How to screw up your film processing...

[brianentz]

Just wondering: what sort of things might be done wrong in processing BW film that would result in too much grain? I seem to get more grain than I think I should on occasions. Wondering, what errors can result in too much grain specifically?

 

[albada]

Over-development is a common mistake, by developing too long, or carelessness with temperature or agitating too much. I suppose one could also goof the dilution of the developer. Another mistake is overexposure, but you asked about processing-errors.

Mark Overton

 

[snapguy]

pick

You could pick the wrong film-developer combo.

 

[darkosaric]

Use Tmax developer, Xtol or Ilford DDX, keep temperature under 21C, and don't agitate more than 3 times every 30 sec - and chance is 95% that you will have minimal grain you can get from a film.
(Disclaimer: 87% of statistic is guessed and written without research while posting something in the internet).

 

[pdeeh]

how are you judging graininess ?
if from scans alone, that can be deeply misleading ...

 

[Xmas]

For less grain use any of

PanF
Delta 100
Tmax100

For more use

Foma400

If your scanner has ICE disable

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Careful temperature control during processing, from pre-soak through wash and final rinse is essential. If you're a few degrees off, it seems to enhance the grain.

Careful exposure of the film is also important, especially if you are using smaller-format film.

Overdeveloping also contributes to grain and is more apparent with smaller-format films. Many (myself included when I shoot smaller than 4x5) develop their film less for smaller formats, standardizing on grade 3 or thereabouts for "normal." This will reduce the apparent grain a bit.

Developers make a difference too. Silver-solvent developers with lots of sodium sulfite (e.g., D-76 straight and other "fine-grain" developers) soften the grain, but to the detriment of resolution.

Really, though, grain is a characteristic of the film emulsion itself. If you want less grain, use less-grainy film or a larger format. If you need speed, then use Delta or T-Max films.

FWIW, I often dislike the grain I have in 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives...

Best,

Doremus

 

[pentaxuser]

how are you judging graininess ?
if from scans alone, that can be deeply misleading ...

pdeeh has taken the words out of my mouth. These days with so many judging negs, especially trad B&W negs as opposed to chromogenic ones from a scanner alone this should be the first check.

pentaxuser

 

[railwayman3]

You could pick the wrong film-developer combo.

Bit off-topic, but it's reminded me of my first photographic attempts, as a schoolboy in the 1970's, using Johnsons(?) "Universol" developer, marketed as "for films and papers", just using different dilutions. Presumably a MQ formula, but the negs look, now, very grainy indeed, certainly would not be considered very satisfactory by present standards. (I think that I recall similar issues with Monobaths, which had some limited popularity around the same time.)

 

[ic-racer]

Under development and printing on high contrast paper emphasizes the grain. Over exposure with rollfilms increases grain and decreases acuity.

 

[David Allen]

Over exposure with rollfilms increases grain and decreases acuity.

I was sure this old chestnut would come up in this thread. I have heard it repeated over and again since I first joined a camera club 46 years ago. With a little bit of thought it becomes clear that this can’t be the case:

Generally, on any given negative you will have densities representing everything from deep shadows through to bright highlights. This range will often incorporate a difference of over 7 stops. The emulsion (well emulsions most of the time these days) is uniform and simply responds to the amount of light it is exposed to. Therefore, the emulsion will have received (in the highlight areas) 64 times more light than the shadows. Are the highlights grainier than the shadows? - Simple answer is no. Where grain is most apparent is always in uniform mid-grey areas.

How much grain a film/developer combination will have is the result of the type of emulsion used and the type of developer used. Where these are constant, the things that will affect the appearance of grain are:

• Significant variations in the temperature of chemicals throughout the complete processing sequence.
• The developer being warmer than 20˚ C without adjusting the development time (there are limits as to how far you can go with this).
• The developer being at the correct temperature but developing for too long.
• The film being underexposed and then overdeveloped (so called ‘pushing’).
• Excessive agitation.

If you are finding your negatives are too grainy you need to consider the following:

Film type - There are basically 4 types of film available:
Very old formulations of conventionally shaped grain formulations - such as Foma - which deliver very pronounced grain over the entire speed range.
Conventionally shaped grain formulations - such as Tri-X - which deliver less pronounced grain over the entire speed range.
T-shaped grain formulations - such as Delta - which deliver even less pronounced grain over the entire speed range.
Chromogenic films - such as XP2 - which, when rated at iso 100, deliver the least pronounced grain.

Developer type - There are basically 4 types of developer available:
Print developers - such as Dokumol, D-72 - which deliver incredibly pronounced grain.
Aggressive film developers - such as Rodinol at certain dilutions - which deliver very pronounced grain.
Standard film developers - such as ID11, D76, etc - which deliver less pronounced grain.
Fine grain film developers - such as Perceptol - which deliver even less pronounced grain over the entire speed range.

Of course these options are only one part (graininess) of a complex equation that also requires consideration of required effective film speed, tonality, grain structure, etc.

If your ultimate aim is to achieve very fine grain where you have little opportunity to mess things up, then use Pan F or Delta 100 processed in a two-bath developer with strict control of all chemicals across the entire processing sequence.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[Hatchetman]

The obvious answer is bad scanning. LOL.

 

[brianentz]

I think this may be it. Overprotecting and over agitation. I'll need to watch that. Temp control and variation are in check.

 

[brianentz]

Excellent information

This is why I love chat groups like this. David, your info is most helpful. I think overprocessing and over agitation have been my photographic sins. But I'll get it right next time. Thanks. I think I'll give that chromogenic film a try again as well.

 

[Gunfleet]

That was very concisely put David

 

[JW PHOTO]

This is why I love chat groups like this. David, your info is most helpful. I think overprocessing and over agitation have been my photographic sins. But I'll get it right next time. Thanks. I think I'll give that chromogenic film a try again as well.

Ilford XP-1 chromogenic film is what taught me something about my own B&W film developing. I had been messing around with an antique Kodak Medalist II camera and could not get prints that I was satisfied with. Then I decided to try this new, at that time, XP-1 400 film and processed it "by the book" in C-41 chemistry. It made that old Medalist camera shine. It wasn't until I compared my negatives that it dawned on me that I might just be over-developing a bit. I cut back about 10% to 15% and it helped. I also started rating my Tri-X at ASA200 in stead of 320 and that helped some more with better shadow detail. I ended up cutting times a little more for bright daylight scenes and kept the 10% less for normal stuff. I will admit that that XP-1 film sure was easy to use and much easier to print. No scanning back then, just printing. Times sure do change.....................John W

 

[Sirius Glass]

Switch to XTOL or replenished XTOL