More grain than expected from XTOL...

[bvy]

Maybe it's just that I've been printing Acros too long, but I was surprised at the amount of grain I got here. The film is HP5 developed in XTOL 1+1 under constant agitation, 70F for 9:30. The film and developer was fresh and the film shot at box speed (Yashica T5 with camera flash). The print is Ilford MGIV RC Glossy, 8x10. It's not a complaint, really. The grain has a pleasing sort of quality; I like it. It's just more grain than I was expecting. I should add this is my first time printing from this film.

8x10 print


100% crop (400 dpi scan)

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've developed HP5 35mm and 120 in Xtol 1+1 and never noticed issues with grain. Mind you, I never did constant agitation... It's better in Pyrocat-HD. But, I think you were just used to Acros!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and besides, are you going to make such big enlargements? One more thing and I'll stop bothering you... 9:30 seems a bit long with constant agitation to me. I'd have to go back and check my notes but I believe my N time with intermittent agitation was around 8-9 minutes (agitated 3 sec every minute)... but I'm not sure what EI you used.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think you might just be used to Acros also. You're dealing with a much faster and slightly grainier film with HP5+, but it is a very nice and user friendly film. I have been using Xtol replenished and it works very well with HP5+ and FP4+. I also have the same shot on FP4+ if you wish to see the difference in grain between the two.

 

[pentaxuser]

It is always difficult to compare a scan on my screen with the actual 8x10 print but the scan of the print looks OK to me and the scan of the cropped portion presumably represents a very large print of the negative( maybe 10 times the size of 8x10 so a print of 80 x100?) which for a 35mm camera which is point and shoot doesn't look bad to me

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

Pentaxuser,
I agree with you. Mine is from a 120/620 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" negative with the upper being a 100% crop. His looks pretty good for a 35mm size negative as far as grain goes anyway.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I think it is the agitation that is the "problem" and I also find "better" results with stock rather than diluted.
This on FP4+ 8mins (as alluded to above) at full strength, standard intermittent, full frame and crop on a flat bed scanner which without straying too far OT we are told are rubbish at 35mm:

 

[pentaxuser]

Pentaxuser,
I agree with you. Mine is from a 120/620 2 1/4" x 3 1/4" negative with the upper being a 100% crop. His looks pretty good for a 35mm size negative as far as grain goes anyway.

Thanks. Can I ask what the full neg's print size would be based on the 100% crop. The crop looks very good and I suspect that the print size would be enormous.At 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 Acros would only look better than HP5 if the print was big enough to be seen all the way to the Canadian border

pentaxuser

 

[kreeger]

BVY,: what type of light source you are using can have a great deal to do with grain. Are you making this comparision with a print or from a negative scan? if print, what type of enlarging light source do you use?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks. Can I ask what the full neg's print size would be based on the 100% crop. The crop looks very good and I suspect that the print size would be enormous.At 2 1/4 by 3 1/4 Acros would only look better than HP5 if the print was big enough to be seen all the way to the Canadian border

pentaxuser

Yes, Acros is one fine film, but HP5+ isn't to shabby for a 400 speed film either. My FP4+ scans from the same shot/subject are a little better in the grain department, but you'd have to be printing pretty darn large to see the HP5+ falling behind. The crop is a 100% of a full frame (2.25x3.25) 4,000DPI scan resulting in 8964x13176 pixels. No sharpening or tweaking except slight curve adjustment. I'm very sure I can wet print or "D" print either of the shots to 16x20 and get very acceptable results. Neither of these shots is for printing since I was just testing my Kodak Monitor 620 out along with a Zeiss Super Ikonta C. Maybe I'll print each out to 13x19 on my Canon printer to see what they look like just for the heck of it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found that I get less grain by using replenished XTOL rather than 1:1. YMMV

 

[John Wiegerink]

I found that I get less grain by using replenished XTOL rather than 1:1. YMMV

To be very honest I have never tried it 1:1. I've used it full strength and 1:2 before I settled on the replenishment regime. So far I really like using it replenished, but 1:2 wasn't bad either as far as sharpness goes. When I get done testing out FP4+ and HP5+ I'm going to try both Delta 100 and 400 to see what they look like. So far I like HP5+ actually better than FP4+ in Xtol-R.

 

[bvy]

BVY,: what type of light source you are using can have a great deal to do with grain. Are you making this comparision with a print or from a negative scan? if print, what type of enlarging light source do you use?

Thanks. This is a print made on a diffuser enlarger.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks. This is a print made on a diffuser enlarger.

Brian,
You really have some knockout shots on your Flickr site. Several are really eye-catching.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Here is a comparison of FP4+ and HP5+ at 100%. Only difference is that the FP4+ was shot with a Zeiss coated lens and HP5+ with a Kodak uncoated lens of near the same vintage.

 

[Athiril]

Full strength Xtol and replenished Xtol will be finer grained. Otherwise I suggest Delta 400 or T-Max 400.

 

[bvy]

...and besides, are you going to make such big enlargements? One more thing and I'll stop bothering you... 9:30 seems a bit long with constant agitation to me. I'd have to go back and check my notes but I believe my N time with intermittent agitation was around 8-9 minutes (agitated 3 sec every minute)... but I'm not sure what EI you used.

11x14 is the about the largest enlargement I make (actually, am capable of making) with my current set up. This film was shot at 400. The XTOL data sheet recommends 10:30 for HP5 at 70F at 1+1. I took off another minute to compensate for the constant agitation. It wasn't quite the recommended 15% which I guess would have been closer to nine minutes...

Brian,
You really have some knockout shots on your Flickr site. Several are really eye-catching.

Thanks for taking a look. It's a mixed bag, for sure. Anyway, your samples show that XTOL is capable of fine(r) grain results. I know a diluted developer will give more grain, but didn't expect the difference to be so dramatic.

I don't dislike the results. One of the reasons I switched from HC-110, though, was the finer grain advantage. Even so, I think XTOL at 1+1 is still finer grained than HC-110 at any dilution. And again, I've been printing only medium format Acros for the last several months...

 

[John Wiegerink]

bvy,
I realize that my examples are from two different cameras, but both are very capable in the lens department. Still, to me it looks like the HP5+ shot is sharper than the FP4+ shot. HP5+ doesn't seem to have as smooth a grain structure as the FP4+ shot, but it just looks sharper to me. Barry Thornton mentions this fine grain vs coarser grain thing in his book "Edge of Darkness" and has examples there also. So, I'm changing my attitude about grain being bad to grain being pretty darn good as long as it doesn't interfere with what you are trying to convey. If I didn't like grain I'd be using XP2 film, but I've come to like it instead.

 

[Athiril]

I know a diluted developer will give more grain, but didn't expect the difference to be so dramatic...

Think of it this way, when you're diluting Xtol to 1+1, you're diluting the amount of solvent to achieve that fine grain in the developer to 50% of what it was.

 

[Chris Livsey]

Think of it this way, when you're diluting Xtol to 1+1, you're diluting the amount of solvent to achieve that fine grain in the developer to 50% of what it was.

Which is mitigated a little by the extended time spent in the developer.