivier_reichenbach]

Hi,

 

Still exploring processing. Getting a bit better everyday, but... I have an issue with grain. I

am trying to minimize it with, namely, FP4. Now, I know this is a slightly grainy film and, in

fact, I like it. But when I process it myself I seem to get more grain than the lab does. Also

I've seen some Tri-X pics processed in Xtol which have a "creamy glowing look" that I

really like to get, even with a different film.

 

My question is: how do you lessen grain, in general, and with FP4 in particular? I use Xtol

1:1 and follow the recommended times published by both Ilford and Kodak, except that I

already agitate a little less (3 inversions every 30 seconds) than recommended and cut the

total dev. time by about 15 to 30 seconds.

 

Should I agitate even less, or less often, or more gently? Should I cut the time even more?

Or should I just use Xtol undiluted? Or change developer? Or all of the above? ;)

 

Sorry for this newbie question, but I don't have that much time to go through trial and

error, and little help in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.

 

BTW, I scan my negs in a Nikon 4000 as color neg.

 

Thank you all.

[bruce watson]

I've researched this in the past. My primary sources were Henry and Haist. From what I can tell, agitiation has no impact on apparent graininess at all. What does, is development temperature, time in developer, and exposure, all of which effect negative density. The biggest factor is, of course, the film's rated speed. There are probably other factors, but that's what I remember off the top of my head.

 

Agitation is not on the list. But... agitation can be used to lower time in development. That is, agitate more and decrease development time.

 

Note that the main factors effecting graininess are interlinked. To change one in a favorable direction is to change one or more in an unfavorable direction. This is the laws of physics talking to ya.

 

Then, of course, you might be exagerating the graininess in scanning (grain aliasing). The Nikon scanners are developing a reputation of not being B&W negative friendly. But that's a topic that's been discussed to death already - hit the archives (digital darkroom) to find out more.

[beau 1664876222]

Olivier,

 

First, it's amazing how much the light has to do with it. Grain always becomes an issue when you have to torture the negative in some way, e.g. making lots of adjustments in scanning, photoshop, etc. If the light was great and you got a good exposure, you can make only subtle adjustments and you won't see objectionable grain. But with light that's too flat or hard, you have to mess with curves, levels, etc. a lot, and that emphasizes grain.

 

Next, developing correctly is important for the same reason. If the neg is too dense or thin, you have to adjust it alot in photoshop and the grain gets ugly. It seems that most inexperienced people tend to overdevelop.

 

Other than that, it's mainly about the choice of film and developer. I find xtol has a gritty look that I don't like -- D76 is much smoother. FP4 is not a fine-grain film, so how the developer shows the grain is important. I also like Rodinal, because while it makes the grain look quite pronounced, the grain has a nice sharp look to it and that works for many things.

[don_mckeith]

FP4 is my main film, and although I shoot mostly 120, I have shot a fair amount of 35mm.I develop in Rodinal 1:25,and when I'm out of that D76 straight- when I'm shooting box cameras,I use dektol 1:8,

and I gotta say,I just don't see much grain with this film. Maybe I'm grain-blind,but I can sure see the grain in APX100-

 

 

I have never tried Xtol, so I can't comment on that, but IMO,FP4 is not a very grany film.

 

 

For that creamy look I use Tri-X @ 100 developed in D76 1:1

for 7min.-werks fur me

[blumley]

I've had lots of success reducing grain by souping in PMK. The stain effectively 'masks' a lot of the grain. Might be worth a try.

[ronald_moravec1]

Do not dilute the developer. Dilution increases grain and it gets slightly sharper.

[alessandro serrao]

I second Mr. Moravec: I know that grain linearly (?) increases with time and diluition (which in turns increases the developing time).

So possibly use undiluited developer and less time: a hint, try some solvent-acting developer, like Perceptol. The tradeoff is a general speed losing.

[conrad_hoffman]

Things that decrease grain tend to also decrease sharpness. To get sharp but grainy negs, use a dilute non-solvent developer, don't over expose, and don't over develop. To get fine grained negs, do somewhat the opposite. Use a solvent developer full strength, "pull" the film slightly by reducing the EI, but still don't over develop it. Try FP4+ rated at EI64, developed in D-76 full strength, for a time that gives a normal print on #3 paper. The amount of extra development to get down to a #2 paper will increase grain more than extra contrast of the #3. Usually. I haven't had great results scanning my FP4+ prints; grain always seems about 2X what it was on the print. No experience with film scanners. I've also used developers containing PPD, and they improve the scanning situation dramatically. You might get the same results with full strength Microdol or a similar very solvent or fine grain developer.

[neal_wydra1]

Dear Olivier,

 

Try Xtol full strength.

 

Neal Wydra

[kent_tolley2]

Oliver - I am not an expert film processor and am learning just like you. But I think you might try different agitation regimes and note the difference in the negs. 3 inversions every 30 seconds seems excessive to me and excessive agitation will increase grain clumping. You don't say how many seconds those 3 inversions takes but remember it's not like shaking martinis. I have had good luck for the most part with 10 seconds agitation every 60 seconds which boils down to 2 agitations at the minute mark (taking ~7 seconds) and 1 agitaion at the 1/2 minute mark (taking ~3.5 seconds). A rule of thumb is ~10 seconds agitation every 60 seconds. But be gentle as the speed at which the developer moves over the emulsion is part of the formula.

[gaburdette]

Olivier,

 

I think Conrad has hit on it with the scanning issue. I have never been able to get a good scan from a traditional B&W negative. If I want to get a digital file of one of the pictures I make a wet darkroom print and then scan the print. I can also get a decent scan by making a contact sheet of my negatives and scanning the smaller images at a high DPI.

 

I shoot FP4 and have developed it in both D76 and HC-110. Grain is very minimal. I can not imagine that your XTOL development would cause that much of a grain problem. I would look to your scanner as the problem before looking at your development. You might want to try having Kodak's C41 B&W film developed and then scan it yourself. Since it has the orange mask you should not have the problem that most scanners seem to have with traditional B&W film.

[frank.schifano]

Gregory: The orange mask present in the Kodak C-41 films has nothing to do with the way that it scans. If that were true the same scanners that do well with C-41 films would have great difficulty with E-6 transparencies. They do not. Ilford's XP-2 scans just as well as it's Kodak cousin and it does not have the orange mask. The reason is simply that both C-41 and E-6 films have virtually no silver left in the film after processing; all the silver has been replaced by dyes. It is the silver grains in conventional B&W films that cause the problems many folks have when scanning because they scatter the light.

[gaburdette]

Frank,

 

I did not realize the XP-2 could scan just as well as the C41 Kodak film. I shoot a roll of XP-2 once with the intention of having it scanned professionally. I rated the roll at 250 to minimize the grain. The scans I got from the roll were horrible. I have seen seen finer grained 3200 speed negatives. I had just assumed it was due to the lack of the orange mask confusing the labs equipment. I guess it was just a poor operator who did not set up the correct profile for the Ilford film.

[bruce watson]

Gregory,

 

The excess grain was due to you downrating the film the 250. You increased the density by increasing exposure. The more dense the negative, the more graininess....

[jim_a]

Oliver, if you haven't played with it yet, you owe yourself a turn trying out D-76 both straight and 1:1. I know everybody raves about Xtol but for me it was always grainier than D-76 whether I used Xtol 1:1 or straight. I was using it with both Tri-x and Neopan 400.

[garrylewis747]

Gee Mr Hogarth, maybe you should write Ilford a letter.They seem to be misinformed }:^)>

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/XP2SGB_QX.pdf

[j.w.]

"If I want to get a digital file of one of the pictures I make a wet darkroom print and then scan the print. I can also get a decent scan by making a contact sheet of my negatives and scanning the smaller images at a high DPI."

 

I'm just a novice at scanning negatives, but my experience is the same. A scanned darkroom print is just easier, and looks better, than scanned film.

 

I'm sure part of the reason is I haven't mastered the technique or choice of film to optimise for scanning. I want it both ways - good negs to print or scan.

 

Since I have few problems with scanning darkroom prints (and virtually no dust issues, either, in comparison w/film), perhaps I should try optimising my prints for scanning. That is, use darkroom prints as an intermediate medium for transfering the most that the negative has to offer into a scannable format.

 

Has anybody noticed certain qualities of prints that make them optimal for scanning but that will simultaneously make them less than optimal as stand-alone prints for display?

 

Obviously surface finish may play a part. What about prints with a very dense shadow detail, near Dmax? Is is better when scanning to have prints with a weaker contrast, which will fit easier within the scanner's sensitivity range, then boost contrast post-scan? It also seems that too low of a contrast will reveal poor tonal seperation post-scanning, as well.

 

There's a fine balance to be found here. Obviously more experiments are in order.

[bruce watson]

Garry,

 

Yep, they do seem to be misinformed. I'll take the research of a Henry or Haist any day over a marketing brochure.

 

Remember, marketeers are the same people who brought you the insinuation that a scanner (doesn't matter who's, or drum/CCD/whatever) could have a Dmax of 4.8. Maybe that's just a marketing joke?

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Hogarth,

 

With a chromogenic film, overexposure gives finer grain but less sharpness, unlike a conventional film where you get coarser grain and less sharpness. Unless I am misreading you, Ilford ain't wrong on that one.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[bruce watson]

Roger, Gregory,

 

My bad. I thought we were talking about FP4+. If chromogenics, then the opposite applies. Ouch.

[garrylewis747]

>Roger, Gregory,

 

>My bad. I thought we were talking about FP4+. If chromogenics, then the opposite applies. Ouch.

 

Boy! I can sure tell who's inportant on this thread. }:^)> }:^)>

 

A good and honest mistake. I'll send you a virtual bandaid for your ouchie. }:^)> Keep up the posts.

[didjiman]

Scanning B&W negs is hardly difficult at all. See my recent post on Digital Darkroom on comparing Nikon vs. Minolta. The key may be to use a good scanning program like Vuescan. Set it to B&W neg, White Balance, and generic film type and the scans are just fine. This is my experience with Delta, HP5+, Tri X, Efke 100 pushed and non pushed, Xtol and Rodinal etc.

[normand_blais1]

For me I expose FP-4 at 80 ISO and I develop in HC-110 1+14(stock)

during 17 minutes with 1 inversion 3 minutes to preserve more details

in hightlights. It looks nice for grain.

 

I heard that you can reduce grain if you add sodium bisulfite solution to the developping solution, but I don't have experience with this.

 

Norm