No grain on HP5+

[uncle_ziba]

I've got no visible grain on 11x14 print from a 6x6 HP5+ negative

exposed at 800 (developed in XTOL 1:1). Am I doing something wrong?

I do see some grain through a loupe in highlight areas.

[greg_smith4]

Why care if you're doing something wrong, as long as you like the results :)

[lex_jenkins]

Looking for grain in a print can be misleading. Paper has its own grain. Combine that with paper texture and any grain tends to mush together into what we like to think of as a continuous tone image.

 

If you're getting such fine grain in the negatives using your technique I may have to try that myself.

[chris_waller]

I've got prints at 12"x12" made from 6x6 negs on HP5 devved in Rodinal and the grain is barely visible. In XTOL grain could well be negligible.

[pete_andrews]

"Paper has its own grain." - No it doesn't. The grain of paper is so fine that it's invisible, even with a powerful magnifier. It certainly can't be seen with the naked eye.

[dan_smith]

Pete Andrews wrote: "Paper has its own grain." - No it doesn't. The grain of paper is so fine that it's invisible, even with a powerful magnifier. It certainly can't be seen with the naked eye."

 

Pete,

If paper has grain, even if so fine that it is invisible, it does have grain.

[uncle_ziba]

I'm just a beginner and after reading some threads here on photo.net I expected to see some "classic" looking grain. But there was none :)I also shot a roll of TMAX 400 to compare with HP5. There was definitelly a difference between the two films but not in how the grain looked on an 11x14 print. I'll try next to crop and enlarge a small area of the negative as opposed to printing the full frame.

 

Ilford recommends a longer development time in XTOL 1:1 with a different agitation pattern comparing to Kodak, which I suspect may produce a sharper grain.

[pete_andrews]

OK Dan. I should have been even more pedantic, obviously.<p>Printing paper does not contribute, in any significant way, to the visible granularity of a print. Satisfied?

[daniel flather]

Complaing about the lack of grain? Ummmm....shoot 3200 - 35mm.

[scott_eaton]

Scenario: Sharp grain in the magnifier, but not in the print. Gee, might have to call NASA and Kodak's engineering staff on this one.

 

Ever hear of negative flexure during exposure caused by 'heat popping'? That's why they make heat glass and why I'd use multiple layers of the stuff with condensor enlargers. It's either that, or the ol' glass carrier to keep knife edge grain.

 

Sad thing is I rarely do conventional dark-room printing any more and do mostly digital, and you guys are talking about paper grain.

[uncle_ziba]

Hey Scott, ever hear of depth of focus?

[uncle_ziba]

I mean that with a f16 80mm lens enlarger head can be moved a couple of milimeters up or down without any effect on grain sharpness. That is enough to compensate for slight film curvature. Of course if the film pops in the middle of exposre it may shift the image resulting in softer grain. Regardless the heat was not a problem in a enlarger I was using since there was a heat absorbing glass plus a styrofoam diffusion insert. I think the diffused light may play some role in smothing out the grain...