I'm having a lot of trouble controlling grain.

[ChrisC]

This has been bothering me for a while, but the last roll of film I developed really pushed me over the edge.

Basically, no matter what I do, I seem to get a right ton of grain more than I think I should be getting considering both the speed and format I'm shooting. I'll start with an example before getting into details.

This first photo is shot on my Canon EOS 30 on Ilford HP5 shot at box speed and developed locally at a lab.

Now this second shot is shot on my Mamiya 645, again shot at box speed but developed by me in LC29 1:29 for 9mins, with constant agitation for the first minute (could this be where I went wrong, too much initial agitation?) then 10 seconds every minute.

This was the most careful I've ever been with developing regarding temperature controls too. I normally get the developer to the right temp but use stop and fix at room temp. I thought this may have been where I'd gone wrong, but now I don't think it is.
This got to bothering me after seeing photos people have taken on 35mm with their 400iso films pushed to 800 and 1600 ISO and there still being less viable grain, especially in the highlights than I'm getting here with my 6x4.5's. And the grain I'm getting just seems to be clumpy and ugly in comparison too.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

 

[slumry]

What's not to like. I know the web images probably don't show much detail concerning the grain; however, what I am seeing looks pretty good.

 

[nworth]

I can't really tell from web posts, but neither image seems to have excessive grain. Both areas have large, contiguous midtone areas, however, which tend to emphasize the grain. In the bottom photo, the lower part is printed at low contrast, which shows the grain more. But the really problem is probably with your film and film handling. Push processing often makes grain worse. High speed films, which you are using, have the largest grain. Normal films, like Tri-X or HP-5+, have more grain than T-grain films. Small formats show grain more than larger formats. If you look carefully, I think you will find that the 35mm examples you cite are really worse than what you have here. Perhaps the subject matter hides that. For fine grain, try a slow, fine-gran film like Pan-F of TMAX100 and keep your careful routine.

 

[phenix]

Too much grain in the highlights? I would claim on the lenses: too contrasty.

 

[keithwms]

Are these neg scans or prints?

If they are neg scans, know that grain is exaggerated in scans. The only way around that, of which I am aware, is to use a staining developer.

If these are prints and you see too much grain, try ID11. Frankly I've never used LC29; ID11 at 1+0 or 1+1 is my standard developer of choice.

 

[wogster]

This has been bothering me for a while, but the last roll of film I developed really pushed me over the edge.

Basically, no matter what I do, I seem to get a right ton of grain more than I think I should be getting considering both the speed and format I'm shooting. I'll start with an example before getting into details.

This first photo is shot on my Canon EOS 30 on Ilford HP5 shot at box speed and developed locally at a lab.

Now this second shot is shot on my Mamiya 645, again shot at box speed but developed by me in LC29 1:29 for 9mins, with constant agitation for the first minute (could this be where I went wrong, too much initial agitation?) then 10 seconds every minute.

This was the most careful I've ever been with developing regarding temperature controls too. I normally get the developer to the right temp but use stop and fix at room temp. I thought this may have been where I'd gone wrong, but now I don't think it is.
This got to bothering me after seeing photos people have taken on 35mm with their 400iso films pushed to 800 and 1600 ISO and there still being less viable grain, especially in the highlights than I'm getting here with my 6x4.5's. And the grain I'm getting just seems to be clumpy and ugly in comparison too.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

Perceived grain is a function of film sensitivity, grain type, development, subject and enlargement. I say perceived grain, because grain is always there, just sometimes it's more visible then other times.

A fast traditional grain film like HP5 with large areas of the same tone, push processed and then highly enlarged with a shallow viewing distance will always show a lot of grain.

First trick to reduce perceived grain, is to use a slower film, FP4 or PanF will show much less grain the HP5. The Delta series of films which use tabular grain, will also show less grain, I am not sure who shows less PanF or Delta 100, though, The developer matters as well, pushing a film will always show more grain, some developers, like Rodinal, will enhance grain, some like Microphen will hide grain, by disolving the edges of the grains slightly, this may reduce the perceived sharpness as well though.

The subject matters, large areas of a single tone, especially a lighter tone, will show more grain then subjects that contain a lot of varying tones. Enlargement matters, grain will be more visible on a 10x enlargement then a 3x enlargement, although as then size of the enlargement increases, so should the viewing distance. Sticking your nose up against a 16x20 print from 35mm will show grain, viewing it from a metre away and it may not show any grain. This applies to scans as much as it does to optical prints.

 

[Leighgion]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding right. Are you saying that it's specifically the film you soup yourself that has too much grain in your eyes, and that the first, lab developed, shot is an example of the grain working for you while the second is not?

 

[ChrisC]

Are these neg scans or prints?

If they are neg scans, know that grain is exaggerated in scans. The only way around that, of which I am aware, is to use a staining developer.

If these are prints and you see too much grain, try ID11. Frankly I've never used LC29; ID11 at 1+0 or 1+1 is my standard developer of choice.

These are neg scans, and I think my personal stuff being not what I thought it would be is a result of a not ideal scene for comparison, and maybe not ideal scanning technique. I just went over this roll and picked out another shot to try and get what I was after, and I think I was over reacting in the first instance.

LC29 was the first developer I ever used, and I quickly grew out of the way it looks, but my local photo store only had it in stock (looks like it's time I stopped relying on them completely now) so I couldn't buy my preferred ID-11 (love the stuff).

Anyway, here's another off the 120 roll in LC29, and my admission to over reacting.

I shot my first roll of Pan F yesterday, so I'll have to develop it tonight to see what it's like.

 

[keithwms]

Ah well if they are neg scans then you are barking up the wrong tree. Pretty much all b&w neg films, developed in standard b&w developers, will have exaggerated grain when scanned. Get a neg printed optically and this will be clear.

Now, you can artificially reduce apparent grain in postprocessing, but the best thing, if scanning is going to be your main workflow, is to read up on staining developers. Sandy has written extensively on this here and at hybridphoto. Basically, staining developers interpolate between the grains and also permit you to use some more advanced scanning techniques that don't work with normally developed b&w.

If unwilling to try a pyro developer, consider ilford xp2.

 

[Nikanon]

pyro gives very sharp negatives by staining the negative to hold the grain in place but does not keep down grain size, in 4x5 work or larger this usually isnt a problem at any ISO , something like D-76 is made for keeping grain size down

 

[ChrisC]

Ah well if they are neg scans then you are barking up the wrong tree. Pretty much all b&w neg films, developed in standard b&w developers, will have exaggerated grain when scanned. Get a neg printed optically and this will be clear.

Now, you can artificially reduce apparent grain in postprocessing, but the best thing, if scanning is going to be your main workflow, is to read up on staining developers. Sandy has written extensively on this here and at hybridphoto. Basically, staining developers interpolate between the grains and also permit you to use some more advanced scanning techniques that don't work with normally developed b&w.

If unwilling to try a pyro developer, consider ilford xp2.

Optically printing is the plan for most of my negs that I like. I'll have to try the initial 'bad' one to see what it's like when I get my darkroom up and running properly again.
And it's not that I'm opposed to grain either, I quite love it. I think what I can take from this is I don't like the way landscapes look on HP5 so I need to use it for interior and more urban photos, and stick to slower films or 4x5 for landscapes.
Thanks a lot though. I might have to try staining developers down the road to see what they're like.

 

[BetterSense]

Am I the only one that likes scanning enlarged optical prints more than scanning negatives?

It seems like the grain actually comes out right as opposed to negative scans.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Why not try Acros with something like D-76? That should give a lot less grain than HP-5 in anything, especially if shot in 35mm.

 

[Bruce Watson]

This has been bothering me for a while, but the last roll of film I developed really pushed me over the edge.

Basically, no matter what I do, I seem to get a right ton of grain more than I think I should be getting considering both the speed and format I'm shooting.

.
.
.
This got to bothering me after seeing photos people have taken on 35mm with their 400iso films pushed to 800 and 1600 ISO and there still being less viable grain, especially in the highlights than I'm getting here with my 6x4.5's. And the grain I'm getting just seems to be clumpy and ugly in comparison too.

What could I possibly be doing wrong?

You probably aren't doing anything that's really wrong. But you probably could tighten up your process more and push the graininess down a bit.

First thing to remember is that graininess is directly related to density. It's the metallic silver grains that create the density after all. So you want just enough density to make it easy to print. No more.

You control density through exposure and development. So you want to use as little exposure as you can get away with -- still get detail in your shadows where you want it, but let featureless black parts of the scene go clear on the negative.

Those are a couple of the reasons behind the "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" saying.

For films, definitely try the modern T-grain type films. Much less graininess. I particularly like TMY-2 myself for this very reason. If you want to stick with Harmon, the Delta films are excellent.

To develop any of these films, tend toward fine grained developers. You'll give up a bit of sharpness to gain a bit of smoothness. This seems like a trade off you are willing to make.

Then, favor developing at 20C. Some film/developer combinations tend toward more graininess at higher temperatures. Use ice cubes in creative ways if necessary. Keep the entire process at 20C too.

Keep at it. You'll get there.

 

[darkosaric]

Try adox CMS 20 in adotech developer. Grain is not visible on 30x40 cm prints.
I have used also TP (exiperd) in rodinal 1+100, but CMS 20 is easy accessible.

 

[martyryan]

My question is do you use a stop bath?

I was having a problem with grain and found that using a plain water stop solved the problem ( I was causing reticulation in the film with too strong a stop).

Marty

 

[fschifano]

Am I the only one that likes scanning enlarged optical prints more than scanning negatives?

Nope, you're not alone. Scanning negative and transparencies is fine if you're using C-41 or E-6 films. There's no silver left in them to scatter the scanner's light beam. Scans of traditional B&W negatives will never equal the quality of a scan of these dye based image films. The best I've been able to do is to start with a fairly low contrast print that's been scanned on a high quality flatbed scanner. This will give you a lot of information that can then be manipulated as you see fit to produce the image you want.

 

[fschifano]

My question is do you use a stop bath?

I was having a problem with grain and found that using a plain water stop solved the problem ( I was causing reticulation in the film with too strong a stop).

Marty

That's no reason to not use a stop bath. If it's too strong, just add water until it isn't.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

That's no reason to not use a stop bath. If it's too strong, just add water until it isn't.

I completely agree and have been using somewhat diluted stop for years..

That last photo is fantastic.

 

[martyryan]

That's no reason to not use a stop bath. If it's too strong, just add water until it isn't.

Yes, I phrased that poorly, what I should have asked was if he used a acid stop and how strong it was.

Marty

 

[dnjl]

Since I have exactly the same problem, I thought I'd post here instead of making a new thread. HP5+ mostly looks like this when I shoot it:




(Both taken in low light at f/22 and 30sec exposure, ISO 400. Never mind the dusty scans)

My first impression is that my local lab screwed up. This is the last roll they'll ever get from me, because they butchered it so badly (ripped envelope, scratched negatives, missing frames!). I wouldn't be surprised if they messed up the development as well. However, I'm not 100% sure about it. Did I mess up? What could've gone wrong? Previous rolls of HP5+ were very grainy too (same lab though).

 

[keithwms]

Are your negs thin? How much density do you have in the highlights?

 

[MMfoto]

Your images look pretty good to me, but I would mention that exposure effects grain a lot. Too little, and you need more print contrast which gives you more pronounced grain, or weak shadow values that will show boost fog and grain where they should be more solid dark tones. Developing your own is a good place to start addressing your concerns. Since you're shooting HP5, I might suggest Pyrocat HD.... That's a great combination, and you'll benefit some grain masking while achieving great tonality and apparent sharpness.

These are neg scans, and I think my personal stuff being not what I thought it would be is a result of a not ideal scene for comparison, and maybe not ideal scanning technique. I just went over this roll and picked out another shot to try and get what I was after, and I think I was over reacting in the first instance.

LC29 was the first developer I ever used, and I quickly grew out of the way it looks, but my local photo store only had it in stock (looks like it's time I stopped relying on them completely now) so I couldn't buy my preferred ID-11 (love the stuff).

Anyway, here's another off the 120 roll in LC29, and my admission to over reacting.

I shot my first roll of Pan F yesterday, so I'll have to develop it tonight to see what it's like.

 

[Jerevan]

waltereegho - it is much better if you just make a new thread, please. Your question is a bit off tangent compared to OPs post which is a comparision of two different film sizes.