Blotchy grain. Any suggestions?

[Kirks518]

I have some oddball 35mm film, it's Kodak SO-370 Traffic Flow Recording Film from the 70's (exp 1978). No info as far as ASA or anything really. All the info I can find online is from me, so no help really. Everything from working out an EV to developing time has been a crapshoot with this film, but I'm trying to figure out how to get the best results from it. I have 30+ rolls left, so just tossing it would be wasteful.

I've been shooting it at ASA 64, and initially was using HC-110, but switched to D-76 when I ran out of HC-110.

The HC-110 was a little blotchy, but I'm finding the D-76 to be really blotchy. Is this because of the developer, or my developing times? Would shorter dev times help, or shooting at lower EV? Any suggestions as to what aspect I should change to improve the results?

This image is a crop ("100%"), that was scanned at 4800dpi. I think it shows the blotchiness really well, especially below her ear and along the hairline.

 

[msage]

How wasteful to invest time and chemicals in a film that will possibly never give you good results?

 

[mnemosyne]

How wasteful to invest time and chemicals in a film that will possibly never give you good results?

+1!

 

[gone]

Sounds like extensive testing is in order Kirk. Shoot one roll of the same scene at different exposures, then develop normally and see what you got. The once you have that down, try the same scene at that ISO on another roll, and cut it into snippets. Load a snippet into your reel, and develop it a certain way, then the next snippet is developed another way, etc. Real PITA, and I'm sure there are other ways to do this, but from those two rolls you should have something. At least you'll know whether or not the film is worth shooting some more w/ possibly different developers, or whether you should cut your losses and sell it. Sometimes a film that looks bad after a scan will still print well, assuming we're talking wet printing.

This is why I stopped shooting expired film. No matter how cheap it was, it wasn't worth it in the end.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do extensive testing. Very extensive testing so that all the film stock is used up before the testing is completed. Then you will know everything about an not existent film.

 

[MattKing]

The Recording films were optimized for something other than fine grain and smooth tonality.

I would guess as well that the grain in Recording film would cause most scanners to struggle.

Have you tried an optical print?

I'd suggest emphasizing the grain, with something like Rodinal.

 

[ic-racer]

Scanning questions should be on the DPUG forum.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Scanning questions should be on the DPUG forum.

+ 10,000

 

[Athiril]

It looks like you've done something wrong in the scanning or processing (after scanning) step.

 

[Bill Burk]

Meanwhile, I think the effect is quite striking.

 

[ozphoto]

I actually enjoy experimenting with old film - keeps things interesting for me. Plus you never know when you're going to find a combo film/dev that gives some amazing/weird/outstanding results that you love.

 

[Kirks518]

Scanning questions should be on the DPUG forum.

My question wasn't about the scanning. It's a question of why is the grain blotchy? I'm trying to figure out if it's inherent to the film, a result of the developer with that film, my developing times/method, or something in my post processing. Scans of other films I use don't have this blotchiness, so I'm trying to narrow down what I can change to possibly improve the result. Such as; (and I have no idea if this would be correct) 'reducing the developing time might help reduce the effect of the blotchiness' as an example.

 

[Kirks518]

Meanwhile, I think the effect is quite striking.

Thanks Bill. I can totally see this effect working well in many images, but not in all of them.

 

[Xmas]

Try

A) a wet print you can hire a print room or get one done
B) turn off any ICE or spot removal
C) Tmax or Microphen developer at same ISO
D) Rodinal stand 1:100 20c 60 mins same ISO don't be tempted to agitate.
Or stick at previous best combination

 

[MattKing]

My question wasn't about the scanning. It's a question of why is the grain blotchy? I'm trying to figure out if it's inherent to the film, a result of the developer with that film, my developing times/method, or something in my post processing. Scans of other films I use don't have this blotchiness, so I'm trying to narrow down what I can change to possibly improve the result. Such as; (and I have no idea if this would be correct) 'reducing the developing time might help reduce the effect of the blotchiness' as an example.

The problem is, the blotchiness may be entirely related to the interaction between the scanner, your software and the pattern of the film grain.

That is why I asked about whether you have tried an optical print. If that too shows the blotchiness, then you can assume that the problem isn't arising out of the digitization.

 

[Xmas]

The problem is, the blotchiness may be entirely related to the interaction between the scanner, your software and the pattern of the film grain.

That is why I asked about whether you have tried an optical print. If that too shows the blotchiness, then you can assume that the problem isn't arising out of the digitization.

If you look at the negative with a loupe...

 

[Kirks518]

Matt, gotcha. I don't have optical enlarging as an option, and there isn't even a local lab that does optical anymore.

Xmas, good idea. I'll do that tonight. I have an 8x, which should be decent enough.

 

[Xmas]

In another galaxy untold aeons ago people used to wet print contact sheets for filing.
Five trays and sheet of flame polished glass from local glasier.