FP4+ grain issues in 35mm

[geowelch]

Hi,

 

I'm getting what I feel is excessively coarse grain processing FP4+ 35mm

negatives. My process is:

 

Expose at 125 ASA(ISO);

Refrigerate roll in plastic container until ready to process;

 

Bring to room temperature before processing;

 

Develop in HC-110, dilution H at 20 C for 15 minutes;

 

Wash using Ilford guidlines - 5, 10, 20 inversions in fresh water;

 

Scan with Canon CanoScan 4800 F to output resolution of 600 dpi.

 

I've attached a recent photo - uncropped, a little burning and dodging, but no

sharpening. The negative looks normal to slightly thin.

 

Are my expectations too high for this film? I remember getting remarkably sharp

and fine grained pictures from the old FP4 years ago, which was one of the

reasons I choose to use it again. I recently read that high dilutions increase

grain. Can this be the source or could it be a scanning problem?

 

Any suggestions welcome.<div></div>

[geowelch]

One more try with that image.

[erik_hattrem]

i use the canoscan 6800. Why don you choose 600dpi and not higher?

[mark f]

FP4 is pretty fine grained as you are developing. I do mostly wet darkroom and I've noticed that my scans (on a Minolta film scanner) are noticably more grainy......look more like TriX. If you are scanning and want less grain, try Ilford XP4 at 200. If I were mostly scanning 35mm, that is what I'd be using.....do expose it at 200, though, as it is pretty ugly underexposed.

[noahfactor]

Im not sure about the scanning issue, but Dilution H definitely increases grain a lot and might be the problem. Ive found that that dilution regularly produces excessive grain with medium-speed films. I think rodinal has about the same grain but with much sharper results.

[ivan_dzo]

Looks pretty grainy to me. I scan at 5400 and have no grain issues with FP4+. I use PC-TEA, and it might be worth you trying this or Xtol which also gives great results with fp4+.

[tlr]

I suspect that your developing time is too long. In my experience of only one roll, the time is between 7:30 to 8 minutes. My agitation scheme is continuously the first 30 seconds and then 3 inversions every minute.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3470442"></a>

[seandepuydt]

George, In my limited experience, I haven't had much luck with FP4, yet. Michael Ging explained to me in an e-mail that grain could be the result of over development or over exposure. Are you sure the HC-110 at the strenght you mixed called for 15 minutes?

[mikeseb]

Yep, that's some nasty grain. Most un-FP4-like. You also (at least in this scan) have no

shadow detail under the viaduct. I think you're underexposed and overdeveloped;

overdevelopment is likely the reason for the grain. There are also finer-grain developers

than HC-110 out there, such as Xtol or its cousins Mytol / PC-TEA, that you might try. I

really like Xtol--I think it's the best overall developer I've ever used in a lotta years

developing film.

 

Try increasing your exposure a bit, and cut back on your development times by 10% or so

and go fro there. No way to find out but experimentation.

[bruce_watson1]

I agree with Micheal. It looks like you are under exposing and over developing.

 

Graininess is directly tied to density. To decrease graininess, decrease density.

 

Try exposing at a lower ISO setting, say 80, which will increase your exposure. Then, decrease your development time to, say, 10 minutes. See what you get and make adjustments from there.

[christer_almqvist2]

If you want grain free 10*12 inch prints from 35 mm, why not try TMX.

 

You need to establish your personal e.i. and development time before this film produces

optimum results. But that is not different from any other film....... just more so.

[evan_goulet]

Let's remember that with a scan of FP4, especially at 600 dpi you are no where near resolving film grain. Assuming a grain size of 3 micrometers (.000118 in.), you get 8466 grains per inch (assumes no gap between the grains). If you assume the gap is the same size as the grain, then you end up with ~4200 grains per inch To truly resolve the grain, you would need to far exceed 4200 ppi scanning.

 

What you will see is grain aliasing. So your sky is nowhere near as grainy as it appears in the scans. Perhaps scanning at a 600 dpi is over-emphasizing the grain aliasing. Try scanning at a high (4800 dpi) resolution, and then downsizing after making any adjustments.

 

I'll bet if you print this traditionally, the grain will be nowhere near as apparent as in the scans. However there are some other indicators that processing was not optimal as others have mentioned.

 

Someone correct me if my math is off, I also think the 3 um value is probably conservative for FP4.

[big toys are better]

I love FP-4+ and always have. Still my favorite all around film for all the formats I have used because it is sooooo flexible (although APX100 is right next to it in roll film and what's left of my 4x5 stocks).

 

There's no doubt in my mind that a lot of the "grain" in the posted image is due to pixel noise from enlarging a relatively low res scan. Can you do as high a resolution as you can (even if only in a small portion of the original) and then post some small clips of the more textured midtones so those can be analyzed. The bridge railing ought to be a good place for crisp details to analyze since it is static.

[john_shriver]

Ditto on grain aliasing. You need to scan at pretty much full scanner resolution, so that lens resolution limits will provide an optical low pass filter.

[jordan_w.]

I drive on that thing every day!

 

Anyway, scanning does increase the appearance of grain in many cases, but so does overdevelopment. I have developed FP4 Plus in HC-110 dilution H in the past and my times were more like 7-8 mins at 24C. I would say that 15 mins at 20C is overdoing it.

 

Try cutting down on the dev time. Also, don't give up on HC-110 right away. It is capable of fine results. I use Mytol and PC-TEA (and a hybrid of the two that I came up with myself) but you'll get better results, more quickly, if you stick with one combo and nail it down. There are no magic bullets.

[geowelch]

<p>Thanks for all the responses! Some responses of my own: </p>

 

<p>You can only set OUTPUT (PRINT) resolution on the CanoScan 4800 F software. An output resolution of 600dpi works out to about 4200dpi scan resolution, based on the www.scantips.com calculator. The software just does the calculation for you. </p>

 

<p>I use HC110 because it can be used as a one-off developer and has legendary shelf life if stored properly. The development times were worked out from the Massive Dev Chart. I would like to try Xtol but it seems to be only available as powder in commercial volumes in Toronto.</p>

 

<p>Under exposure might indeed be an issue. I was using a Pentax Super A which turned out not to like the cold much and delivered somewhat uneven exposures. The scene was also exposed without compensating for the sky, hence the lack of shadow detail. I just had my old Spotmatic CLA'd so I'm looking forward to how film from that camera turns out. Manual cameras force you to think about exposure. I'll also try Dilution B again for comparison sake, and will experiment with lower film speeds </p>

 

<p>I have sometimes gotten very nice results with FP4, which encourages me to keep working with it; besides I have a couple of 100 ft rolls of it in the freezer.</p>

 

<p>Here is a less lumpy example. I wish I had taken note of what I did with this one!</p><div></div>

[geowelch]

Not having much luck with image upload!<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Dilution H may reduce the solvent effects of HC110. Try Dilution B for a roll. (Same as D-76 1:1, gives much sharper, and thus pronounced, grain.)

 

For every film scanner, there seems to be some film that causes massive grain aliasing. It's different for each scanner, but the curse lurks...

[lol1]

I do a lot of a scanning with a Nikon Coolscan IV (not sure how similar this is to your scanner). My experience is that the 'new technology' films scan better than the 'old technology' films and I think this may be something to do with the thickness of the emulsion. Personally, I didn't have much luck with FP4+/HP5+ as they were always rather grainy when scanned, so I switched to new tech films such as Delta and Neopan. I'd like to suggest that you try a roll or two of Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Acros to see how you get on with them.

[fred aspen]

I had similar problems with HC-110 at higher dilutions, much more grain than dil. B. I also scan and the combination of HC-110 at high dilution and my Minolta DSIV give horrible results. Try Xtol or D-76 at 1:1 dilutions for softer results and better scans. I fought this problem for quite a while before getting a handle on it.

[evan_goulet]

Ron, I had the same issues with HC-110, especially when pulling HP5+. I now stick with D-76 1:1, unless I am pushing the film.

[profhlynnjones]

FP4+ was not as sharp or fine grained as its predecessor, and that was also true of HP5+ (I formerly used both of the forerunners!

 

The only thng you can do is to use fine grain developers (which HC110 is not). My strongest suggestion for these films is UFG and replenish with UFGR. The darned stuff will work forever and get great results.

 

My favorite medium speed films are (in order of preference) Plus X Pan, D76 full strength, Delta 100, Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50, Fuji Neopan Acros 100 in Rodinal.

 

Lynn

[fred aspen]

Evan, after all these years (and many forays into exotic developers of every kind) it is difficult to beat D-76 1:1. It is, IMHO, the best compromise in a developer. Sure, you can get other characteristics with other developers but it is always the three-legged stool - choose a stool with a particular long leg and it will sit off kilter. Thornton had it right: speed, graininess, sharpness. There is always that trade-off; you have to sacrifice the other two for the sake of the one. There is no free lunch in B/W photography!

[big toys are better]

FP-4+ may not be quite as fine grained as its predecessor, but especially in sheets is it a wonderful thing. I think I have noted before that when I want really fine grain I have other options, but the qualities of PF-4+ and Agfapan 100 make them superior in most situations, even for 35mm. I'll miss my APX sheet film when their stocks are finally depleted, but FP-4+ will do just fine when I need its capabilities.

 

Those finding that HC-110 doesn't quite cut it for fine grain at the highest dilutions might want to add back a bit of sodium sulfite to soften the grain edges and hold a bit more film speed without loosing the other advantages of dilution. And this is certainly applicable to true fine grained films like Pan-F+ and Efke 25, assuming you want a slightly softer effect in the grain pattern than what Rodinal would create. Of course, the Cookbook recommends doing the same with Rodinal, albeit with some other compromises as a consequence.

[paul_brenner1]

I have nothing to add to the many good thoughts above (though I find FP4+ to be sharp and fine grained, though admittedly I'm using it in medium format and making relatively small prints.

 

The bridge image certainly appears to be underexposed and overdeveloped, and may well be; but it might be the scan. I remember reading, years ago, that scanning B&W silver-based films works better if you scan it as a positive, so the scan comes out as a negative. For some reason, the result is lower contrast and lower grain.