images from my first roll of film, help!

[Joel DG]

I am new to analog photography after spending many years shooting digital. Here are a few images from my first roll of film, shot on a Nikon F3 with either a 28 2.8 AI-s or 50 1.4 AI-s. They are shot with HP5 at 400, and while I expected grain, I most certainly didn't expect this much. Is this normal? They were developed and scanned at a very reputable lab with the instructions "no corrections", and in post I made very minimal changes. In my F3 now is a roll of Tri X that I'm shooting at 1600- should I expect usable images!? Everything I've seen and read tells me yes, but seeing the results of this first roll tells me differently. Thanks!

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Looks ok to me. The images were shot in somewhat contrasty lighting so grain can be accentuated in those situations. Next roll try a softly lit portrait or landscape to gage your development and exposure method. Soft lighting may not be your style but it will help you get acquainted with the medium of analog silver gelatin materials. Take a look at Flickr and you will get a feel for results people are getting.

At 1600 you will get more grain than in these examples. Useable or not is up to you or the client. Try a roll at 200 and see what you think. Not for midnight subway images! Think bright overcast late afternoon in the park.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

You are right, the scan looks quite grainy. Depends on your taste whether you like it or not. I like them, so thumbs up from my side.

The visible grain strongly depends (among others) on the development of the film and on the processing to make the positive. As your process includes scanning and some kind of processing of the scanned image, it is impossible to say how much grain is actually on the negative.

I have processed HP5+ @ 400 in Rodinal which looked liked your scans (enlarged analogue), and I have processed HP5+ in Microphen with no grain visible on a print enlarged to 24x30 cm.

 

[Joel DG]

Thank you both for the input! Although I've read and known about the increased dynamic range of film, that subway shot really showed it to me. The platform and the tracks metered 9 stops apart!

 

[tezzasmall]

As said, you have to decide if you like the grain factor or not. Personally, I love the grain, especially in the first shot!

And if you DON'T like grain, then stay away from Tri X and deffo DON'T rate it at a higher ISO. It will DEFINITELY have more grain than the HP5!

But you are off to a good start, Well done!

Terry S

 

[bsdunek]

Looks like HP5 to me. You might do a little better if you developed yourself with a fine grain developer. I like Ilford Microphen. Generally, I use the slowest film that will do the job, however, these look like low light situations so your choice of HP5 is appropriate.

 

[bvy]

That grain looks digitally enhanced (sharpened) to me. I think if you were to wet print this negative, it would look quite different.

 

[Willyekerslike]

I think if you were to wet print this negative, it would look quite different.

OH yes yes yes......

 

[Joel DG]

That grain looks digitally enhanced (sharpened) to me. I think if you were to wet print this negative, it would look quite different.

I intend to start developing myself. Would you suggest equipment and method for a (very patient) beginner?

 

[pentaxuser]

As others have said I suspect the grain is digitally enhanced. I have darkroom printed 35mm HP5+ negs to 8x10 and none were anything like this in terms of grain. I know nothing about scanning and printing from scans but I'd be surprised if in the Hybrid process you cannot get scans and prints to look less grainy than this

pentaxuser

 

[Pentode]

I intend to start developing myself. Would you suggest equipment and method for a (very patient) beginner?

Plastic tank & reel. Tri-X and D-76.
If you prefer Ilford film, you could just as easily go woth HP5 or FP4 and ID-11.

Either way, these are very old films and very old developers that are extremely established. That makes it very easy to find information and advice. Pick a combination you like and STICK WITH IT.
Same film shot at the same speed using the same developer at the same time and temperature. Keep all the variables the same until your results are very consistent and then only experiment with one variable at a time.

Most importantly, have fun with the process!

 

[Bill Burk]

I'd recommend a densitometer and a sensitometer. You already have the eye for taking pictures and looks like you know your way around a camera and light meter.

If you want to be in control of your film, understanding sensitometry can help you answer many questions for yourself.

 

[iandvaag]

Welcome to APUG/Photrio.

Nice shots! Your film does look a bit grainy to me, but this can largely be an effect of the scanning process. Know that HP5+ and Tri-X are not the finest grained films, especially if underexposed.

Would you suggest equipment and method for a (very patient) beginner?

There are some very good recommendations from Pentode above.

My recommendations for equipment:
Tank: Paterson Super System 4 universal tank. Get the one that takes includes two reels.Once you load the film into the tanks, all development can be done in room light/daylight.
A film cassette opener or film retriever to remove the film from the cassette in a darkened room.
A few measuring cups: doesn't need to be anything special (plastic, glass or stainless steel are all fine).
Clothes pins and wire coat hangers: hang the hangers on your shower rod in the bathroom and clip the processed (wet) film to the hanger and leave it to dry
Negative sleeves: Printfile archival storage page for negatives. They are 3-hole punched to fit into a standard binder.

Process chemicals:
Developer: A packet of Kodak D-76 or Ilford ID-11 (they are the same formula - a fine-grain developer which will give great results for a broad range of film and exposure conditions). Check the reference sheet of developing times for film from Ilford or Kodak. Both these documents specify how to agitate the film during development.
Stop bath: Any stop bath is fine, or you can dilute white store vinegar to 2% acetic acid. If you don't like the smell of vinegar, choose a stop bath which is citric acid based (aka odorless). Pour this into the tank after the developer and agitate for 30 seconds (or as long as the bottle suggests).
Fixer: Any is fine, I recommend Photographer's Formulary TF-4 or TF-5 for ease of use and long shelf life. follow the instructions on the bottle.
Wash the film for the time specified on the bottle/package of fixer.
Wetting agent: Any is fine, Kodak Photo-Flo and Ilford Ilfotol are both great. Be careful to not add too much, follow the directions on the bottle.

It's not too challenging, and all of the above can be had for ~$100.

Don't be tempted into trying a whole bunch of different developers, they will give results that are quite similar. If you want fine grain and can sacrifice a bit of sharpness, use D-76 at the stock concentration (specified on the packet of developer). If you want sharper images and will accept a bit more grain use D-76 diluted 1+3. A compromise between the two is a dilution of 1+1.

The largest determining factor of "the look" of a film is the film type and the amount of exposure. If underexposed, the film will show lots of grain. If you want a finer grained 400 speed emulsion, consider Ilford Delta 400 or Kodak Tmax 400 which are both great films. Of course, moving to a slower speed film will also show less grain. Film likes plenty of light, lots of people will overexpose negative film by 1/3 stop compared to box speed (e.g. EI 320 for Tri-X or HP5+) just to make sure there is good shadow detail. Of course this all depends on your metering technique as well.

Good luck, hope you find a satisfactory solution. Film is a ton of fun; I hope you will also find some enjoyment in the process.

 

[winger]

Since you're in Philly, you might want to look into Project Basho. I've never been there or had any contact with them, but they do show classes in film developing and darkroom printing ( https://www.projectbasho.org/photog...k-white-darkroom-basics/#sthash.V4x5Ur8E.dpbs ) as well as a rentable darkroom. It might seem like a big upfront cost, but learning from someone with experience could save you lots of time and money by jumping you past some early goofs.

Good luck!

 

[Chan Tran]

May be my fault in processing but I tried a roll of HP5 a few years back and I got that kind of grain. I never want to use it again.

 

[shutterfinger]

I find HP5+ gainer than TriX in either Xtol or HC110 at box speed. HP5+ calms down at EI200, TriX looks good at EI320.
Your samples look normal to me for lab processing/scanning.

 

[summicron1]

man, whoever souped those for you used a developer that really enhances grain and contrast -- I use d 76 1:1 with all my tri-x and hp5 and never see grain anything near to that.

Lesson is, of course, to do your own. Who knows what a lab is using, but b/w developers have a wide range of affects depending on which one you use.

 

[shutterfinger]

man, whoever souped those for you used a developer that really enhances grain and contrast

Commercial (Pro) labs use full strength developer often replenished for base time at a fixed temperature. If you ask them they will tell you what developer/temperature they are using.
They operate for throughput/profit. If you use the same lab then bracket your shots in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments up to 1 stop over/under metered then compare the results to find what works best for your camera and their processing.
Examining the negatives with a good loupe is the only way to tell the best exposure.

 

[Eric Rose]

Whatever you do don't go buy a densitometer! That's a rabbit hole of no return. Shoot, develop, print, evaluate. Try again. Become one with your materials not some damn fool densitometer

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think that you did very well taking photographs in high contrast situations. I too believe that the scanning enhanced the grain. What are your options short of building a darkroom?

1. Buy a daylight development tank and use XTOL or replenished XTOL developer.
   
   
   
2. Try Kodak Tri-X 400 with or without #1.
   
3. Switch to a tabular grain film TMax 100, TMax 400, Delta 400 with or without #1.

 

[Bill Burk]

Whatever you do don't go buy a densitometer! That's a rabbit hole of no return. Shoot, develop, print, evaluate. Try again. Become one with your materials not some damn fool densitometer

Sensitometer and densitometer. It helps you learn the amount of light that elicits a response from your film when you develop it your way.

A sensitometer will expose a series of patches from about a meter candle second to a thousandth of that... Reading those patches gives you a lot of data points.

I agree a densitometer on its own could be a rabbit hole. I don’t often use the densitometer to read regular negatives.

p.s. iandvaag gives a nice shopping list

 

[Austin_Jessup]

Scans of the first rolls of TriX I ever shot look exactly like this. The grain looked better even when I scanned them myself using a copy stand, a light box and a dslr.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Whatever you do don't go buy a densitometer! That's a rabbit hole of no return. Shoot, develop, print, evaluate. Try again. Become one with your materials not some damn fool densitometer

Sensitometer and densitometer. It helps you learn the amount of light that elicits a response from your film when you develop it your way.

A sensitometer will expose a series of patches from about a meter candle second to a thousandth of that... Reading those patches gives you a lot of data points.

I agree a densitometer on its own could be a rabbit hole. I don’t often use the densitometer to read regular negatives.

p.s. iandvaag gives a nice shopping list

I have managed to have a fruitful successful photographic life for over 60 years without a densitometer or sensometer.

 

[John Koehrer]

Labs aren't known for using anything but general purpose developers.
That would be my first guess about grain. Sharpened with scanning? Never done it likely never will.
TX @1600 is going to make your first roll grainless. Actually what you have looks to me like TX @ 1600.

I've used HC110 or Rodinal for years with nothing like that sort of result.
I like the grain of both TX and HP5 and HC110 can be used at different dilutions which will affect graininess of the neg.

I like eric & Sirius Glass also don't think you need a densitometer or sensitometer, maybe if you get to the point where you enjoy playing
the mad scientist it's OK. I would suggest that something like a particle accelerator might be just as useful.

 

[tezzasmall]

I have managed to have a fruitful successful photographic life for over 60 years without a densitometer or sensometer.

And so have I for about the last forty years!

Remember people, that the original poster is new to wet developing and printing, so I think making suggestions for items like this is ridiculous!!! I'm glad no one told me to buy them over the years as I'm sure it would have put me off photography straight away, as being too blooming complicated for a hobby.

Terry S