How to get grain-free black and white negatives?

[anjoom_aj]

Essentially they are the same film emulsion so the grain that is produced on film will be appoximately the same structure and size regardless of film format. It is the enlargement factor which makes a difference when the film grain is enlarged enough to make a visible difference in the print.

Ultra fine grained film developed in specific developers will show no grain until you get to really BIG enlargement factors. But it's not only the grain itself, it is the acutance of the grain clumps which have localised edge effects which make an image look sharper and at the same time enhance the visibility of grain clumps in the print. So its swings and roundabouts. You have to find a happy medium which suits your personal aesthetic. Ultrafine grain in film can make a print look lifeless as it usually has little acutance.

Developers like rodinal can create much higher acutance grain whereas a developer like perceptol will create very fine grain but with less acutance. Standard developers like ID11/D76 are in the middle and have an optimal balance between grain clump size and acutance.

As always YMMV. some people prefer more acutance and some people less and some in the middle. Take your pick.

Thanks for the reply. Useful info to gain.

I did not have the liberty of easily available developers. Would love to try out various options available but practically not cost effective for me. The only one locally available in my part of the world is ILFOSOL-3 and the other D76 that I ordered online cost me a bomb with shipping charges :/

 

[flavio81]

Quick answer -- although the previous posters have already given you good information:

Five solutions to your question:

1. Go to medium format.

2. In 35mm: Use Acros 100, Delta 100, Tmax 100, or Pan F 50. If you're enlarging to 8x10" you should see no grain.

3. In 35mm: Want finer grain? Develop using ILFORD Perceptol, Kodak Microdol (ok, it does not exist anymore but there are equivalents). You will lose 1 stop of speed, though.
3.1 Note that undiluted D76 will give you less grain than diluted (1+1) D76.
3.2 Kodak Xtol is supposedly finer grained than D76.

4. In 35mm: Rough paper surfaces (i.e. "canvas") also mask the perception of grain

5. Watch the prints from a farther distance...

 

[Kyle M.]

I've always felt that for me personally Kodak T-Max 100 and Fuji Neopan Acros in 120 developed in Rodinal 1+50 have extremely fine, barely noticeable grain. I've also got pretty darn good negatives using Ilford HP5+ in Kodak HC-110 Dilution H, YMMV.

 

[georg16nik]

The standard is rooted in print quality. Huge amounts of research went into it. These studies sought to formalize the relationships between objective and subjective print characteristics and formed the basis for the current standard. Obviously this research is not in the current standard itself since the standard is concerned with specifying the speed measurement criteria...

Perhaps you think about another ISO paper.
The one I refer to is ISO 6:1993 - Determination of ISO speed..; pretty much identical to it's earlier editions and the bibliography is the same.

...The people weaseling are those who claim ISO speeds are for laboratories and have no practical relationship with fine art prints, or that ISO speeds are marketing gimmicks, misleading, incorrect etc.

Yes, classical marketing gimmicks.
Most films “box speed” is not realistic and is almost always the highest possible, hence most folks shoot at half the box speed by default.

Here's a quote from ISO 6:1993

Introduction
...
This International Standard recognizes that black-and-white films do not generally have a unique speed if several different processes are recommended. This conflicts with the tradition of associating a specific speed value with a particular product. In the future, the process used for determining speed values should be unequivocally described to avoid misinterpretation. Since users often do not know how these films will be processed, manufacturers have an obligation to provide a speed value for this situation which will ensure good results.
...
7. Product marking and labelling
..., since the speed is dependent on the illuminant, exposure time and process used, these conditions should be clearly indicated whenever practical when quoting values to avoid misinterpretation.

 

[ColColt]

I don't know why anyone wold want a negative sans grain. That's what B&W is all about. I use Rodinal so I will have some grain!

But, if you want no grain try 6x7 format with PanF in ID-11.

 

[RobC]

+1

 

[MartinP]

Do 35 and 120 of the same film differ in grain ?

For example Ilford Delta 400 in 35mm shows more grain than Ilford Delta 400 in 120 ?

As the neg is bigger, it needs less enlargement to get the same sized print.

Why would you use high-speed film in a search for fine-grain? Use Delta100! (And don't forget that fine-grain, sharpness, density and contrast all play off each other and all affect the viewers perception of the print).

 

[anjoom_aj]

As the neg is bigger, it needs less enlargement to get the same sized print.

Why would you use high-speed film in a search for fine-grain? Use Delta100! (And don't forget that fine-grain, sharpness, density and contrast all play off each other and all affect the viewers perception of the print).

I was just giving an example to ask if there are any differences by format. I do use 100 film too and in some cases push 400 to 1600 as well

Sent from my PLK-L01 using Tapatalk

 

[Ian Grant]

Your assertion "Most films “box speed” is not realistic and is almost always the highest possible, hence most folks shoot at half the box speed by default" is a perfect example of the weasel words referred to earlier, and has no factual basis. The statement is also incorrect/unclear as to why "most folks shoot at half the box speed by default". The vast majority of people who do this, do it either because they've used a Zone System type of test to establish an EI, or because they've been told to do it (ie it is a tradition). It has little to do with print quality. You said it yourself: They do it by default.

So, it must be said that the situation is really quite the opposite of that often described. People have this idea ISO speeds are fictitious and that their EIs give them better results. The reverse is actually the case. ISO speeds have a sound basis, while the vast majority of people claiming their EIs are the "real" film speeds have no idea what they are talking about, and aren't making the negatives they think they are making.

The point is that you won't necessarily get the best results shooting a film at the box ISO

The ONLY films I've found that gave their best results at box speed were the original AP25/APX25 and AP100/APX100 and that's because Agfa used the far better DIN speed method to determine the ISO speed. In comparison for near identical results I had to use Tmax100 @ 50 EI, but then that was Kodak's recommendation, and John Sexton's. Also I shot EFKE PL25 at 50EI with similar results, in this case the ISO was the Tungsten speed which as less than the daylight speed.

The problem is all companies use different criteria, the ISO standard is too loose.

Ian

 

[flavio81]

"Most films “box speed” is not realistic and is almost always the highest possible, hence most folks shoot at half the box speed by default" is a perfect example of the weasel words referred to earlier, and has no factual basis.

Agree.

I almost always shoot box speed, at least with ILFORD films, and every photographer I have met in my city does as well. No, i have not spoke with Zone System photogs yet.

 

[Kyle M.]

I've tried all different things and I've found that with any Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji film I've used box speed has always given me the best results. But then again "best results" is subjective, my idea of what looks best might be utter crap in someone else's eyes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I get consistently fine grain development by using replenished XTOL for traditional grain film. Fine grain but not grain free. For even less grain use replenished XTOL with tabular grain film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just go to this thread (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and multiply by -1.

 

[Ian Grant]

How? The only way in which it is "loose" concerns the developer, which is no longer a specified formula. In some ways this is a good thing, since ISO should be achievable using a general purpose, commercially available developer. Kodak indicates in its publications that TMax 100 (for example) has an ISO speed of 100 in most developers.

Because with only Kodak making B&W film in the US when they introduced Tmax films they had the ASA component of the ISO standard loosened to allow use of a different developer and there were other changes as well.

Ilford changed to a more practical method of determining the ISO using ID-11 at 20°C in a spriral tank with intermittent agitation, so closer to the DIN method.

We aren't told what type of lighting is used, except by EFKE who clearly stated in their datasheets the Tungsten and Daylight ISO speeds.

The big divergence between box speed and actual EI is worse with Tmax and Foma film, that's from the experience of a great many photographers not just a few. Box speed may be fine in some cases but in others can lead to mediocre lack lustre results. It's far better to do your own tests to determine the best EI & Dev times for each film you use, that will give you the highest possible quality.

Ian

 

[georg16nik]

Just to add to what Ian said: that same ISO standard dropped “continuous-tone” from it's title in 1993.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Without grain, how do we achieve shades of gray? AKA tonality.

 

[Ian Grant]

Without grain, how do we achieve shades of gray? AKA tonality.

Well a print of a 10x8 negative shows no apparent grain if the enlargement is slight, it'll have great tonality (if that's what was wanted).

It's the lack of apparent grain, or keeping it as small as possible that the thread is about.

Ian

 

[RobC]

Why do people keep harping on about what the old standards used to be. They don't count for anything today. They are dead, defunct, ex, just like a monty python parrot.
ISO speed is where its at today. And I'm pretty sure that any film which is has an actual ISO speed means its submitted the tests to ISO for approval/acceptance which means you can be pretty sure that if you are doing things by the book, you will get ISO speed or so damn near as makes no difference.
But no, b+w photographers will do anything but do it by the book and their expectations reside in fantasy land a lot of the time. Talk of what the standard used to be be is 100% irrelevant and just serves to confuse todays users of film into thinking lack of film speed is due to some bygone era when its far more likely their metering and/or processing causing their lack of speed.

 

[cliveh]

XP2.

 

[Ian Grant]

There were a few changes to the standard including developer/development and hold time, but the criteria remained the same. There is nothing loose, and Kodak clearly states in its tech pubs (including TMax 100/400) that they are ISO xxx films, and that these speeds were determined as specified in the standard (and it will work in most developers). Ilford similarly specifies the film speeds are ISO ratings, and reserves EI for the ranges within which the films can be expected to produce good results.

There is no "big divergence" between "box speed" and "actual EI" when it comes to either TMax 100 or 400 developed in a standard developer such as ID-11/D-76, and using expressions such as "actual EI" is simply misleading. It perpetuates the myth that ISO speed is not the actual speed of the film, and that some sort of hidden truth is to be discovered by running a more arbitrary personal EI test. The divergence between that sort of test and ISO is simply a matter of methodology, and reveals nothing but the differences between the two tests. Unfortunately the "experience of a great many photographers" means little, and is not evidence of anything. It's a combination of seeing what you want to see, being influenced by others, using a Zone System EI test, and a lack of understanding of film speed/tone reproduction. All this leads to people making erroneous claims and spreading nonsense about ISO conspiracies.

It's not a myth that the best personal EI may well differ from the box ISO, it's a fact. In many cases the two maybe the same or so close as to make little difference.

You always overlook the very obvious and make ludicrous claims that the ISO of B&W films is a definite standard, it can't be any longer as manufacturers can vary the methodology, make their own choice of developer, lighting, etc.

Because the B&W ISO speed is no longer tested in exactly the same way under the same conditions to produce similar results by all manufacturer it's not a true standard, it's just a number and a starting point.

If I pick up a colour film the ISO is accurate, the E6 or C41 process standard and exposures will be consistent, but if I use different B&W films at the box EI the results will be all over the place. Testing personal EI eliminates this and gives you consistency and higher quality results.

Ian

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Thanks for the clarification

It's the lack of apparent grain, or keeping it as small as possible that the thread is about.

Ian

If a photographer wants to keep grain as small as possible, then he or she should do only contact prints. Enlargement is the problem.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think people should use whatever EI they want, but they should also refrain from spreading nonsense about the standard being a marketing gimmick, or using Zone System EIs (which are lower by a predictable amount) to substantiate their claims that ISO speeds are wrong.

You need to get your facts right again. Zone system tests are NOT lower by a predictable amount at all, some maybe lower others identical and some higher.

Tmax is usually a stop slower, as is Fomapan, Agfa (not the new rebranded stuff) APX100 and APX25 was identical to the box speed, EFKE films were higher than the box speed (mainly because people didn't read the small print - Kb/R/Pl 25 was 25 ISO Tungsten 40 ISO Daylight).

Ian

 

[georg16nik]

There were a few changes to the standard including developer/development and hold time, but the criteria remained the same. There is nothing loose, and Kodak clearly states in its tech pubs (including TMax 100/400) that they are ISO xxx films, and that these speeds were determined as specified in the standard ...

Michael, Kodak uses EI 100/400 for TMax; there is absolutely no mention in the tech pub for Tmax that these films are “ISO xxx films”.
...and EI is not ISO.
Perhaps, you've been misled by: “determined in a manner published in ISO standards”..
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Here is something to loosen up a bit more.
“Typically the EI speed is about one stop lower than ASA or ISO.”
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...nce_Guide/kodak_essential_reference_guide.pdf

ISO vs EI Speed Ratings for KODAK Films http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis185/cis185.pdf

A bit confusing, isn't it?

 

[RobC]

Michael, Kodak uses EI 100/400 for TMax; there is absolutely no mention in the tech pub for Tmax that these films are “ISO xxx films”.
...and EI is not ISO.
Perhaps, you've been misled by: “determined in a manner published in ISO standards”..
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

Here is something to loosen up a bit more.
“Typically the EI speed is about one stop lower than ASA or ISO.”
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo...nce_Guide/kodak_essential_reference_guide.pdf

ISO vs EI Speed Ratings for KODAK Films http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis185/cis185.pdf

A bit confusing, isn't it?

Suggest you go back and actually take the trouble to read the T-Max link you posted so that you have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[georg16nik]

Suggest you go back and actually take the trouble to read the T-Max link you posted so that you have a clue what you're talking about.

You mean the part “The nominal speed of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 Film is EI 100.”
So, you think Kodak's EI 100 = ISO 100 ???