T-Max 400 and D76 huge grain problem

[Didier Lamy]

<p>I agree with Esa & others, the negative looks underdeveloped: the "KODAK 400TX" label should be as black as the sky</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi Didier,<br>

I thought the general consensus was that it was overdeveloped.. <br>

Did you mean underexposed?</p>

[Mark Z]

<p>Nick,<br>

It is interesting that people have offered up as explanations for your grain problem underexposure, overexposure, underdevelopment, and overdevelopment. You may need to tweak your speed rating and processing in the future, but in reality it's hard to offer sound advice on this after seeing a photo of a negative and a bad scan. The best diagnosis for the "grain" is probably what Larry, John, and Lex have said - it appears to be a scanning issue, and not actually film grain. Before you think about changes in exposure and processing, work on getting a good scan.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I wouldn't rely on the appearance of film edge markings as an indicator of appropriate development. Edge markings vary quite a bit between manufacturers, and even between types of film and lots of the same film.</p>

<p>I'm wondering whether the odd pure white/black specks might be caused by some mineral content in the water. You might try some inexpensive bottled water to see if it makes any difference. Doesn't need to be distilled water, although I used it when the well water in my former rural home was stirred up by fracking. Too much lime scale and other sediment in the tap water, so much it clogged up our water filters. Switching to distilled water seemed to cut down on the random black/white specks that weren't normal film grain.</p>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>"Did you mean underexposed?" no, underdeveloped according to the markings. Lex, for me there is a good correlation between markings appearance and correct development (at least for TMY, my defaut film), how do you explain the contrast between the light grey of the letters and the sky?</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Mark: I'm not sure what else I can try in terms of scanning, the entire roll scans this way, I've tried with every 'feature' of the Epson software enabled and disabled, auto exposure and manual levels adjustments.. they all turn out the same. Plus my 120 scans are absolutely fine. I guess the real test will be to see how the next roll turns out.<br>

Lex: You may be on to something here, our water is incredibly hard, however my D76 powder was originally mixed with purified water. I have just processed a second roll, I did the final photo-flo bath in purified water this time so I'll see if that has made any difference.<br>

Didier: 'Esa' actually said underexposed and everyone else said overdeveloped. But now you have stated underdeveloped.. that is why I asked.</p>

<p> </p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

So I (very carefully) processed a new roll of Tri-X 400.<br>

I've just made some scans and unfortunately it appears my results are the same.<br>

I have uploaded a high-res jpeg for you <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Test.jpg">here</a> (2400dpi).<br />As you can see the problem is the same, if not worse. This was taken in bright mid-day sun and I metered from the shadows.<br>

My exact process was as follows:<br>

D76 mixed from powder with 50°C purified water. Sat for 24 hours.<br>

Kodak D76 - 1:0 - 20°C - 6:45 minutes<br />Kodak Indicator Stop Bath - 1:64 (purified water) - 1:00 minute<br />Kodak T-Max Fixer - 1:4 (purified water) - 20°C - 5:00 minutes<br />Final tap water wash - 20°C - 11:00 minutes<br />Kodak Photo-Flo - a couple of drops + purified water - 1:00 minute<br /><br />This was processed in a Paterson Super System 4 Tank, I closely monitored the temp and had exactly 300ml of each liquid (excluding the tap water which was constantly running).<br>

I also searched for the quality of our tap water and <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/WaterQuality.jpg">here</a> is the result.<br>

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'll attach a sample of normally exposed and developed Tri-X (from around 1970) recently scanned with an Epson 3170, the ancestor to the more recent V-models. If I'm recalling correctly I had unsharp masking set as low as possible, and disabled dust and grain reduction since those tend to produce weird clumping artifacts.</p>

<p>This sample is mostly useful for estimating how scanned Tri-X typically should look via a decent flatbed scanner. There's a range of dark, light and midtones to demonstrate the appearance of grain in each. Normally in a print on silver gelatin paper via an optical enlarger grain would barely be visible in shadows and darker tones, and most visible in midtones. Scanning tends to show grain equally throughout all tones.</p><div></div>

[Didier Lamy]

<p>Nick, what about your lenses (which ones?..</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Thanks Lex, that's exactly what I was expecting to see from my first scan.<br /><br />Trust me Didier, it's not a lens issue.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Here's one of Tri-X from the mid-1980s, probably developed in HC-110. This roll had some water damage because the camera went swimming in the Guadalupe River later. But this frame is okay. I see some clumping artifacts in the darker midtones, so I may have inadvertently had dust and/or grain reduction enabled. But overall the grain and other characteristics look about right for this film in this scanner.</p><div></div>

[nick_west3]

<p>Thanks Lex, well.. I wish they did look like those.<br>

I also tried scanning the same negatives with Silverfast just to rule out the issue being with the Epson software, same result.<br>

Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the area outside of the frame be pretty much black? Wouldnt this indicate a processing issue? (<a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TestB.jpg">example here</a>)</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>This is probably the ugliest scan I have. Ilford HP3, around 1970, probably developed in D-76 at the local Y's darkroom. The film claimed a box speed of ASA 400 but was barely a true 200 film, so this appears underexposed and overdeveloped. The grain is clumpy and gritty, closer to your scans. HP5+ is much better than those earlier Ilford films, although it's best at around 200 when souped in ID-11/D-76.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding the appearance of the rebates/unexposed margins, yeah, those should be close to black. I'll attach a scan of a complete strip of negatives from that Ilford HP3 roll. During scanning I adjusted the histogram black point using the margins.</p><div></div>

[nick_west3]

<p>Ok, here's another update.<br /> I remembered I had some lab processed HP5+ negs and I have just given one of those frames a quick scan. It's absolutely perfect, so we can now completely rule out the scanning issue.<br /> I'm not sure if this is just the difference in film but I notice a huge contrast between the frames and blank outer areas of the HP5+ compared to my Tri-X, where it all kind of looks one tone. I've shown them side by side here: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Comp.jpg">Lab developed HP5+ vs Idiot developed Tri-X</a></p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Yeah, even your 'ugly' scan looks good to me Lex, even at that size my shadow areas are just huge white noise monsters.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

<p>Nick, your processing looks really close to the mark. I may have missed this in the thread, but did you use a hog power loupe to look at the grain?</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi Randy,<br>

Check page 2, and also what do you make of my last post on page 4?<br>

Thanks</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm wondering if your Tri-X was fogged somehow. Any chance it's expired, or exposed to fairly high heat for awhile? For example, several years ago I found a bulk roll of unexpired Tri-X left in the hatchback of my daughter's car. Presumably it was left over from her high school yearbook program a year earlier. But that was long enough in Texas heat to fog the entire roll. I could get tolerable results if I used HC-110 and clarifying filter tricks after scanning to boost contrast and minimize fog. But the grain still didn't have that peculiar look in your examples.</p>

<p>Dunno, not sure what else to suggest other than trying another batch of Tri-X from a different lot number. It's usually a really good film and doesn't scan too badly, although it's better suited to optical enlargements. T-Max scans better.</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi Lex,<br>

Certainly not while I've had it, it was only purchased recently and the highest temperatures will have only been those involved in the processing.<br>

However.. now you've said that, I've just realised that both of these films may have accidentally been in my checked luggage when I recently travelled to the US and back.<br>

Now I feel stupid.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>X-rays from checked baggage will produce very distinctive artifacts resembling sine waves. However other lower power X-rays may produce generalized fogging.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml"><strong>Here's a Kodak article</strong></a> on the effect of X-rays on film, and other possible causes for fogging and degradation.</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Thanks Lex,<br>

So if this was in my checked luggage, as I'm leaning towards thinking it was, both rolls were unexposed in both directions. I flew UK - ATL - BNA and a couple of weeks later BNA - ATL - UK<br>

So I can only presume it was exposed to heavy X-rays at least twice. Should this look more like as you described if that was the case?</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Kodak seem to suggest that heavy grain and complete fogging could be visible from multiple x-ray scans. I guess this explains it.<br>

I'll buy a new roll of Tri-X tomorrow and repeat my process and report back.<br>

I am incredibly sorry if it does turn out to be the cause of the baggage scans I have wasted anyones time in trying to solve an impossible problem.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Nick, I had thoughts like Lex (overheated film) but you have been so careful I ruled it out. The page 5 scan

darker areas have small lighter spots and there are white small dots all over. Were the film fogged by x ray

wouldn't there be broader areas of gray or white irregularities? If you can see the same light spots on the

negative with high magnification (latest roll) then it is a developer/film problem. If the negative looks like Lex's

then it is a scanning problem. I am guessing bad film since the 120 was OK.

 

Hope this helps

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Nah, don't worry, it's not wasting anyone's time. This may provide useful info for other folks in the future.</p>

<p>So far I've had only one roll fogged by airline X-rays, apparently a batch of fresh color portrait film intended for Europe but re-imported to the US as gray market. This was right after 9/11/2001, and I'm guessing the combination of paranoia and bad information resulted in generalized fogging of an entire batch of pro color portrait film. Fortunately it affected only one roll from a wedding - the other rolls were fresh US market Kodak Portra.</p>