Did I do something wrong?

[jgcull]

I used Kodak P3200, rated 1600, film developed in D76 stock solution. I know this film is grainy anyway, but should it look this grainy? It's maybe difficult to tell exactly by my lousy scans but you can see the grain.

Are there better options for low light situations than this film? I've used Neopan 1600 and it didn't seem to be so grainy, but I don't know if you can still get that.

Thanks.

Janet

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fast films are grainy.

PE

 

[jgcull]

"fast films are grainy"

Fast films are grainy.

PE

That grainy? Is that how it should look if properly exposed and developed?

Is there a better option, was part of my question? What could I (or should I) do different in such lighting?

 

[RoBBo]

If you're shooting @ 1600 with 35mm you'd probably be better off as far as grain goes using Neopan 1600.
D76 isnt the best bet either, I'd give XTol a go.
You aren't going to get too much better results even with that. If you really want high speed and high quality grab yourself a cheap TLR and some Ilford Delta 3200 in 120.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fast films are grainy.

PE

And the faster, the grainier.

Delta 3200: fastest, grainiest.

TMZ: 1/3-1/2 stop slower, doesn't push quite as well

Neopan 1600: slowest (1/3-1/2 stop more), finest grained

LESS exposure means LESS grain, too...

(PE: you know this: I'm just using your post as a springboard)

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Test, test, test, test

The only way you'll find you is correct for your taste. Some would say it's not grainy enough. Neopan 1600 is smoother, but P3200 and Neopan 1600 look different with different developers.

You need to set up a systematic test of various high speed films with various developers to find the combination you like, not what we tell you.

 

[jgcull]

>>>not what we tell you<<<

OK. Well-l-l, then why is there a forum for questions? Lots of time and effort could be saved with an auto-reply that says, "test". I hear you, and I don't mean to sound short. Really, I don't. But I'm asking, is this how this film ordinarily looks? And, how would you, more experienced photographers/printers, handle low-light situations?

I know the answer is always "test!". Doggone it, when I think of testing every camera body (maybe even each lens? I don't know) with every film and developer... ugh. Does everyone but me have lots of free time? ON THE OTHER HAND... I know in the end it will save me time.

Sorry to bother you with a silly question. grr.

Janet

 

[SuzanneR]

Janet... I quite like the look of these, and with some careful printing I think you'd be able to make some good prints. That said... yes.. the upshot.. fast film is this grainy in 35mm. To get less grain, you'd be better off shooting in medium format.

I've only used Ilford Delta 3200, and have souped it in D-76 stock, and xtol. I still get a lot of grain in either developer in 35mm, but far less in 120.

I love this film with candle light, btw, the grain is lovely is really low light!!

 

[MikeSeb]

I second the recommendation for Xtol, straight, for Delta 3200 at EI=1600. I think I'll be a lot less grainy than this--which is about right for fast film in 35mm.

 

[Arvee]

Assuming you're printing digitally, your scanner is contributing to the grain through an artifact called "grain aliasing." I fought this for quite some time trying to duplicate the grain of a conventionally enlarged print only to find that my scanner is causing the problem. You can't win this one, the hardware is holding you back! A conventional wet print will show much less grain.

Check it out: http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

Fred

 

[jgcull]

Fred

Thank you, Fred, and others, for replying. First I apologize for sounding off in frustration. I am in an area where I don't know one other person who works in the darkroom. I so wish I could go to school and learn how to do it right! It's hard to learn and grow the way I'd like to, alone.

Fred, this is scanned from a wet print - well, it *was* wet once. It is sort of difficult to get it looking just like the original in a scan. Once I sharpen for the web, or to the unsharp mask thing - it sort of looks different, other than just sharpened. It's close, though.

I wish there was some "good old boy" nearby who loved the craft and would let me look over his shoulder.

Janet

Assuming you're printing digitally, your scanner is contributing to the grain through an artifact called "grain aliasing." I fought this for quite some time trying to duplicate the grain of a conventionally enlarged print only to find that my scanner is causing the problem. You can't win this one, the hardware is holding you back! A conventional wet print will show much less grain.

Check it out: http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Grain.htm

Fred

 

[Ray Heath]

I used Kodak P3200, rated 1600, film developed in D76 stock solution. I know this film is grainy anyway, but should it look this grainy? It's maybe difficult to tell exactly by my lousy scans but you can see the grain.

Are there better options for low light situations than this film? I've used Neopan 1600 and it didn't seem to be so grainy, but I don't know if you can still get that.

Thanks.

Janet

G'day Janet,

There is nothing wrong with grain, unless that's not what you wanted or can stand.

You ask "Are there better options for low light situations ...".

How low light was this situation?

Did you really 'need' to use 3200 film?

Is this result better than no result?

Maybe you'd have gotten a more pleasing (for you) result if you'd used a slower shutter and wider aperture with slower film.

Do you understand the concepts that tie all the variables together i.e. subject illumination, ISO, shuuter speed, lens aperture, photographer's expectation, etc, etc?

Ray

 

[jgcull]

>>>How low light was this situation?
Did you really 'need' to use 3200 film?<<<

The room has one window and the walls are a midtone shade of olive green, so not much reflecting. It was late in the day with the sun setting at about 2:00 position outside that window, so yes, I needed a fast film. I was shooting about as wide open as I could, and the shutter speed was as slow as I can do without blurring. Yes, I understand ISO, shutter speed, aperture. Expection and results? ha! *Sometimes* yes, sometimes I wonder!

Yes, I know I'd have gotten different results with a slower speed film, but the conditions didn't allow that. The prints almost look newspaper-ish. Sort of cool looking, but I didn't know if that's what 3200 *usually* produces.

I rated this film, 1600. Like I said, I've used Neopan 1600 and it looked quite different.

I'll reserve it, in the future, for the lowest lighting situations like this time. Actually, I got several rolls of the P3200 from a photographer who's gone digital. That's why I used it at all. A few rolls to go and I'll probably stick with Neopan when I need fast film. I see it's still available.

Thank you, all.

Janet

 

[eddie gunks]

i am no expert at this but i just shot some kodak 3200. check out his shot.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
notice the development times. it was at 68 degrees. the grain does not look to big to me. this shot may not be a great example but the rest of the roll has "not too big grain" stuff also.

i have used neopan 1600 with great results in the past. seemed like it had small grain using 35mm film.

eddie

 

[jgcull]

Eddie, that looks really good! I wonder what the difference is? Is it because of the developer? the exposure? Did you have indoor shots in lower light with similar results? Last week or so I did a couple other rolls of the same film. I'll have to get it back out and look at those negatives.

Yes, I've liked the Neopan, too.

I like that dilution H, HC110.

 

[mark]

I am one of those guys who hates grain, so I refuse to shoot anything faster than 200 and use the biggest negative possible for the setting. Yes, this looks normal for the film, I took a class with a woman who loved the look and it looked just like this.

If you do not like the grain get a tripod and slower film. Getting closer to the window works too. Ask your subjects to hold still a bit longer. If this grain is what you want then go for it.

Learning this hobby is frustrating, and being told to test can be frustrating too, but in all honesty it really does help a lot. Film is pretty cheap as long as you know what you are going to get. but it gets expensive if you keep getting the results you do not want. I like to know what the film willl look like before I shoot.

An easy way to test the films, especially in 35mm is to shoot that blank wall with a roll of film. Set your camera on a tripod or something really steady and fire off the roll without moving. When you go to develop the film cut it in half or thirds or fourths and soup each strip in something different. Enlarge one frame from each strip and see what you get. Write the name of the developer and times on the strip with a fine sharpi and it will print onto the sheet. Make a reference notebook for times when you are not so sure about what something might look like. Shoot several rolls this way at different speeds and soup the way i told you. You will then have a reference book with different sheets noting different speeds and developers and you will know what your film will look like.

I did this with several different 100-200 speed films in order to find the 35 mm film with the absolute lowest amount of grain. Delta 100 in ilfosol won hands down.

There really is no auto answer. Since you are new at this, and are wanting answers you might want to simmer down a bit and read what these folks have to say. They really are the old guy down the street (except some of them are on other continents)and know their poop.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

In my opinion, grain is most visible in mid-tones. If you have a photo that is printed to be mostly mid-tones, then you will see grain more. How about making a contrastier print?

Yes, you will see quite visible grain with the ultra-high-speed camera films.

 

[dslater]

Hi Janet,
This level of grain looks about right to me for such fast film. I have not used Kodak P3200, but I have used Ilford Delta 3200 with similar results. Actually, I think the grain really adds to the first picture - it's really a great shot.
You might want to give a staining developer a try. The stain fills in between the grains and reduces grain a bit

 

[JBrunner]

One of the reasons the grain may be more apparent is the walls are a flat midtone, so the grain stands out where the eye is looking for an even tone. Eddies example might have a similar amount of grain, but it gets "lost" on the boca of foliage and other intricate details the eye takes in.

The easiest solution for grain is a bigger negative - but bigger formats often come with slower lenses- sometimes a catch 22.

Regarding the recommendation for a staining developer (Pyro), as mentioned previously, it doesn't seem to have the same kind of effect on small negs as it does on large format, in my experience, but that is just that, my experience, and everybody does things that add up to variables, and can have different results. A Pyro expert like Sandy King might be able to offer some specific recommendations concerning staining developers for 35.

 

[Snapshot]

Having used P3200 before, your pictures seem to approximate what I have observed in my prints. If you need to shoot at EI 1600, try Tri-X at 1600 and use Diafine to develop. The grain will be finer and you'll be able to use the Tri-X at slower speeds for even less grain. However, Tri-X is a fairly grainy 400 speed film when compared to other, more modern emulsions.

You can also try push developing other films but I find the Tri-X and Diafine combination to be quite a good one.

 

[jgcull]

What is a staining developer?

Thanks for all of your replies!

 

[jgcull]

>>>How about making a contrastier print? <<<

I'll try it.

 

[Michael W]

Neopan 1600 rated at 1600 & developed in Diafine gives me results that are sharp & fine grained with good shadow detail.

 

[dslater]

What is a staining developer?

Thanks for all of your replies!

Staining developers are usually use either Pyrogallol or Pyrocatechin as the primary developing agent - PMK Pyro and Pyorcat-HD are 2 examples. As they develop the image, they also stain the gelatin a yellowish or brownish color - the amount of stain is proportional to the density. A search for Pyro or Pyrocat on this site will bring up many threads. You also can go to www.unblinkingeye.com where there are many of articles about staining developers.

Dan

 

[CBG]

I don't think there's a compelling case to be made for using a superfast film in a room lit by a window and daylight if you don't want that sort of grain. A tripod or some other sort of camera support makes a huge difference.

I'll bet you could be using a 400 or 200 speed film with no fatal issues if the camera isn't moving. You might have exposures in the 1/4 1/8 etc speed range, and sometimes you'll have the subject blurr the picture, but the grain goes from visible to huge when you go from 400 to 1600+. It's a world of difference.

Even putting the camera down on a table or chair, or against a wall can sometimes save the day.

Best,

C