Good Grain

[nickandre]

Having printed some Tmax 400 negatives 35mm-8x10 I found the grain to be repulsive in nature. Not size but in shape and texture. Is there a film that gives good grain? I've heard Tri-X gives a pleasing grain, is that true?

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I haven't used the newest version of Tri-x, but if it's similar to the older stuff then yes.

 

[David Brown]

Having printed some Tmax 400 negatives 35mm-8x10 I found the grain to be repulsive in nature. Not size but in shape and texture. Is there a film that gives good grain? I've heard Tri-X gives a pleasing grain, is that true?

How would we know what is "good" grain to you? Some of us like Tmax. Some of us also like Tri-X.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Try Tri-X at box speed and XTOL. I like that combination for 120 and 135.

YMMV

Steve

 

[removed account4]

its all good grain,
it depends how you make it ...

 

[DanielStone]

the grain is very even remember, since t-max has the "t-grain", a derivative from kodak's motion picture films. if you're looking for a more "classic grain" look, you can try tri-x, but I've found that if you want to save some cash, try the Arista Premium, personally, I think it is re-branded tri-x, and I've gotten very good results from it souped in d-76 1+1 at 68° F.

otherwise, another favorite of many is hp5, or plus-x for the slower speed. pan f is a very nice film as well, especially when shot at 64, and pushed a stop IME.

try the AP though, its Tri-X IMO, just with freestyle's name on it. the 100 speed is Plus-x i believe. I asked the girl at freestyle the other day when I was there shopping, and she said she couldn't say, but she gave me a slight wink when i mentioned tri-x.

try it, it can't hurt.

are you going for the HCB look? or are you looking for fine grain? i've heard good things about the foma films, and after shooting a roll of the fomapan 200(freestyle again), its a very soft emulsion film, even with a hardening fixer, but it had a nice grain structure, not fine-grained by any means IMO, but a nice pattern.

and its quite reasonably priced as well.

experiment, experiment and experiment some more my friend

-dan

 

[jim appleyard]

If you're looking for a different shape and texture of the grain, you're just going to have to try different films. All films are a bit different from each other. HP-5 is different from TX which is different from TMY. Only you can find the grain you like.

 

[BetterSense]

I really like Neopan 400's grain. It's kind of a velvety fine grain, especially in the blacks.

 

[John Bragg]

Another vote for Neopan 400. It is really crisp and the grain is not clumpy, even developed in Rodinal. Clear areas of blue sky and skin tones are rendered particularly well and it is always such wide expanses of even tone that sort the good performers from the mediocre ones. I really like it.....

 

[nickandre]

I'm not sure what I didn't like about it. It was almost pill shaped. It made it look like this guy had whiskers on the out of focus face. I'm not sure if it's reticulation, but I didn't think it was.

 

[Bruce Watson]

Having printed some Tmax 400 negatives 35mm-8x10 I found the grain to be repulsive in nature. Not size but in shape and texture. Is there a film that gives good grain? I've heard Tri-X gives a pleasing grain, is that true?

35mm enlarged to 8x10 inches. Assuming that's the 36mm side enlarged to 10 inches, we're talking about a 7x enlargement.

If that's the case, I wonder why you're seeing grain at all. Much less ugly grain. This suggests to me that your negatives might be either over exposed, over developed, or both. Because a dense negative is a grainy negative. That may not be the case, but it's the best I can come up with without seeing the negatives.

TMY-2 doesn't seem to like making lots of density. It will do it fine, but it also can develop this sort of "cooked" look. Tri-X will do this too, but it has to be in the film abuse range -- say a Zone VIII density of around 2.0+. Yes I know the alternative process crowd often pushes film to this level of density and beyond, but almost always for contact printing and seldom for enlarging. So please don't beat me!

What I've found with 5x4 TMY-2 is that it's hard to see the grain unless I enlarge around 10x or more, which I seldom do because of the large resulting print size from a 5x4 original. What grain I see is nice, smooth, not clumpy at all. And the resulting image is quite sharp (if that's what I was trying for). But then I've tested and optimized the heck out of it and generate just enough density to make printing easy for me and not a bit more.

Alternatively it could be that I'm just not as sensitive to it as you are. Which is fine too. Just sayin'...

Alternatives for you in the same film speed range are Tri-X, Delta 400, and HP5+. All have their strengths and weaknesses.

Alternatives for you in slower films are TMX, Acros, Delta 100, Fp4+ and Plus-X if it's still available in smaller formats. Of these, TMX and Acros are amazingly sharp and small grained -- you might just like either one of them, IDK.

 

[sanking]

What I've found with 5x4 TMY-2 is that it's hard to see the grain unless I enlarge around 10x or more, which I seldom do because of the large resulting print size from a 5x4 original. What grain I see is nice, smooth, not clumpy at all. And the resulting image is quite sharp (if that's what I was trying for). But then I've tested and optimized the heck out of it and generate just enough density to make printing easy for me and not a bit more.

Alternatives for you in slower films are TMX, Acros, Delta 100, Fp4+ and Plus-X if it's still available in smaller formats. Of these, TMX and Acros are amazingly sharp and small grained -- you might just like either one of them, IDK.

For LF film I am with Bruce in that TMY-2 is about as good as it comes, and hard to see why you would need another film unless the speed is just to high for your needs. It is very sharp, very fine grained and has a beautiful perfectly linear curve.

For MF I like Acros because it is just incredibly sharp and fine-grained if exposed and developed correctly, and it has almost no reciprocity failure. And to top it off, Acros is one of the least expensive B&W films you can buy, at around $3 a roll from B&H.

As for grain itself, the less the better as far as I am concerned.


Sandy

 

[fschifano]

I'm compelled to tell you that TMY, especially the newly reformulated version of the film, has very fine grain that is hard to see at around 8x enlargement. It is most noticeable in large areas of continuous tone of medium density, and even that is pretty damned good. If you're getting really noticeable grain, something is clearly wrong. It could be anything. Over exposure will do it, and so will over development. Use the film at box speed and develop it as specified by Kodak in D-76/ID-11 or XTOL. I can almost guarantee that the problem will go away.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

What developer are you using?

 

[psvensson]

The developer is much more important than the film type in determining the character of the grain. You should try a non-solvent developer like Rodinal or PC-TEA. They yield crisp, good-looking grain. You might get away from the solvent effect of Xtol or D-76 by diluting them highly, but that gets dicey.

 

[keithwms]

To my eye, fp4+ has some of the most pleasing grain; I typically develop it in ID11, 1+1. Tmax, acros, and the deltas are the Antigrain, as far as I am concerned. I mean, do you want grain or do you not want grain...

 

[2F/2F]

"Not size but in shape and texture. Is there a film that gives good grain? I've heard Tri-X gives a pleasing grain, is that true?"

This post makes it seem as if this is the first time you have ever shot film. I have seen you posting for quite some time, often with strong opinions and such. Have you really not ever tried anything other than T-Max 400 one time?

If you see obnoxious grain with that film (assuming 6 to 8x enlargement) then there is a technical issue that is causing it, such as overexposure.

I suggest you try one of every available b/w film, or at least every available film from the three main manufacturers, and then you won't need to rely on the Internet to tell you subjective things.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Having printed some Tmax 400 negatives 35mm-8x10 I found the grain to be repulsive...

If you are talking about the original TMY, then I fully agree with you. I think the grain is horrid even in 4x5. Reminds me of lumpy oatmeal. I haven't yet tried the new stuff.

The nicest grain in 35mm - in that the grain is clearly visible - is Plus-X 135 in D-76 1:1. You need a very sharp enlarging lens to render it at its best.

The finest grain is TMX in Microdol-X 1:3. Some claim you need to use FS for the finest grain, but I can't see any difference except a speed loss when using FS.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The developer is much more important than the film type in determining the character of the grain. You should try a non-solvent developer like Rodinal or PC-TEA. They yield crisp, good-looking grain. You might get away from the solvent effect of Xtol or D-76 by diluting them highly, but that gets dicey.

What he said.

XTOL or Pyro Roll.

Steve