Excessively grainy prints

[Idonex]

Hi,

I've just got my darkroom set up (Meopta Axomat 5 35MM enlarger with a Nikkor EL 50mm f/2.8 lens - using f/8 for printing) and i've been doing some test prints over the past month or so. I'm mostly happy with them so far, but they do seem to be excessivley grainy for the film type used (i've so far developed prints from 100 TMAX and Neopan 400). I wouldn't expect to see so much grain on a print from a well exposed daylight shot on TMAX 100 or Neopan 400 for that matter, but even at 7x5 i can see grain quite prominantly, mainly on soft areas like skin and skies.

Now i have nothing against grain, but it does seem a bit excessive for the films used. It's quite visible at 7x5 even on the TMAX 100 shots.

I'm printing on Kentmere VC Select and developing in Ilford Multigrade for 1:15

What affects grain in prints? The paper, the chemical temperature, the lens aperture etc? My cellar is very cold, although i keep an eye on the dev temperature whilst i'm printing.

Or is it more likely i messed up developing the negatives? They look fine, seem to have nice density and decent exposure (they were taken using a Nikon F80). I can see the grain 'pop' up when i focus on the enlarger and look through my focus finder. They were all developed at 20 degrees in HC-110 (B) using Kodak's agitation scheme.

Thanks

 

[BMbikerider]

If the film was over developed or over exposed or a combination of both that will give a massive grain increase.

 

[cliveh]

If you state your film developer/concentration and time/temperature we may be able to help.

 

[Worker 11811]

Are you making full frame prints or are you cropping to enlarge a small area of the negative? Even a large format negative can look grainy if you "zoom in" enough.

Yes, you will see grain suddenly "pop up" when you look through the focusing magnifier. That's what's supposed to happen. It tells you that you have the image in focus. However, the final print shouldn't show too much grain unless you look closely.

Also, don't forget, you can see grain in many prints, even well done prints, if you analyze from a close distance. Normal viewing distance for an average size print is usually considered to be approximately arm's length or more.

 

[Idonex]

After checking my negative notes for the prints i just did they were done at:

TMAX 100 in Ilfosol 3 for 5:30 (Inverting the tank four times during the first 10 seconds, then 4 inversions during the first 10 seconds of each subsequent minute)
Neopan 400 in HC-110 (B) for 5:00 (Agitating 5 seconds every 30 seconds)

I measured the temperature to 20 degrees for everything but the final wash. Does the final wash temperature matter?

The negatives themselves look fine exposure wise, the meter on the F80 is pretty good. The prints are not being cropped, i'm printing so the whole negative shows on the print.

Thanks

 

[tkamiya]

I have been TRYING to create HUGE grain.... I wish I had your secret.

Here's something to think about. What you are seeing as grain on paper isn't really grain. Grains are black spots on negative. So on paper, they appear white. If you are seeing BLACK spots on paper, that is a space between grains on negative.

As such, light and white area on print, thus dark and dense area on film, tends to exhibit more of this kind of thing. Layers of grain stacked up on film emulsions letting very little light through in fewer spots. So these area are less dense (on paper) and appear more grainy.

A lot of this is normal but it's hard to say without seeing what you are talking about.

 

[250swb]

I measured the temperature to 20 degrees for everything but the final wash. Does the final wash temperature matter?

Are you sure it is grain you are seeing and not recticulation?

Steve

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes the final wash temp might well matter if it is a lot different from the dev/stop/fix temps. If you are developing to the Kodak times and it certainly looks as if you are using Kodak agitation and the negs look right exposure-wise then that only seems to leave 2 options:

1 The wash temp is the problem. It is a lot different from the other temps
2. Your definition of grain in a print is a lot different from other users and/or you have an ability to see grain which most of us do not have.

Option 2 would seem unlikely but cannot be entirely ruled out.However I'd check your wash temp and next time ensure that all temps are within about 1C of each other. The film should withstand a greater range but if this tight range does not solve the issue then you can at least rule out reticulation but I'd have no idea where you would then look for the solution.


pentaxuser

 

[Idonex]

Hi,

Here's an example of Neopan 400. I'm not sure if anything can even be told from a scan, but this is a 100% crop from a 1200 DPI scan. Good light, this was actually with my Spotmatic F and a Takumar 50mm i think.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8092/8417335777_97b74a5de1_o.jpg

Not sure about reticulation to be honest. At the most the difference would be from 20 to about 10 degrees. But this shot was developed in the summer so the water straight from my tap wouldn't have been that cold.

Maybe i'm just not used to what i'm seeing! These are my first own prints. I certainly don't mind the grain too much, just want to make sure i'm not doing anything wrong!

Thanks

 

[pentaxuser]

Seems that between the OP's statements on what he did and our statements on the film characteristics and I agree that with both Ilford and Kodak films we have very tough emulsions, we have ruled out most of the likely causes.

Uncertainty is a nasty companion but only the OP can remove him by developing the same film again whilst ensuring that the whole process from loading the film to processing it, is done as if it were a scientifically rigorous experiment on which his PhD depended.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

OK Unless the little girl is a massive crop from the neg i.e. a tiny portion of the neg and enlarged massively and assuming that this scan is exactly as the print appears then something is clearly wrong. This is not normal grain by any definition.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

We really need to see a scan of the prints in question that match in the OP's judgement of the actual print that made him draw the conclusion that the print was grainy. I am not clear why he chose to use a Neopan 400 scan when presumably he could have used a scan from his own print.

pentaxuser

 

[tkamiya]

I wonder what OP meant by 100% crop of 1200 dpi scan.... 100% crop? Does the image look awfully low in contrast to anyone? Also incredibly unsharp?

 

[Dali]

Are your negatives "flat" and do you filter under the enlarger to increase the contrast on paper? I noticed thet filtering to get higher contrast (grade 3-4) increases the grain visibility even with moderate speed film to the point it is somewhat intrusive on textureless areas.

 

[henry finley]

All this talk about grain. I never understood it. In 1971 at the age of 15 I discovered Microdol !:3. End of grain. Tri-X looked almost like Panatomic. Well, almost.

 

[Terry Christian]

How much of the original area of your negative is the crop you're posting? Is the girl's face just one tiny bit of the entire shot? If so, no wonder it's grainy! If you make a print of the entire negative, you really shouldn't be seeing any grain in the print unless you're peeping it with a magnifying glass.