This is HP5 in T-max developer, printed with a Componon-S on 11x14 Ilford MGFB. I think it is pretty grainy.View attachment 346704
You have heard of degrees, correct? More reticulated, less reticulated. The example at the top of the page looks less reticulated than what you showed - but still looks reticulated.
But who cares?
This is HP5 in T-max developer, printed with a Componon-S on 11x14 Ilford MGFB. I think it is pretty grainy.View attachment 346704
I'm not sure if this kind of grain is normal.
Thank you. As far as my developing process goes, I don't do anything special. I just try to follow standard operating procedures as best as I can understand them. You may have noticed, I listed some specific details about how each roll was processed at the top of each album page.Thanks everyone,
@runswithsizzers, I see your greys (shadows) look very nice, great images. I'm wondering is there something in the developing process one might do to get a similar result?
I think the scanner is somewhat responsible for the grain , but next time I still might try to agitate a bit less as suggested. That should result in less grain? Or is there something more I could do for less grain.
I think grain can look nice, but would like to learn how to reduce the amount anyway.
I used an old Minolta film scanner, and the files from the film scanner did often exhibit the kind of exaggerated grain I see in your example.
Yes, all true. I should have been more clear. The exaggerated grain-like effect I saw when scanning with my Minolta film scanner was not an inherent, hardware determined problem, but rather an unfortunate result of some combination of suboptimal negatives and scanner settings. In my case, I was using Vuescan, which for me, was confusing to learn and slow to use. I did eventually get good results from the film scanner, but only after I quit trying to get finished results out of the scanner via Vuescan, and switched to Photoshop/Lightroom for post processing.I use an old Minolta 35mm film scanner (amongst other dedicated film scanners) and the grain is extremely fine in all of my scans, comparable to the beautiful grain rendition one gets out of a well focused darkroom print.
This unless I've underexposed or overdeveloped my negatives, or both - which, when scanning, results in what is often perceived as "exaggerated grain".
Hint: scanning is extremely sensitive to errors in exposure and processing.
In general, your Minolta was able to produce much better looking grain from your negatives than you give it credit for, but you should have learnt to use it to output raw linear positives (easily done with, for instance, Vuescan) rather than software edited images.
Most of film scanners cannot resolve the grain. They emphasize the film grain with digital noise.
Evidence? Please show us the peer reviewed papers describing this effect.
The usual 3-4 'articles' permanently cited in support of this theory won't do I'm afraid.
We'll mark the response to your post for a double-blind peer review. Please hold as we assemble a team of reviewers and hone our acceptance criteria.
I also believe that this is a forum. As such, academic rigor is not the first thing that comes to mind in assessing each other's posts.
It's just that we're debating scanning here, and for some reason, when it comes to the big dark scanning babadook, all attempts at rigour crumble down (not only on here to be fair, on many film photography forums). Odd.
@Lumipan You are looking at a ridiculously over-sharpened scan. Even asking "is this grain normal" is beside the point because you can't evaluate grain with this file, you're looking at a digitally introduced defect. A major one, I would add. Here's a full-sized scan of HP5+ developed in Xtol which is a similar developer. No sharpening has been applied, which should give you a better idea for what to expect.
big dark scanning babadook
Just curious, should the moderator of a forum that prides itself with being driven by empirical evidence mock a request for methodological rigour?
when it comes to the big dark scanning babadook, all attempts at rigour crumble down
We'll mark the response to your post for a double-blind peer review. Please hold as we assemble a team of reviewers and hone our acceptance criteria.
I think the scanner is somewhat responsible for the grain , but next time I still might try to agitate a bit less as suggested. That should result in less grain? Or is there something more I could do for less grain.
I think grain can look nice, but would like to learn how to reduce the amount anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?