Grainy Tri-X 400?

[escuta]

Hello,

 

I shot my first roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 on the weekend and got the film and scans back yesterday from the lab. I'd asked the lab not to make any level corrections on the scan as I've been doing recently with my colour films. While all the photos came back correctly exposed, I can't help thinking that they are overly grainy. I wonder if you agree? I've seen other Tri-X examples online that seem to have a much finer grain. I'll attach some examples below. Looking forward to hearing your opinions on what might have happened. My camera is a Nikon FE and the ISO was correctly set to 400. Thanks, all the best!

 

 

 

 

[ben_hutcherson]

It doesn't look out of line for 35mm Tri-X to me.

 

The developer can have a big impact on the appearance of grain, with some tending to "soften" grain and others giving it more of a hard edge.

 

I don't like using commercial labs for B&W because every film is different. Many commercial labs will do something that's "good enough" for most films. My local lab, for example, uses a roller processor with D76 for 7 minutes.

[glen_h]

Look at the negatives, and see if they look about right in terms of exposure. Are there areas that are pretty dark, and others almost clear?

 

If the darkest is light gray, they are underexposed.

[Sandy Vongries]

Many of us prized the grain in TriX, even going so far as developing the film in Dektol to enhance grain and contrast.

[escuta]

Thanks Ben, Glen and Sandy. That's good to know that nothing went wrong. I quite like the graininess, but it came as a bit of a surprise after the Kodak colour film I've been using. The other options in B&W widely available here are Ilford HP5 and Fujifilm Acros 100 films. Haven't particularly liked what I've seen of the latter (perhaps because of the smaller grain, it leaves me a bit cold) but I've liked the Ilford and thought it looked similar to the Tri-X. Any comments on the difference between the two? In the future, I'm interested in developing my own B&W film. Ah, and I looked at the negatives, they look pretty balanced to me and apparently no correction was used during the scanning (nor did I adjust the scans). All the best!

[Sandy Vongries]

(perhaps because of the smaller grain, it leaves me a bit cold)

I would not have thought of that terminology, but I believe you have described it perfectly for me as well.

[ben_hutcherson]

've liked the Ilford and thought it looked similar to the Tri-X. Any comments on the difference between the two?

 

The closest equivalent in HP5+. The difference between them are somewhat subtle, but definitely there. To my eye, under the same conditions, HP5+ has a bit more contrast and a bit finer grain, although that's probably splitting hairs. The best thing you can do is try it and see.

 

HP5+ is not a film that really has a place in my freezer-I much prefer Tri-X although I would use HP5 if Tri-X were no longer available. FP4+ is a totally different story.

[ben_hutcherson]

Many of us prized the grain in TriX, even going so far as developing the film in Dektol to enhance grain and contrast.

 

Sandy, I have to say that Dektol is not a developer I've had much luck "taming" for use on film.

 

I've heard dilutions of around 1:9(I usually use 1:3 or so when printing). Do you remember what you used with film?

[Sandy Vongries]

Actually I always used Dektol for papers 1:2 as Kodak Guides suggested, you may be using different papers, I have no recollection of the dilution I used for film, nor do I remember the time, but it was probably fairly short. At a guess, I suspect it was the same as for paper (do not try this at home!) If / when I try it again, It will be with a short test roll of subjects shot particularly for high contrast and grain.

[glen_h]

Color films don't have grain, they have dye clouds. The dye clouds form near where the developed grain was, by the diffusing oxidized color developer.

 

You might try XP2, which is a C41 process black and white film. Especially convenient if you have nearby C41 labs.

 

(And many labs around do C41 for less than black and white, if they do black and white at all.)

 

XP2 has black dye clouds.

 

There is another effect that you might see in scanned black and white film: grain aliasing.

 

Scanning depends on the spatial frequencies not being more than half the scan pixel frequency.

In most cases, the optics close to guarantee that, but maybe not always.

[ben_hutcherson]

You might try XP2, which is a C41 process black and white film. Especially convenient if you have nearby C41 labs.

 

(And many labs around do C41 for less than black and white, if they do black and white at all.)

 

XP2 has black dye clouds.

 

I never really got into chromogenic films as I prefer "real" B&W, but one nice thing about XP2 is that it prints nicely in the darkroom. I seem to recall Ilford making it with this in mind, and also in such a way that it can be developed with traditional B&W chemistry if so desired(granted that's true of basically all film).

 

The now discontinued Kodak T400CN has an orange mask that-presumably-would play nicer with automated mini-labs but can make printing onto B&W paper a real pain.

[glen_h]

XP2 has the usual low gamma (contrast) for C41 films, as does T400CN.

 

You will usually want a grade 3 or 4 or so paper or filter selection for printing.

 

I believe I did once print from T400CN (or another similar Kodak product)

on variable contrast paper (which is green sensitive) but I don't remember

which filer I used.

[glen_h]

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1909/product_id/703/

[escuta]

Color films don't have grain, they have dye clouds. The dye clouds form near where the developed grain was, by the diffusing oxidized color developer.

 

You might try XP2, which is a C41 process black and white film. Especially convenient if you have nearby C41 labs.

 

(And many labs around do C41 for less than black and white, if they do black and white at all.)

 

XP2 has black dye clouds.

 

There is another effect that you might see in scanned black and white film: grain aliasing.

 

Scanning depends on the spatial frequencies not being more than half the scan pixel frequency.

In most cases, the optics close to guarantee that, but maybe not always.

 

Thanks, that's interesting, will look into this.

[Dave Luttmann]

I will echo what Less said. Noritsu and Frontier scanning accentuates grain as they normally apply some sharpening to scans that in my opinion ruins the look.

[SCL]

I'm not sure why you are surprised at the grain, as the present iteration of Tri-X is known as a somewhat grainy film, although much less than earlier iterations. As others mentioned, there are a variety of factors affecting grain, including choice of and concentration of developer, exposure, and scanning. Use a loupe and look at your negatives to determine if scanning and/or post processing might have contributed. If everything is fine in those areas, you might consider developing your own...it is easy and relatively inexpensive, and you have complete control of the process. Also - don't rely on what shows up on the computer screen as the final note....get some 8x10 prints and you might be quite surprised.

[escuta]

I will echo what Less said. Noritsu and Frontier scanning accentuates grain as they normally apply some sharpening to scans that in my opinion ruins the look.

 

I'll ask if they're applying any sharpening on the scans. It's seems probable, thanks for the suggestion - as it stands, the lab's Noritsu scanner is my only option before I buy my own and that may be some time off.

 

I'm not sure why you are surprised at the grain, as the present iteration of Tri-X is known as a somewhat grainy film, although much less than earlier iterations. As others mentioned, there are a variety of factors affecting grain, including choice of and concentration of developer, exposure, and scanning. Use a loupe and look at your negatives to determine if scanning and/or post processing might have contributed. If everything is fine in those areas, you might consider developing your own...it is easy and relatively inexpensive, and you have complete control of the process. Also - don't rely on what shows up on the computer screen as the final note....get some 8x10 prints and you might be quite surprised.

 

Thanks - I'm gathering that now that Tri-x is naturally grainy, this was my first roll of B&W and wasn't sure what to expect (excluding a roll I shot when i was a kid in 1980!). Yes, developing my own film is something I want to learn. Good idea - I'll try printing - any suggestions for paper types that are good with B&W? I tried having some of my colour neg scans digitally printed on standard Fuji paper and the results were OK. I then went to a fine art place and they printed on something called "Canson Rag Photographique" - much more expensive but the results were considerably better (the prints were biggish - 40cm wide). All the best!

[Ed_Ingold]

Tri-X is grainy, but not excessively so. A lot depends on how it is exposed (I used ASA 200 in the day, even after Kodak rated it at 400), how developed, and now how scanned. My favorite developer was D-76, diluted 1:1 and tossed after one use. The grain was sharply defined, but clumped at edges to produce very good sharpness and detail. Diluting the developer reduced the contrast, ideal for publication.

 

So-called fine-grain developers partly dissolve the grain clumps, but reduce the sharpness significantly. Proprietary developers are also expensive, and tended to be used beyond their life for that reason.

 

It is hard to tell what is happening from the OP's examples. How scanned? From prints or negatives? Are these cropped to show details, or simply not sharp for other reasons. Unsharp images show more grain, as do mid-toneareas (e.g., sky) with low gradients. Fuzzy details make more area in which grain is visible.

 

Proper exposure is also needed for best results, generally exposing for shadows in which you need good detail, leaving highlights to themselves.The same is true for color negatives.

[SCL]

It sounds like you're moving in the right direction. I do inkjet prints mostly for visualizing what I want in a final print on good paper. If you happen to live near a large city which has a fine arts museum, take the opportunity to visit its photographic section and you may be blown away with what excellent printing can do. About 2 years ago a friend invited me to a showing of some of Vivian Maier's 35mm shots from the 1950-60s, blown up to exhibition & poster size, and printed by master printers. She developed her own films (still several thousand rolls still not yet developed) in the bathroom of the homes where she worked as a nanny. Much of her works were done on Plus-x & Tri-x of the time. both in 35mm and medium format. I still have hanging some of my 35mm 16x20 prints from the late 1960s which I had printed by a shop which handled a of pro work for local portrait and news photographers, and the pictures still look like they just came off the ferrotype plates...rich blacks, full ranges of shades and just the right amount of contrast. So, my advice is to be very selective in what you have printed, and have it done by a lab which handles specialty jobs and employs master printers. You will be justly rewarded.

[Dave Luttmann]

Tri-X is grainy, but not excessively so. A lot depends on how it is exposed (I used ASA 200 in the day, even after Kodak rated it at 400), how developed, and now how scanned. My favorite developer was D-76, diluted 1:1 and tossed after one use. The grain was sharply defined, but clumped at edges to produce very good sharpness and detail. Diluting the developer reduced the contrast, ideal for publication.

 

So-called fine-grain developers partly dissolve the grain clumps, but reduce the sharpness significantly. Proprietary developers are also expensive, and tended to be used beyond their life for that reason.

 

It is hard to tell what is happening from the OP's examples. How scanned? From prints or negatives? Are these cropped to show details, or simply not sharp for other reasons. Unsharp images show more grain, as do mid-toneareas (e.g., sky) with low gradients. Fuzzy details make more area in which grain is visible.

 

Proper exposure is also needed for best results, generally exposing for shadows in which you need good detail, leaving highlights to themselves.The same is true for color negatives.

 

Ed, what developer combo have you found that gives a less detailed, soft grain as opposed to sharp? I like the loom of soft grain and have been playing a bit with HP5 at 1600 in DDX.

[Mike Gammill]

Stock Microdol-X will give soft grain. Kodak discontinued this developer a while back, but I think Freestyle sells it under one of their brands. I don't think there's an actual published formula, but you might find something close.

[escuta]

It is hard to tell what is happening from the OP's examples. How scanned? From prints or negatives? Are these cropped to show details, or simply not sharp for other reasons. Unsharp images show more grain, as do mid-toneareas (e.g., sky) with low gradients. Fuzzy details make more area in which grain is visible.

 

Negatives scanned by a Noritsu machine in a photolab with no level correction. As I mentioned above I'm fairly certain the shots were exposed correctly. No cropping. The pie out-of-focus-ness was camera operator error I think

[Wouter Willemse]

I've liked the Ilford and thought it looked similar to the Tri-X. Any comments on the difference between the two?

 

For what it's worth, using HC110 as developer (which I used most of the time) and scanning (using my own scanner), I prefer HP5, I like the tonality and contrast (esp. in the mid tones) better. For some reason, Tri-X always remains a bit flat and dull. I do like Tri-X in Rodinal for a harder, more gritty look, but of course the subject matter of the photo needs to support that look too. Could all be my fault, though, so for sure I'd try both and see for yourself.

 

The grain in your examples looks fine to me too.

 

any suggestions for paper types that are good with B&W?

 

With inkjet printing, do try Ilford Gold Fibre Silk - not exactly cheap paper, but worth it, in my view.

[Bill Bowes]

Hello everyone. I primarily have used the UFX/Kentmere emulsions (400 & 100, 35mm & 120 formats) & develop with Obsidian Aqua. While in Hawaii early this year, I was given 5 rolls of outdated HP-5 (120) & exposed them during my walkabouts. The grain is a bit more than the UFX 400 materials but the staining of the pyro gives this grain a pleasant appearance. You might explore what a pyro developer can do with your work. PMK-Pyro or PyrocatHD are two "brews" available commercially, my OA is a DIY mix. Bill

[conrad_hoffman]

IMO, given the limited films we have available, and commercial developers, brewing your own is the only thing that makes sense. Shoot me a PM with your email if you want a copy of my developer spreadsheet.