Grain or no grain...

[rur]

Ok, so I would appreciate some comments here: I've been trying to

reduce grain, or at least what I consider grain in my prints (I say

this because when I took my first B&W developing/printing, my prints

looked much "smoother" than what I get in my darkroom at home. The

chemicals are different but I've read that people are getting nice

results on this forum with the chemicals I am using).

 

I've read a lot here and changed a great many things, one at a time of

course, and it seemed to me that I wasn't agitating enough. So, I

went back to the procedure that I learned in my class and am happy

with my prints although the 5x7s I've printed still look better than

the 8x10s although many folks here on the forum say that with HP5 or

Tri-X they get nice smooth looks with 8x10s (how's that for a run on

sentence)

 

Anyway, this is a print of a Tri-X 35 mm neg developed in D76 for 9.5'

at 70 degrees, with 30" agitation and then 3 inversions in 5" for each

30". Acid stop and then 5' fix with 5' water wash. Printed on Ilford

RC paper in Ilford MG devloper for 1 min.

 

The only thing I haven't done to date is decrease my development time

and I was thinking of doing this next as my negs seem very dense to me

and may be I'm overdeveloping.

 

I'd apprecaite comments on the grain here as may be I'm just not

getting something. The print is better than what I've had in the past

but still not what I had the first time around and dang it, I want

that! LOL and still a bit frstrated in B&W land...

 

Thanks much...<div></div>

[randall ellis]

Decreasing exposure and development time can reduce grain in the negative. Under contrasty conditions, try cutting speed by half and development time by %25. Under very contrasty light, try cutting exposure by 1.3 stops and development by %33. You might want to experiment until you get the feel for your film/developer combination, but you should see less grain and easier printing negatives.

 

For a more detailed explanation, read "Edge of Darkness" by Barry Thornton. He goes into detail about why this works and how to take advantage of it, as well as a lot of other related subjects.

 

- Randy

[grinder]

Richard, I love nothing more than to help you, but it is going to be dang near impossible to judge grain of a scanned image on a computer screen at low res. but I will say it is a nice shot.

[conrad_hoffman]

What grade filter are you using? Start changing (reducing likely) your development time until you get full range prints with a #3 filter. If you're consistantly using #2 or less, you're overdeveloping (for 35mm at least).

[alexis_neel]

"If you're consistantly using #2 or less, you're overdeveloping (for 35mm at least)."

 

And you get that concept from where?

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

[ronald_moravec1]

#3 used to be the standard for fine grain 35mm. I never tried it, but Conrad is pretty much right on. I have not heard much about this in recent years.

 

Over development makes courser grain.

 

My tri x at ei400 developes for #2 and a condenser enlarger in five minutes flat. No stop or water rinse, I think it makes a difference as it dilutes the developer soaked in the emulsion. TF4 alkaline fix. Oh yes that is either home made or package D76 undiluted at 68. Agitation 15 sec on imersion, then 5/30 with 5 inversions. 9 1/2 is way long, but I think I used to use 9 a few years ago with old tri xxx. I can`t explain what changed.

[conrad_hoffman]

Certainly variations in papers and technique make hard rules a bit risky, but the "#3 as normal" has some reasonably good logic behind it. Minimum grain and maximum sharpness in 35mm requires keeping the density on the low side. You gain more by reducing the development of the negative somewhat and increasing the paper grade, than the other way around. I've seen a couple references to this, but TFDC is the only one I could put a finger on quickly. Page 3, under Negative Quality.

[Brian_Edwards]

My understanding is that you should be shooting (pardon the pun) for a negative that prints

well on grade 2 paper, i.e., with good shadow detail and zone VII highlights that hold some

detail. Have you done any film speed or development time testing?

[chris_waller]

I rate Tri-X and HP5 at 160 ASA and dev in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C, 8 and 9 minutes respectively. That's for a diffuser head enlarger. My negs are much flatter (i.e. lower contrast) than most people are used to. I aim for a neg that will print on a grade 2 or 2.5 on multigrade paper.

[StuartMoxham]

It would be useful to know if you are developing in D76 1:0(undiluted) or D76 1:1(diluted). I personaly found TriX to be too grainy for me in D76 1:1 so I you D76 with TriX undiluted D76 1:0. D76 1:0 is a solvent developer and will help to reduce grain around 7 min @ 20decC would get you somewhere close. If you are using D76 undiluted your developing time seems rather long to me.

[rur]

Thanks for the thoughts and I'm using the D76 1:1. I have done some testing with the film and my camera and am getting closer to what I want but as always, there are great thoughts to be found here and when I get stuck, I like to have you folks point out the "obvious" to me:)

 

Thanks again...

[frank.schifano]

9 1/2 minutes for D-76 diluted 1+1 is just about right at 70 deg F., so you could be right on the money when you take local variances and preferences into account. Big question here though, are you sure that the earlier print was made from a Tri-X negative? Is the earlier print you refer to a lesser magnification? Maybe you cropped this one a bit more? There is only so much you can do with Tri-X. It is not as fine grained as a slower film and that's that.

[d_purdy]

Just wondering.. where you using a difusion head or a cold light at the class

and then a condensor head at home? If you are concerned about

smoothness perhaps you should switch to Tmax 400.

[john_shriver]

The tonality benefits of D-76 1:1 come at the expense of sharper grain. Full strength D-76 has more solvent action, will take the edge off the grain. To quote Kodak (J-78): "For greater sharpness, but with a slight increase in graininess, you can use a 1:1 dilution of this developer."

 

If you were using only 4 ounces of developer and 4 ounces of water for one roll with your D-76 1:1, you were actually under-developing about 10%. (You're supposed to use 8 & 8 for one roll. See page 2 of Kodak Publication J-78.) So when you switch to D-76 full-strength (use it one-shot), go for 10% less than Kodak's times.

 

Note also, that when you use D-76 1:1 according to Kodak's instructions, you don't save any developer. I think many people get led astray by D-76 1:1 trying to save money.

[rur]

One change I did make was developing one roll of film at a time although in my class we did two rolls at a time with 16 mls D74 1:1. I have been using 10 mls total with the film on the bottom reel and the top reel empty. I also am using it one shot and actually never re-use my developer.

 

What struck me when I went back to my old notes was how I had decreased by agitation and for the life of me, I cannot remember why I did change it. In any event, I plan to shoot some more rolls and then nail this down.

 

Again, thanks for all the comments They are appreciated.

[Troll]

I don't see any significantly unusual amount of grain in this image. You appear to already be doing everything right at the present. I think that you're wasting your time worrying about it.

[rur]

But Bill, whatever will I do if I'm not constantly trying to make my prints PERFECT:) Seriously though, I appreciate the observation, I'm just one of those folks that cannot help tweaking things until I think they're perfect and I as I said, photo.net is a great place to get ideas, bounce ideas or be critiqued.

[jon_rybak]

i think grain is good when you are taking photos of historical things, gives it a more genuine feel, but with modern things such as your baby, the least amount of grain is best

[joe g]

Richard: have you tried using different film and developer? Tri-X is apparently formulated to be grainy (Kodak refers to its "distinctive" grain structure). I would suggest a smoother/fine grained film such as Plus X, and XTOL instead of D76.

[mikeseb]

I agree with Bill Mitchell--if the scan is at all faithful to the negative, the amount of grain

is about what you'd expect from Tri-X. It looks like it was a fairly low-contrast scene to

begin with; you have a decent tonal range considering.

 

I suggest you get a copy of Anchell and Troop, "The Film Development Cookbook". It is a

great primer on film development, and though some of their recommendations strike me

as extreme (their disdain for T grain films, for instance), their overall analytical approach is

sound.

 

I have had excellent results developing Tri-X in D76, HC-110, TMax developer, and most

recently in Xtol, which is now my default developer. (I use a Jobo automatic processor.) I

have mostly used Xtol full strength, but I'm currently experimenting with dilutions up to

about 1:2, which is about as far as I can go, given the volumes of solution I can

accomodate and still have enough of the stock solution (about 100 mL of stock Xtol per

roll in the Jobo) to do the job. My aim, which may not coincide with yours, is to better

control highlight density in the negative through the compensating effect of dilute

developers (qv Anchell & Troop).

 

Bottom line, as others have suggested, if you are dissatisfied with the amount of grain you

are seeing, you'll have to switch to a finer-grained (ie slower and shorter tonal-ranged)

film or tinker with some of the other developers. All of that switching around can be

exhausting and confusing, however. I agree with your strategy of changing only one thing

at a time during your experimentation.

 

Your basic procedures seem sound. Some make a fetish out of agitation rituals; the

important thing is to come up with a scheme and use it consistently (main reason I have

the Jobo--great consistency from roll to roll in temp, agitation, time) as you are. Vary your

times and developer concentrations until you have obtained results you like, or have

extracted no more useful improvement (you may be there already, but a few throwaway

rolls of film should convince you. Stick with Tri-X until you have learned it thoroughly in

this manner.

 

Good luck and hang in there. Rome truly wasn't built in a day.

[kymtman]

Have you tried an alternate process. I have been working with Tri-X in different soups and tried different times and the best yet has been in Folgernol. The time has been aboout 20 minutes in a Jobo processor at the slowest revolution. I ordered some HC-110 but you guys have bought it all up and my order got backordered.