How to achieve finer grain with TMAX 100?

[Ian Grant]

+1 re: Bill Burk's post.

Except, it may be that by changing your scanning routine/equipment/software you can eliminate the scanning artifacts that are being added by that step in the process.

That isn't a subject for APUG discussion.

I can't totally agree.

It may be the scanning, however with any film & developer combination there can still be a very wide spread of quality, in terms of fine grain, sharpness & tonality, control is about craft. Any one who's taught photography can tell you that.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

Ian,

Good to hear from you. I don't consider the case closed on how hoakin1981 can improve his negatives...

By all means, we are just starting. But I think exposure and process time are the first two things that need to be addressed, I don't think grain is an issue here.

Also hoakin1981 expressed an interest in night, time exposures... So I look forward to seeing how that thread progresses. I have some ideas where we can help.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian,

Good to hear from you. I don't consider the case closed on how hoakin1981 can improve his negatives...

By all means, we are just starting. But I think exposure and process time are the first two things that need to be addressed, I don't think grain is an issue here.

Also hoakin1981 expressed an interest in night, time exposures... So I look forward to seeing how that thread progresses. I have some ideas where we can help.

Craft & technique are the key to getting the best from any film/developer combination, that means tight control of exposure, development time, process temperatures. The easiest way to achieve higher quality is some simple testing. You don't need a densitometer, the simple effective film speed (EI) and optimum development time tests suggested by Ansel Adams in "The Negative", and similar tests that can be found online would help enormously.

Even after 45 years of film processing I still occasionally need to test new film/developer combinations, most recently this was for Fomapan 100 & 200 in Pyrocat HD. I also ran tests to see how these films handled low light levels in terms of reciprocity and was surprised to find it was nowhere near as bad as the manufacturers datasheets, but then I am shooting at half the box speed anyway. This has meant I've tamed quite tricky and can get excellent results consistently.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

If you are getting grain with tabular crystal 100ISO film in 6x6 at 24x24 then

You are not tempering or/and
you have not disabled the ICE on the scanner

Try holding to 3F between solutions

PanF is next choice...

 

[Todd Foster]

Underexpose for less grain

Not overexposing is a good idea, but underexposure is better yet.

I routinely put the high value on zone VI for minimal grain with TMX. That's neg density 1.00 or a little higher, including film base and fog density. Naturally this only works when full scale is not needed, as it isn't in those subjects that show grain the most -- mist, fog, snow and clouds. Speaking landscape here, of course.

I print 16 X 20 from 4 X 5 and use my tested normal development for these low placement negs. Minus development might do as well but I'm trying to avoid time consuming experimentation AMAP so I will just stay with the low placement method. I've had major grain reduction results in those big magnifications, not no grain, but significantly better, and the point: acceptable to me grain.

I have 2 pouches of XTOL to try on TMX, my usual 4 X 5 fodder. Now if I can find those mylar bladder in box things. That was a great idea! Certainly can find boxed wine here in California with no problem, that will work. Got to find something before I mix the first pouch.

A plug by the way for having some pouches of dry chemicals on hand for when the stock bottles of liquid developers are suddenly found to have died. They sure are convenient, but can stick you unable to work. Long lasting powder backups are the answer. That's why I got XTOL in the first place. A pouch for backup, and then, what the hell, a second one to try it out.

Lots of good ideas/info in earlier posts this thread.

Thanks, Todd F.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have a little more grain if I gain better shadow detail and accutance. Me... I'd NEVER underexpose.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have a little more grain if I gain better shadow detail and accutance. Me... I'd NEVER underexpose.

I'm currently working with Harvey's 777 developer, using Tri-X and HP5+, about to embark on trying it with Acros for fine grained landscape film. With this developer you really should not underexpose, as all of the good stuff that happens with adequate exposure simply vanishes. It compresses shadows, so as soon as you hit that lower threshold where the toe starts, lots of shadow details get dumped into the abyss.

I'm not entirely sure if HC-110 is the same or not, but I rather err on the side of overexposure for a full tonality negative, which gives me more options come printing time than one with limited tonality.

Grain? It's film we're using. It's supposed to be there. It's something I find we photographers obsess too much over. A little grain is good for the soul.

I think subject matter largely determines how much grain looks good too, by the way. With portraits, especially close-ups, I like films with slightly less resolution. It gets much easier when I print because there's a lot less retouching to do where every single pore and blemish in the skin is extremely visible. With landscape photography it's a different story, and I could get by with some finer grain and higher resolution, which also reflects the much added benefit of using a tripod.

 

[cliveh]

Not overexposing is a good idea, but underexposure is better yet.

I routinely put the high value on zone VI for minimal grain with TMX. That's neg density 1.00 or a little higher, including film base and fog density. Naturally this only works when full scale is not needed, as it isn't in those subjects that show grain the most -- mist, fog, snow and clouds. Speaking landscape here, of course.

I print 16 X 20 from 4 X 5 and use my tested normal development for these low placement negs. Minus development might do as well but I'm trying to avoid time consuming experimentation AMAP so I will just stay with the low placement method. I've had major grain reduction results in those big magnifications, not no grain, but significantly better, and the point: acceptable to me grain.

I have 2 pouches of XTOL to try on TMX, my usual 4 X 5 fodder. Now if I can find those mylar bladder in box things. That was a great idea! Certainly can find boxed wine here in California with no problem, that will work. Got to find something before I mix the first pouch.

A plug by the way for having some pouches of dry chemicals on hand for when the stock bottles of liquid developers are suddenly found to have died. They sure are convenient, but can stick you unable to work. Long lasting powder backups are the answer. That's why I got XTOL in the first place. A pouch for backup, and then, what the hell, a second one to try it out.

Lots of good ideas/info in earlier posts this thread.

Thanks, Todd F.

If you under expose to achieve less grain, don't you have to overdevelop to compensate, thus increasing grain size? Or am I completely missing the point here?

 

[Bill Burk]

My normal answer would be no... Don't underexpose.

But I'm reading Mortensen these days and he of course solves the problem by adding light. In other words... Reduce the subject brightness range to 1:4 and you can then expose for the highlight and develop for the shadow.

According to Mortnensen, the four corners are better aim points because you will be successful at hitting them. So for interesting negatives, pick a corner:

Underexpose and underdevelop
Underexpose and overdevelop
Overexpose and underdevelop
Overexpose and overdevelop.

But according to Mortensen, don't try by any means, to properly expose and develop. That's boring.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Huh???

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My normal answer would be no... Don't underexpose.

But I'm reading Mortensen these days and he of course solves the problem by adding light. In other words... Reduce the subject brightness range to 1:4 and you can then expose for the highlight and develop for the shadow.

According to Mortnensen, the four corners are better aim points because you will be successful at hitting them. So for interesting negatives, pick a corner:

Underexpose and underdevelop
Underexpose and overdevelop
Overexpose and underdevelop
Overexpose and overdevelop.

But according to Mortensen, don't try by any means, to properly expose and develop. That's boring.

If you read between the lines of Mortenson's ideas, it's basically N+1 method.

The important thing to remember I think is that when we photograph and print, irrespective of what's written before us or the theory that exists, we owe it to ourselves to do a few things to arrive at results we are happy with.
The by far most difficult quality to achieve, in my opinion, is tonality that suits and pleases the senses. I personally work SO hard to try to accomplish that. We need that before we can worry about anything else. Fine grain or not, if the print has shitty tonality, it won't be very nice to look at.

If we then go on a witch hunt, trying to minimize grain, we end up with things like theory regarding exposure and development. But to get contrast back up or down to what we like in our final product you introduce more grain at some point of the process.
1. If we underexpose our negatives and develop normal, we have to raise contrast when we print -> more grain.
2. If we overexpose our negatives and develop normal, we have normal contrast but dense negatives -> more grain.
3. If we shoot normally and overdevelop our negs, we lower contrast when we print, but because the highs are dense in the negs -> more grain.
4. Etc..
5. Etc...

We can't really escape it if we also want nice tonality.

The only sound method with respect to grain is to find the sweet spot between exposure and development, and then basically live with the grain the process gives us. It's such that if we try hard to eliminate one variable that we dislike, it's easy to introduce another that we dislike. Trial and error determines which consequences we can live with and which we can't.

 

[Bill Burk]

Old-N-Feeble,

I just brought back a half dozen books by William Mortensen and am starting to browse through them.

I started out with a strong prejudice against him based on what Ansel Adams wrote of him.

Right now I am still skimming through and can only read about a page before finding something which I believe is dead wrong.

I have strong objections to his teachings. But I am sure there is something valuable to gain from the books.

It is an experience that is for sure.

 

[markbarendt]

If you under expose to achieve less grain, don't you have to overdevelop to compensate, thus increasing grain size? Or am I completely missing the point here?

Depends on what you are willing to sacrifice, what's important, and how you choose to work.

I rarely adjust development regardless of exposure level chosen.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Old-N-Feeble,

I just brought back a half dozen books by William Mortensen and am starting to browse through them.

I started out with a strong prejudice against him based on what Ansel Adams wrote of him.

Right now I am still skimming through and can only read about a page before finding something which I believe is dead wrong.

I have strong objections to his teachings. But I am sure there is something valuable to gain from the books.

It is an experience that is for sure.

Hi Bill... Maybe so but some things make no sense whatsoever. If Mortensen really wrote that, or an accurately paraphrased equivalency of it, then I have no interest in anything he has to say. In other words, Mortensen is on my "S" list of self-proclaimed experts.

 

[markbarendt]

We can't really escape it if we also want nice tonality.

Sure we can.

I don't think it's the tonality that's the issue, for me it's about the contrast rate across the mid-tone first then where the detail starts and stops and stops.

 

[cliveh]

Depends on what you are willing to sacrifice, what's important, and how you choose to work.

I rarely adjust development regardless of exposure level chosen.

Good point, but a sacrifice is made.

 

[Todd Foster]

Michael R,

Actual scene range is about 3 stops so the lows fall on negative zone III. As I said, this is specialized. It has to be a low brightness range subject, or one in which the lowest values fade into black. There are many early morning, late day and misty or foggy scenes with no more brightness range than this.

Note that he difference between cloud highlights and the background sky is often just 1 1/2 stops, sometimes less. With a red filter there might be 2 1/2 stops separation, maybe 3. And the sky can be dropped into black anyway, it can be clear film in some cases.

Rather than try to jack up the contrast with plus development, I'm saying use low placement and normal development to reduce grain, then gain the contrast you want in the print by cranking up the magenta filtration with VC paper.

Yes it does work. Easy to try. Just make a dupe neg with high value on VI and process it with the others and try printing it. Still need filters for more cloud/sky separation if that's part of the subject or is the subject. I haven't run the gamut of films and developers with this method, so no promises, but logically...

Naturally I'm using high contrast paper to get a full range of print tones. Good old VC does it perfectly. Nothing is lost in the tones that are on the film. They are just smoother, less grainy in the larger print sizes. With complex, textured rocks, nothing is gained. With broad snow or cloud banks, it is.

Todd F.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Actual scene range is three stops? In full sun?

 

[Todd Foster]

Cliveh,

No I'm using the same development, not increasing it. I'm making a thinner negative by underexposure, i.e. With a scene with a narrower range of densities, I'm placing the high value on the negative where zone VI would usually fall. Print contrast is boosted by using higher than normal contrast paper and has to be boosted into the grade 3 1/2 or more range unless you want a flat print for some reason.

Again, this is a specialized technique. It is not suited to full range scenes where you want 8 zones of detail. It's for those narrower range scenes with broad mid tone areas like snow or cloud that show grain like crazy in large prints. Prints from these negatives can then be printed with a full range of print tones if that is wanted using VC paper. The low contrast scene is expanded in contrast as if it were on grade 2 paper with a plus developed negative, but grain is minimized by minimizing negative density through low placement and by NOT increasing development time.

The limitation is that the original scene must be relatively low in range, but I find that there are surprisingly many of these, not that rare in the kind of work that I do.

Todd F.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The issue is you've confused ISO with "exposing for shadows and developing for highlights" and the scenes you're describing have what??... three stops of contrast??? In my experience, few scenes afford such luxury regarding exposure. Please forgive my hard comment but... that's just sloppy.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Bill... Maybe so but some things make no sense whatsoever. If Mortensen really wrote that, or an accurately paraphrased equivalency of it, then I have no interest in anything he has to say. In other words, Mortensen is on my "S" list of self-proclaimed experts.

Haaa,

No I didn't accurately paraphrase him. I didn't even read the next page when he threw out two corners... He went on to say "underexposed, underdeveloped" and "overexposed, overdeveloped" are both bad.

He focused the "ring around" study on the other two corners, which he said are easier to hit and have advantages over the standard negative.

"Overexposed, Underdeveloped" - while not a great negative is easy to achieve and can be counted on to always yield a fair print. (I don't see why hitting a standard negative is so hard).

"Only slightly Underexposed, Overdeveloped" - tricky to do correctly but which has the most pictorial value. He calls it the "Seven Derivative Negative".

I must keep in mind, he controlled the lighting to begin with a limited subject brightness range. As Thomas Bertilsson pointed out, it's like N+1 (well he's developing to completion so it's like N+3 but Thomas has properly characterized the idea).

My chief objection to Mortensen's advice is that I would not want to try to accurately place highlights on a negative developed to completion. I consider that developing normally and exposing properly is a reasonable target, not difficult to achieve.

 

[Todd Foster]

Michael R,

you are 100% right. In one sense my low placement is "right" for a low contrast scene. But this is not what would usually be done. Instead, a plus development would be ordered to increase the density range on the negative. That's what Adams, Picker etc recommended. I don't know of anyone who would intentionally shoot a narrow range subject with low placement and normal development. At the least, they would put the high on VIII as Picker said, and push the button. They'd let the lows fall where they may and make the best of it under the enlarger.

Most definitely the increased print contrast that I use does necessarily increase the apparent grain. But I clearly find that the net sum is less grain with this approach. It seems that lower placement, and not increasing the development beyond normal, then gaining the needed contrast in the print is far less grainy than higher placements and lower contrast in the print itself. I mean, that's why I use it.

Todd F.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

"Overexposed and underdeveloped"... THAT I can agree with. I did that routinely many years ago to achieve very good shadow, midrange and highlight detail. I avoided blocking highlights by overexposing, under-devloping and then selenium toning to extend the straight portion of the H&D curve. I think my results were quite good... for 35+ years ago.

 

[Todd Foster]

All the time. I mean, what sun are you using?

Todd F.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

All the time. I mean, what sun are you using?

Todd F.

To whom are you addressing your question? The OP?