HP5 grain problem

[reginald_lewis]

hey i need you guys thoughts on thge greain in this image it was

taken on HP5 400iso should it be this grainy could thge be from

developing could ib be from the scanning i haven't made prints from

thes negs yeat just scanned um and thoughts<div></div>

[jimvanson]

Bet you a roll of TriX -- OK, in your case HP5+, that most of the grain is scanner crap.<P>Print one and share a scan of the print with us.

[everitt]

What developer did you use? I've seen examples of very large ugly grain with

HP5 in Rodinal.

[grain]

Agreed, it's either scanner noise or you had someone else

develop it for you in t-max at 75 degrees which is what most labs

will use. Did you develop it yourself?

[johnmarkpainter]

I don't know....it looks like it might be underexposed and then hyped up digitally to

salvage the image.

 

How do the Negs look when you hold them up to light?

 

jmp

[johnmarkpainter]

P.S.

 

Having shot plenty of HP5 in Rodinal....it doesn't look like that unless you push to 3200

using Rodinal.

 

jmp

[marco_buonocore]

Did you scan in B&W mode, or RGB? If RBG, look at your blue channel and see if that's where the noise is.

 

If it's not the scanner, and it is in fact the negs, could it possibly be reticulation? I had a roll of 120 HP5 with awful grain that I believe was reticulation. You could make out the "grain" on the emulsion side with the naked eye.

[ronald_moravec1]

Take your 50mm lens off the camera and use it as a magnifier. That should tell if its the scanner or the film.

[chris_waller]

There's something wrong there. I've developed a lot of HP5, even in Rodinal, and never had grain like that. I can't commetn on the scanning but if the print shows the same level and type of grain then I'd suggest either massive over-exposure or over-development. Failing that some contamination of the developer perhaps.

[kunihiko]

Uhhhh... It could be over exposed - under developed and contrast was enhanced from very flat negative when scanned...and maybe some scan things are added. Auto dust removing of a scanner could make this kind of look. I just thought so, not sure.

[reginald_lewis]

it was developed in i think it is called d7 can't remeber i developed it in the collge darkroom and we don't mixz any of it the instructor does and i had them scanned at the local sams on a fuji frontier i will look at the negs again but to me the negatives look good

[john_shriver]

On a Frontier at low resolution? Almost certainly grain aliasing. Even if a scanner has an optical low-pass function to prevent grain aliasing, it's not going to change the optical-low pass bandwidth when you scan at less than full resolution. This is why one wants to scan film at full scanner resolution, and then downsample in an image editor.

[reginald_lewis]

ok and if i can ask does anyone know what the max resolution on a frontier 370 is because i am getting my scans back at 72dpi and they are trying to tell me that is the max and thanks i will trying scaning the negs on the drum scaner at the college if i can get at it for a few min

[titrisol]

What is the size of you image (640x480)?

If so they are scanning @ 400 dpi

 

That is low for a scanner, they should be in the 2000 dpi area

[reginald_lewis]

they are being scanned at 1818x1228 by 72dpi

 

where as another place in town is scanning them at 3000x2000 by 400dpi (howeve they use a afga mini lab)

 

i would use the place that does 400dpi but the customer service is beter at the first one

[andy_schwegler]

That's definitely the frontier scanner. I worked on one for 2 years through college and I always turned off the auto-sharpening for most customers because 50% of the time, people would come back complaining the scans looked too "pixelated and grainy". This will only magnify if it's slightly over/under exposed which it looks like in your case.

 

If the place you went to is anything like Ritz, they say that's the max resolution because the output for the fuji software does an auto resize so that all the files will easily fit on 1 or 2 cds and will process through the computer faster. They think most consumers just want the ability to use the scans for the web and make reprints at 4x6, so they keep it at that resolution when outputting.

 

I used to get 10x15 tiff scans at 300 dpi on the same machine (I think something like 4000x3000 pixels) because I would trick the software into not resizing. Now one roll would take 20 minutes and would take 2 CDs per roll but it was well worth it.

[reginald_lewis]

thanks i will take the neges back and have them rescan with the autoscan off

[reginald_lewis]

and btw thanks all for the input and if i get a chanmce to make some prints this evening i will scan and post the scans

[tim obrien]

72 DPI? That isn't even a good halftone screen. It explains a lot.

 

 

 

tim in san jose

[scott_eaton]

My 6x7 TMX 100 negs scanned on a professional Frontier look like crap, so I have no idea why you're trying to do this with 35mm HP5.

 

The only way to get decent images from HP5 is conventional darkroom printing, and just *maybe* doing your own scanning. Certainly not using a commercial lab that's designed for color negs.

[reginald_lewis]

hell havn't got my prints i did in the darkroom yeat they are stiull at the college darkroom cause i only have access to it when i am in class so i had one of the files printed at walmart thios morning oh and the one in the darkroom came out verywell will post a scan of those asoon as i can pic them up but here is a scan of the print i had done today fro0m the files<div></div>

[reginald_lewis]

and here is the original scan of thios image done from the negative on a frontier<div></div>

[reginald_lewis]

well are here is a scan taken from a print i did today at a friends darkroom i found out the problem with my negatives turns out i had over developed the film<div></div>