35mm: A modest grain reduction proposal...

[JWMster]

My question is both subjective and subject to constraints. My goal is to use film in a hybrid process (not unique, but described below) to apply zone system principles to produce images with wide contrast, depth and image sharpness in 35mm B&W using rangefinders, Ilford films, and HC-110. Of these three, I'm most open to changing the last two - if there's really any merit in that. My prints are made from Plustek 8100 scans at a reputed 7200 dpi in a 2-pass process, and post is done using Capture One to fine tune (mostly cropping, RGB + Luma curves, and blackpoint adjustment).

Within these constraints, I'd like to reduce the grain somewhat. Experience with digital is that I've really got all I need for the digital smooth look with my Sony A7RII... but I'm not inclined to try to approach that "sharpness / smoothness" with a MF camera of some sort... though I periodically look at the idea. MF equipment for now at least... just seems to big to carry. So to me and my wild eye, a little grain at the horizon adds a "glow" that works, and it's the foreground that could smooth out a tad. But fairly, I'm still new enough to this game to not be sure which variables to work in my toolset. And that's where I'm looking for some guidance.

 

[Petraio Prime]

My question is both subjective and subject to constraints. My goal is to use film in a hybrid process (not unique, but described below) to apply zone system principles to produce images with wide contrast, depth and image sharpness in 35mm B&W using rangefinders, Ilford films, and HC-110. Of these three, I'm most open to changing the last two - if there's really any merit in that. My prints are made from Plustek 8100 scans at a reputed 7200 dpi in a 2-pass process, and post is done using Capture One to fine tune (mostly cropping, RGB + Luma curves, and blackpoint adjustment).

Within these constraints, I'd like to reduce the grain somewhat. Experience with digital is that I've really got all I need for the digital smooth look with my Sony A7RII... but I'm not inclined to try to approach that "sharpness / smoothness" with a MF camera of some sort... though I periodically look at the idea. MF equipment for now at least... just seems to big to carry. So to me and my wild eye, a little grain at the horizon adds a "glow" that works, and it's the foreground that could smooth out a tad. But fairly, I'm still new enough to this game to not be sure which variables to work in my toolset. And that's where I'm looking for some guidance.

Where did you get these notions? Printing in an enlarger will be superior to scanning. Where did you get the idea that scanning would produce acceptable results? It won't. Using the zone system will not work with roll film. Your entire set of presuppositions is wrong. You should be able to make 11 x 14 prints from Tri-X with no noticeable grain.

 

[JWMster]

Yeah... I do know the roll film thing. Thank you. That's why I referred to "principles" by which I meant to distinguish from attempting the whole Zone process and simply focus on it's techniques for setting exposure, measuring scene contrast, and so forth.

You may be right about the dark room, but I don't have room for one at the moment. Fairly, I've seen plenty of finely scanned images, but I couldn't vouch for the whole of the technical process involved and know some folks scan prints made in the wet darkroom process while others wet scan. Some of the latter are very fine to my eyes on the web, but I've not seen a side-by-side comparison.

If I may, my objective in pushing my way into film has been to become more intimate with the image making process. Gradually. I'm enjoying what I've learned so far, and interested in how far I can refine the existing process. If you're right and the ONLY way is to link up with a local darkroom and it's limited available hours... which is the case here... pretty much Sunday evenings only, then the whole may come to a crashing end.

 

[MattKing]

I doubt you are going to find solutions here on APUG, because much of the grain you observe is most likely a function of the interaction between the APUG appropriate subjects (film, exposure and development) and APUG inappropriate subjects (scanner, scanning software and post processing choices).
So while we won't discourage you from pursuing film, we can't (aren't supposed to) really help you here with the other parts of your process.
And much of the grain may actually come from those other parts, or at least from how they image the parts we talk about.
APUG does have a much quieter sister site - DPUG.ORG - that came into being to deal with mixed/hybrid processes. Changes are in the offing that will make it easier to move from one side to the other, but for now, DPUG requires a separate registration. You can use the same username.
You will find many of the people there are here on APUG as well.

 

[JWMster]

I doubt you are going to find solutions here on APUG, because much of the grain you observe is most likely a function of the interaction between the APUG appropriate subjects (film, exposure and development) and APUG inappropriate subjects (scanner, scanning software and post processing choices).

Ooops. Okay. Where did I miss "the rules"? Sure wasn't thinking about the APUG inappropriate, but as I identified, the most variable... the film and development. But forgive me. Thank you for your patience. Is there a way I should withdraw the post?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I doubt you are going to find solutions here on APUG, because much of the grain you observe is most likely a function of the interaction between the APUG appropriate subjects (film, exposure and development) and APUG inappropriate subjects (scanner, scanning software and post processing choices).
So while we won't discourage you from pursuing film, we can't (aren't supposed to) really help you here with the other parts of your process.
And much of the grain may actually come from those other parts, or at least from how they image the parts we talk about.
APUG does have a much quieter sister site - DPUG.ORG - that came into being to deal with mixed/hybrid processes. Changes are in the offing that will make it easier to move from one side to the other, but for now, DPUG requires a separate registration. You can use the same username.
You will find many of the people there are here on APUG as well.

+1

Putting it as succinctly as possible when scanning you must shutoff ALL automatic corrections in the software. Otherwise you will see various artifacts such as increased grain that are not part of the analog process.

 

[MattKing]

Ooops. Okay. Where did I miss "the rules"? Sure wasn't thinking about the APUG inappropriate, but as I identified, the most variable... the film and development. But forgive me. Thank you for your patience. Is there a way I should withdraw the post?

Don't worry about withdrawing the post, and consider yourself forgiven .
A lot of us here on APUG do work in both environments, even if we have strong preferences for one over the other. The site was set up to preserve and foster the non-digital processes, so it has a narrow focus. But other than a few notable exceptions, no one is going to mind it if you do other things (along as you don't talk much about them here).
One thing you may notice if you spend lots of time here - and we would hope you do - is that there is a fundamental connection between your mode of presentation and the choices you make when you choose, expose and develop analog materials like photographic film. In many cases, the appearance of things like grain are much more influenced by the last steps in your process than they are by some of the earlier steps - such as choice of film and development.

 

[eddie]

You should look into taking a darkroom class at Photoworks in Glen Echo. A good way to get your feet wet.

 

[flavio81]

You should be able to make 11 x 14 prints from Tri-X with no noticeable grain.

Which developer do you use for such great prints?

 

[summicron1]

Which developer do you use for such great prints?

I dunno about him, but i get excellent results with tri-x and Hp5 using d-76 diluted 1:1. You have to look real hard to find any grain.

digitizing your negs is another matter -- if you have a REALLY good scanner, one of those thousand dollar jobbers, you can expect grain-free images that will produce really good enlargement, but if you have a flatbed scanner like mine, a canoscan 9000, it does OK with most film but the resolution of the lens/capture system is such that 35mm film always looks a titch soft -- prints would be ok in the 4 by 6 range, but I'd hate to go larger just because the resolution is not there no matter how high I set the pixel count.

prints I make in the darkroom are so much sharper that I wonder, at times, why I scan, except it is an easy way to proof the images, I suppose.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you are making 11x14 prints from Tri-X and you can't see any grain, there is something wrong with your enlarging lens or your eyeball.....

 

[Ian Grant]

You might be better forgetting the second part of your questioning and focussing on the film/developer combination. If you want the highest possible quality results look at using a film like Pan F in Xtol or Perceptol, or Delta 100 /Tmax100 in the same developers or Rodinal. HC110 isn't the best Kodak developer, see their comparison chart, Xtol is their best all round developer in terms of film speed, sharpness and fine grain.

If you are making 11x14 prints from Tri-X and you can't see any grain, there is something wrong with your enlarging lens or your eyeball.....

I think he means 11x14 cm prints from 35mm Tri-X

Ian

 

[JWMster]

Thanks for the replies and encouragement. Yes, I've tried to get in touch with the Glen Echo folks, but so far it's a one-way conversation. So I'm rather self/youtube/forum taught and only been at it about 2 months. Getting the kinks out, but quite a ways to go. I went with HC-110 on recommendations, and probably misread the Kodak chart to thinking it was a good all-arounder, and it was a liquid... so no "scarey dust" to mix. Have a bottle of Rodinal.... but folks seemed to suggest that with 35mm it would tend to increase grain. So I set that aside to just focus on getting the procedures down with one developer.

My reason for posting lies in suspecting I may have chosen the wrong one, or some part of the film-developer combination may simply not be as complimentary. Dunno. Some places I read that Kodak developed HC-110 as a liquid D-76 but simply didn't describe it that way... which would seem confused, but "okay... whatever the experts say I guess." Found here a few folks using a 1:49 dilution as a 50 part, simple formula that offered a wide range of times, and have run with that. So I ponder D-76 and Xtol... and others. Have a bottle of FA-1027 on order, but not in a particular rush to collect chemicals just to ponder, look at, or toy with. Rather want to go with something with good prospects for long-term use.

And yes, have begun to shoot FP4+ and will try some Pan F as well. But I realize at this point in the process, there's less I'd value in my own experience than in trying to filter and leaven it with the wisdom of others.

 

[bdial]

Welcome.
You can most certainly use zone principles and techniques with roll film, but it's easier with sheet film because you can tailor the processing for each image rather than a whole roll. There is a recent thread discussing Zone and roll film.
As noted, HC-110 is a fine developer, but it isn't the "best" one for optimizing sharpness and grain. The differences between developers can be subtle though, so there is no harm in continuing to use it.
Fighting digitizing artifacts will probably be your biggest problem for minimizing grain in shooting 35 and printing digitally. I'm not sure that perfectly smooth digital look is achievable, especially for 35, but it's not necessarily desirable either. Also as noted, all that is OT here, but there is good information in other sources, notably DPUG. There is also a hybrid group discussion within APUG; (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[JWMster]

bdial: Thanks! Yeah... I'm actually a fan of some degree of grain. I don't add it to a digital image, but I'm not trying to eliminate it from an analog image either. Something to be said in just paper selection. But just to be clear, the grain I want out is the grain that's unnecessarily due to defects in my processes and work flows. Like I said, at the horizon, the glow of out-of-focus is actually improved by the grain in my opinion. And film seems to put a beautiful halo around "lamp glow" that I just don't think is there with digital. There are other places, too where the "film look" is really sweet. I also like that post-processing in film isn't an endless "you're never done, are you re-touching process." Limits are good things. And of course, I like to print big, so yeah.... 35mm will have some shot-comings at 17 X 25 that wouldn't be there if I were less ambitious, but I'm not going to be bothered unnecessarily by that either. I accept the limits and will simply want to convert them from defects to attributes that enhance - if I can - the impression created. I'm much happier with images that overcomes some of my technical defects from the processes by which I've produced them in something of their composition, lighting, and content. "Defects" or "limits" just increase the emphasis I have to make on the other aspects of photography... and I have no quarrel with that. But to be clear... there is absolutely NO thrill out there that matches pulling a roll of developed negatives out of the tank and unwinding the reel to hang it up. I love looking at through the negative as it hangs to dry, and just amazed it worked. I'm sure it will get less "WOW!" in time, but it's pretty amazing. And digital has it's points, but nothing like this... it's SUPPOSED to be great... and often isn't. By contrast, we're all told these days that film is "meh", and here it's nothing short of "Wow!!!". And do I like NOT feeding the Techno-fab beast ? Sure.

Will I wander into MF some day? Maybe. Not now. But sure... someday. For now, I've been filling out an M rangefinder kit. gathering some lenses and rehabing the whole, retrofitting a basement bathroom with a steel sink and new overhead lights for my developing room, and absorbing a new host of darkroom and post techniques. Time is after all... limited. And there's already too much of the green stuff flowing to others to not need to slow it down a bit for a while.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

35mm B&W using rangefinders, Ilford films, and HC-110. Of these three, I'm most open to changing the last two

If you just want to reduce the grain on the negative as top priority, you can always try speciality products like special fine grain developers or speciality films like the ADOX CMS 20 II 135/36 with the Adotech II Developer. But I would guess that would not solve your problem.

If you have too much grain, try systematically eliminating possible sources, i.e. analyse your process from the beginning to the end and make a tight quality control. There are parameters in the analogue process which can affect grain size which are not obvious (like too cold washing water). Why don´t you try and have one of your negatives printed for reference and comparison? The same for scanning. With scanning, do the same. Analyse the process and search for possible sources for the problem. Why not get a professional scan from your reference negative? Then you can put the results side by side (a conventional print - your scan - a pro scan) and identify where the problem is actually occurring.

 

[Petraio Prime]

If you are making 11x14 prints from Tri-X and you can't see any grain, there is something wrong with your enlarging lens or your eyeball.....

Nope. I didn't say there was 'no' grain, but I have made 16 x 20s with no noticeable graininess when viewed from a normal distance. I used UFG at the time, but D-76 is just as good. You just have to use good technique.

 

[Petraio Prime]

bdial: Thanks! Yeah... I'm actually a fan of some degree of grain. I don't add it to a digital image, but I'm not trying to eliminate it from an analog image either. Something to be said in just paper selection. But just to be clear, the grain I want out is the grain that's unnecessarily due to defects in my processes and work flows. Like I said, at the horizon, the glow of out-of-focus is actually improved by the grain in my opinion. And film seems to put a beautiful halo around "lamp glow" that I just don't think is there with digital. There are other places, too where the "film look" is really sweet. I also like that post-processing in film isn't an endless "you're never done, are you re-touching process." Limits are good things. And of course, I like to print big, so yeah.... 35mm will have some shot-comings at 17 X 25 that wouldn't be there if I were less ambitious, but I'm not going to be bothered unnecessarily by that either. I accept the limits and will simply want to convert them from defects to attributes that enhance - if I can - the impression created. I'm much happier with images that overcomes some of my technical defects from the processes by which I've produced them in something of their composition, lighting, and content. "Defects" or "limits" just increase the emphasis I have to make on the other aspects of photography... and I have no quarrel with that. But to be clear... there is absolutely NO thrill out there that matches pulling a roll of developed negatives out of the tank and unwinding the reel to hang it up. I love looking at through the negative as it hangs to dry, and just amazed it worked. I'm sure it will get less "WOW!" in time, but it's pretty amazing. And digital has it's points, but nothing like this... it's SUPPOSED to be great... and often isn't. By contrast, we're all told these days that film is "meh", and here it's nothing short of "Wow!!!". And do I like NOT feeding the Techno-fab beast ? Sure.

Will I wander into MF some day? Maybe. Not now. But sure... someday. For now, I've been filling out an M rangefinder kit. gathering some lenses and rehabing the whole, retrofitting a basement bathroom with a steel sink and new overhead lights for my developing room, and absorbing a new host of darkroom and post techniques. Time is after all... limited. And there's already too much of the green stuff flowing to others to not need to slow it down a bit for a while.

Again, you should have hardly any grain with modern 400 speed films at 11 x 14.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You might be better forgetting the second part of your questioning and focussing on the film/developer combination. If you want the highest possible quality results look at using a film like Pan F in Xtol or Perceptol, or Delta 100 /Tmax100 in the same developers or Rodinal. HC110 isn't the best Kodak developer, see their comparison chart, Xtol is their best all round developer in terms of film speed, sharpness and fine grain.



I think he means 11x14 cm prints from 35mm Tri-X

Ian

No, inches.

 

[Ian Grant]

No, inches.

The comment "no noticeable graininess" and also "viewed from a normal distance", is a bit of an unverifiable concept because it really depends on our individual perceptions of what we consider to be acceptable graininess in prints, and in particular ones own prints.

In my case I find almost all 35mm films enlarged more than 10x8 have too much grain for my liking (for the landscape images I'm making). I used the phrase "almost all because there were exceptions like AP25/APX25, EFKE 25, and of course there's still Pan F. I've no interest in using a document/copy film in a special developer. I don't have a problem with more grain it's just that I don't want grainier prints from 35mm negatives alongside the images I make with LF (5x4 and 10x8) and also 120 (6x6 and 6x17) in my exhibition sets. I have tried it in the past.

It's a case of finding the best film/developer combinations to get the finest grain with a good range of tones and excellent sharpness. The old Agfa APX100 and also Tmax100 give exceptionally good results with Rodinal.

Joking apart I'm currently printing some 6x4.5 negative approx 14x11 cm because I love the quality, I print 35mm to about 8,5x6 cm - for the same reason.

Ian

 

[faberryman]

If you want finer grain, you might consider Ilford Delta 100/400 in Ilford DDX. They have finer grain than FP4+/HP5+. DDX is a one shot liquid developer diluted 1:4.

 

[flavio81]

If you are making 11x14 prints from Tri-X and you can't see any grain, there is something wrong with your enlarging lens or your eyeball.....

LOL

Well, everybody has different standards for grain, i guess Petraio Prime evaluates grain when looking at a picture from a reasonable distance, while when I evaluate photos for "grain", i do look at them very closely (i.e. 5" viewing distance)

 

[klownshed]

As others have mentioned, scanning technique will make more of a difference than the developer you use. Turn of everything auto, set levels after in post processing and don't sharpen until the very end. Don't let the scanner software sharpen. Ever!

You can get really good scans though, but it does require work in PP.

Other than that either a bigger neg or better scanner are required for smoother scans of 35mm.

Or print in the darkroom and scan the print ;-)

 

[Anon Ymous]

IMHO, a developer like Perceptol is something you should try if the finest possible grain is your #1 priority. When used neat, you get the finest grain, but also about a 1 stop penalty and some loss of sharpness. When used dilute, especially at 1+3 there's not much if any speed penalty and you still get fine grain, along with good sharpness.

 

[JWMster]

The work in PP isn't the hard part. Scanning is "new to me" however, and it's fair that may be the issue. I'm using a Plustek 8100 35mm scanner with Vuescan software for a DNG "supposed" to have 7200DPI - which I doubt. There may still be some defaults there that need turning off, though I thought I'd done that at the start. FWIW, my problem with my local lab's commercial scans is that return JPEGs... and I'd prefer the raw files... which is why I got a scanner of my own. After post in Capture One I typically print through Imageprint software to keep the ink, printer and paper in synch and to be able to re-do the exact results without missing a beat. FWIW, the results with digital originals have been very, very good.... but with film negatives, I'd agree we're still likely at the beginning of debugging the conversion process. Can it be soooo much different? Didn't think so, but maybe it is.

Like the idea of wet printing vs. ink printing to see whether there's an issue in the negative though I would tend to agree with those that while there might be a tweak or two there, the likely culprit is in the scanning process itself and working it from there. Fairly, I'm still new enough at developing to have room to go in removing inadvertent efforts which constitute "grain enhancers" there. Again, I'm not trying to eliminate grain so much as have a factor that's there, but not overwhelming to the point of poking my eyeballs out.

And of course, it's also possible that my standards may just be ridiculously unrealistic, too. I see more grain by far in some of the galleries out there for folks on this forum than I'm getting and complaining about. Needless to say, for the moment I tend to think there's more I can and should be doing. THanks!