T-Max 400 and D76 huge grain problem

[nick_west3]

<p>Randy,<br>

I have looked through a loupe and the entire film seems to have a fine texture to it which I'm guessing is where there is 'detail' in the blank areas?<br>

Apologies for the bad image, I have over sharpened it to exaggerate the problem, but you can see the texture <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TestC.jpg">here</a></p>

[randy_cooprider1]

Nick, like Lex said get fresh roll from a different batch and I think (guess) you will be much happier. The clear area should be much clearer. Compare it to the 120.

[andrew_brown7]

<p>Hi,<br>

You are certainly not wasting people's time asking questions about the film..all these are really interesting problems and the only pity is that you are having to try to deal with it !<br>

I think this looks similar to some form of reticulation, but I'm only guessing.<br>

On another post here is an item on stand development, to which after 40 odd years I have become an instant convert and I would be interested to see if a film done like that looks more normal..as with the stand dev there is no agitation, save a couple of turns halfway through the hour; there are also no worries about temperature either and you get fully developed negs which is ideal for a lazy so and so like me. <br>

I am wondering whether there is too much agitation during the development and this new (very old) method would clear that part of the problem up for certain.<br>

One other suggestion is to use a completely different film just to see if that's any better, perhaps an ASA 125 film and new developer and fix just to get a completely fresh start...and I will offer a plug for RO9 One Shot at 1:100 for an hour.<br>

Good deving.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'm not sure why everyone has ruled reticulation out straight away.<br /> This: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/B.jpg<br /> looks exactly like reticulation to me.</p>

<p>A better scan wouldn't go amiss, but the "lumpy" appearance of the film surface is either reticulation or it's been scanned through an AR glass!</p>

<p>Edit: In case the OP isn't familiar with reticulation; it's where the gelatine emulsion of the film gets broken up on a micro scale, and has nothing to do with the silver "grains". A bit like creating miniature crazy-paving from smashing concrete slabs. It can be caused by a sudden change in processing bath temperature, or by a gross change in the pH of solutions. Usually it's quite difficult to provoke in modern films, but that's certainly what appears to have happened here.</p>

<p>I believe that poor (very poor) film storage can also lead to massive grain growth, but I've never seen grain, even from high ISO surveillance film, with the characteristics shown here.</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi everyone, just a quick update:<br /> I'm pretty sure the issue was due to the film being X-Rayed. I have just processed a new roll of Tri-X with the exact same chemicals, temperatures and process and my results are much closer to what I originally expected. <br /><br />I could even see straight away that the negatives were already dramatically different, as you can see here: <br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/IMG_1547.JPG">New roll of Tri-X 400</a><br /><br />I'm sure you'll agree this is a huge improvement from the previous roll: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/Comp.jpg">Problem roll of Tri-X 400</a><br /><br />I'll let you know how the scans turn out.<br /> Thanks again for all your help!</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>X-rays would have fogged the film rather than increase the grain. It's more likely that the time spent in the cargo hold of a plane subjected the film to a wide range of temperature, possibly enough to damage the emulsion without even wetting it.</p>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi Rodeo Joe, <br>

The film definitely appears fogged as there is very little contrast between the frames and empty areas, but you're right, I didn't even think of that.. maybe this was the results of a combination of X-Rays and extreme temp changes.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Extreme heat alone can cause fog also.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

Looks much better, glad it worked out.

[randy_cooprider1]

Great!

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding fog and grain, <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml"><strong>Kodak says there's a connection</strong></a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...ambient radiation slowly fogs the faster silver halide grains so that the film appears grainier... X-ray equipment causes a fogged and grainy appearance over an entire picture or over the entire roll of film."</p>

</blockquote>

[nick_west3]

<p>Hi Guys,<br>

Back again! <br>

I just processed another roll of Tri-X and found it to be, while not as bad, similar to my first problem roll when scanned.<br>

Take a look here and see what you guys think, correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the dead space between frames be completely black and void of any texture?<br>

This is a straight scan, no sharpening or other adjustments, 100% crop:<br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TEST2.jpg">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5261701/TEST2.jpg</a></p>

[larrydressler]

<p>That looks like Digital noise/scanning artifacts.</p>

[nick_west3]

Thanks for the quick response Larry. Any thoughts on how to rectify this?

The scan was made using Epson software on a V550 with all features disabled (sharpening, digital ice etc.)