continuously getting poor result

[Sirius Glass]

Good recomandation - but the improvement from this would not have such impact that the OP would solve his problem.
In other words : " It wasn't the developer". The remaining issue that can cause total grainy negatives (more than from underexposure/overdevelopement plus Rodinal) would be : " massive wrong final wash temperatures"
At the very beginning I didn't care about because I didn't know. I also expected same temperature from watertap as my developement (20 degree C). But in winter the temperatures are much more less (12 degree C ?) .
But even in such cases I never saw massive grain.......like OP's problem.
The only case I would like to compare with OP's results was a comercial print from a self developed Delta 3200.
It was smal sized and extreme worst.
Later I did remember : "But the film wasn't in 35mm it was 120 film...? - how is it possible to reach such grainy look in smal prints (5" x 7") .......?
The answer is simple : All grain on the print wasn't "GRAIN"...
That's all coming from digital artefacts.
But to avoid Rodinal could indeed help a little - not from grainy look of Rodinal but from following issue : Grain is producing much much more "information" for digital compression. A white wall in high resolution (and finest grain) isn't a real task for jpg compression. The compression algorithm is "sleeping" from that.! A picture from forrest at rainy days is the same - as with (wrong) information from a grainy negative.
So I never care about "grain" again on smal comercial prints - it is allways from artefacts (caused from compression due to "modern" scanning resolution) !
with regards

I agree.

I'm thinking a combination of what people have said. First, sharpening scans has to be done carefully if at all, or you sharpen the grain, not the underlying subject. Getting pixel width right is more important than percentage of sharpening; play around a lot. Second, I think that your film is overdeveloped about 10-15 percent. Developing less will decrease grain and lower contrast, both of which may be helpful towards what you want. Both for printing and scanning I find the manufacturers' developing suggestions to be towards the high end.

Third, are you making any prints? Prints, both silver and digital, will have less apparent grain than screen display. It has also been my experience that different viewers present grain/noise differently, so your software may be enhancing the appearance of grain to you, but not to everyone. I went through this just yesterday doing some quick edits in FastStone rather than Photoshop. The ability to pixel peep at dimensions you will never use to see a whole print at once is a liability, not an advantage.

As Trendland points out, with the scanner you're using you aren't even seeing film grain, by the way. Desktop flattop scanners don't have enough resolution to resolve 35mm film grain. It's noise. Another reason to be careful about sharpening.

Finally, I think you should standardize on one film, one developer. You have far too many variables there to be dealing with. If you expect to develop a reliable appearance for your work it should be by manipulating one thing at a time, not jumping all over the place randomly.

I agree, this is a scanning problem plus several other problems.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Scanning is not the best way. Try printing the negatives.

 

[removed account4]

Scanning is not the best way. Try printing the negatives.

if he doesn't print the negatives in a darkroom then scanning is the only way...
even if he brings it to a lab (unless it is an optical printing lab, and not many of thems lefts )
they will be scanned and then printed ..

 

[jtk]

I'd suggest TIFF-only (until final save, if then) and doing any/all sharpening in post-processing...and working on a copy file, leaving the original unaffected. Multiple efforts to sharpen add up very obviously.

 

[Sirius Glass]

if he doesn't print the negatives in a darkroom then scanning is the only way...
even if he brings it to a lab (unless it is an optical printing lab, and not many of thems lefts )
they will be scanned and then printed ..

Sadly very true.

 

[Nihil Abstat]

if he doesn't print the negatives in a darkroom then scanning is the only way...
even if he brings it to a lab (unless it is an optical printing lab, and not many of thems lefts )
they will be scanned and then printed ..

Then why not use color film to start with? The Callier effect greatly increases contrast and grain. I have no idea why anyone would scan conventional B&W film. That's why he is "continuously getting poor result"

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Scanner: Epson v600 with original mount and software(I turned off all the extra setting like dust removal and unmask sharp ,,,etc.)

Epson V600 is a very decent scanner and with the Epson software it will give you good scans if you follow some good practices. Here is a good set of tips to get started: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Epson V600 is a very decent scanner and with the Epson software it will give you good scans if you follow some good practices. Here is a good set of tips to get started: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php

Epson V600 is a very decent scanner and with the Epson software it will give you good scans if you follow some good practices. Here is a good set of tips to get started: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php

You'll note the article author is using 4 x 5. 35mm is another matter entirely. Scanning will always produce inferior results to enlarging, at least on small format film.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Scanning will always produce inferior results to enlarging, at least on small format film.

Epson scanners give good results on small format film as has been the experience of many photographers. Just look at Rick Drawbridge's work on photo.net or here https://www.flickr.com/photos/31253629@N08/albums. Even with Epson V600, the scanner that was mentioned in OP, one should be able to get better results by following good practices. Whether scanning is inferior to enlarging is a different issue.

 

[removed account4]

I have no idea why anyone would scan conventional B&W film. That's why he is "continuously getting poor result"

nope, the OP's poor results are due to user-error.

35mm is another matter entirely. Scanning will always produce inferior results to enlarging, at least on small format film.

==
do you have any work to back up your claims ?
your flickr feed and other work of yours on the internet doesn't really back up your case.
==

 

[Nihil Abstat]

nope, the OP's poor results are due to user-error.

==
do you have any work to back up your claims ?
your flickr feed and other work of yours on the internet doesn't really back up your case.
==

No, the OP's poor results are due to scanning conventional films. What is flikr feed?

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Epson scanners give good results on small format film as has been the experience of many photographers. Just look at Rick Drawbridge's work on photo.net or here https://www.flickr.com/photos/31253629@N08/albums. Even with Epson V600, the scanner that was mentioned in OP, one should be able to get better results by following good practices. Whether scanning is inferior to enlarging is a different issue.

That is precisely the issue. If you want to scan, use chromogenic films. If you want to use conventional films, use an enlarger.

This is elementary stuff.

 

[mshchem]

Before anyone that shoots black and white film buys a scanner, they should learn to contact print. All you need to make decent proof sheets is, ideally an enlarger and some polycontrast filters, or simply a 15 W light bulb and a dark room.

A contact sheet will tell you if you are all over the place on exposure.

When you make a contact sheet every frame should require, more or less, the same exposure time in the darkroom.

With the miracle that is Ilford RC paper, 1 tray, a pint of developer, and rapid fix . Then you have both feet on the ground not trying to figure out a damn scanner.

If you want to post images on the web, scan the contact prints, that's a piece of cake.

MHO, Best Mike

 

[Nihil Abstat]

Before anyone that shoots black and white film buys a scanner, they should learn to contact print. All you need to make decent proof sheets is, ideally an enlarger and some polycontrast filters, or simply a 15 W light bulb and a dark room.

A contact sheet will tell you if you are all over the place on exposure.

When you make a contact sheet every frame should require, more or less, the same exposure time in the darkroom.

With the miracle that is Ilford RC paper, 1 tray, a pint of developer, and rapid fix . Then you have both feet on the ground not trying to figure out a damn scanner.

If you want to post images on the web, scan the contact prints, that's a piece of cake.

MHO, Best Mike

Yep!