B&W more grainy than Color?

[callie]

Hi Guys,

I recently shot a roll of B&W film for the first time. It was noticeably grainier than the same ASA color film I shot the week before. Let me put all the factors here

Both rolls were shot on the Nikon FE with 50mm f1.8

Color: Fujifilm Superia 400, Shutter speed set to auto, set exposure comp to +1, developed and scanned at local Kodak store (very happy with the pictures, sharp and great)

B&W: Agfa APX 400, Followed light meter and set exposure comp to +1.5, developed at photo lab and then scanned at the Kodak store I used before (images seemed way more grainy)

*The Kodak store doesn't offer B&W developing, only C-41 types

I was so happy with the color film scans I got back the week before, is that just how B&W is - more grainy or could it be another factor? Maybe they developed incorrectly?

 

[mrosenlof]

I believe you are correct here. And I think it's because the image in the color neg is formed of dye clouds where the silver grains were. I also think this might mean the BW neg might be sharper, but more grainy. The part I'm certain about is that I'm not enough of an expert in this area to say that's really what's going on here.

 

[AgX]

You said it quite well.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The only method to judge in to compare the RMS Granularity of the two films.

 

[jimjm]

I've never shot APX400, only APX100, but from the examples I've seen online, the grain shouldn't be much more evident than with other 400 speed B/W films. As Mike mentioned, color film uses dyes whereas B/W uses silver-halide crystals.

Most 35mm B/W negs (properly exposed) can safely be enlarged up to 8x10 or 11x14 before grain becomes significantly obvious.

One big complicating factor is the scanner. Scanner software often needs to be configured to optimally scan B/W film. Dust and scratch removal software like DigitalICE is sometimes set to default levels, and is not designed to handle the grains in B/W film.

 

[John Bragg]

Hi Callie, C41 colour film is very forgiving of exposure errors and benefits in most cases from generous exposure. It forms the image from dye clouds not silver grain so generally is smoother looking. Conventional black and white film uses silver particles (grain) to form an image and depending how you expose and develop it can look more or less grainy. Agfa APX400 is a grainy film by nature but moreso if overdeveloped. I don't get why you are using exposure compensation unless this is a hang over from your digital workflow ? The best solution for you right now is Ilford XP2 film. It is a black and white film that uses colour technology and can be easily developed in colour chemistry. It is very grain free and can be exposed from ei200 to ei800 on the same roll. Try some, it will produce the results you are after.

 

[lantau]

I shot a test roll of APX 400 a bit over a year ago. I was very new to film. I liked the grain, it wasn't that bad. Exposure does have some effect. Here are samples:


Some have more grain, others less. The two with with clouds and sky were shot with a red filter. Then a Fuji 400, digitised with the same equipment:

Is the difference similar in your case? And it is not really the tool chain. Here is an Ektar frame, which is quite low on grain:


It could also be that your lab doesn't handle b/w very well. I was on holiday and decided to have my first film (Tri-X) developed and scanned there to see how I'm doing. The results were quite terrible. Could well be that customers there like contrast, but I'm a contrast whore myself and that was too much. I had E6 developed and scanned as well. Those were ok. Scanner used by the lab was probably a Noritsu, judging from the directory name on the CDs.

Scan from the Lab:


And here my own digitisation:

So maybe the film has more grain than you like, but it could also (additionally) be the lab.