Noisy grain

Yaeli · Jun 16, 2022

Hi all !

So, looking back at some of the scans that the lab sent me, I realized that, for HP5 pushed to 1600, the grain seemed not only very present, but also very "digital noise" like. It was developped in DDX and sent in Jpg, not Tiff, and they advertise their ICE technology, but it is actually a lot grainier than the HP5 I pushed to 3200 and developped in Rodinal - which is surprising.
What do you think ? Is it just me ?
Here are 3 examples :

Mister Ash has shared 3 photos with you!

www.flickr.com

And 2 from the HP5 @ 3200 in Rodinal :

Mister Ash has shared 2 photos with you!

www.flickr.com

Thanks beforehand,
Yaeli.

jimjm · Jun 16, 2022

My experience is that Digital ICE cannot be used for silver-based B/W films as the software sees the silver grains as "dust" and will result in horrible scans. At least this is the case for older versions of ICE that I've used. It's possible the lab tech did not realize this.

Craig · Jun 16, 2022

Yes, ICE will make the grain appear huge. If you did an optical print the grain would appear much smaller.

gone · Jun 16, 2022

Yes, put the ICE on ice, it's not gonna work w/ B&W emulsions.
The second shots of the performer look fine, no problems there at all.

Could you share the dilution and times with us for the stuff shot at 3200? I'd like to try that sometime.

mwdake · Jun 16, 2022

If the lab really did use ICE on B&W silver film I would find a new lab; they should know better.

Todd Niccole · Jun 16, 2022

Despite Ilford's recommendation, DDX is a horrible developer. It makes everything grainier. Use Microphen or Xtol. I find HP5 in Microphen pushed two stops isn't that much grainier compared to being developed at box speed.

Yaeli · Jun 16, 2022

Thank you for your answers
I don't know if they used ICE for the black and white. I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

@momus : For the HP5 at 3200, here are the details : Rodinal 1+50, 52 minutes (yes, it's looooong) at 68°F (20°C), constant agitation for the 1st minute (but slow and gentle) and then one slow and gentle tank inversion each minute. Then normal stop and fix. I got the recipe from a guy on Flickr and was really pleastantly surprised by the results Now I need to ask him about Delta 3200 in Rodinal !

pentaxuser · Jun 16, 2022

Todd Niccole said:
Despite Ilford's recommendation, DDX is a horrible developer. It makes everything grainier.

Not my experience and I used it for a few years. I further doubt that DDX had much to do with the OP's issue

pentaxuser

brbo · Jun 17, 2022

Yaeli said:
Thank you for your answers
I don't know if they used ICE for the black and white. I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

Were both films scanned by the same lab on same equipment? On first set (the grainy ones) exif shows Noritsu scanner. Grain in BW film is really amplified on Noritsus unless you dial down sharpening (which otherwise would work well for colour film) considerably and even then it's not what I would call pleasant...

Grain in those examples are not ICE artifacts (if you select BW film in EZ Controller (Noritsu scanning software) the ICE will be automatically disabled).

koraks · Jun 18, 2022

Yaeli said:
HP5 pushed to 1600, the grain seemed not only very present, but also very "digital noise" like.

Nah, your scans look just like what you'd expect from this film taken through a decent scanner. A flatbed will give you mushier grain which you may perceive as less "digital".
I don't see any very apparent digital artifacts in your images and the grain is typical. IMO there's no problem here. Have fun shooting!

snusmumriken · Jun 18, 2022

My experience is that scans (without ICE) always appear grainier than a darkroom print from the negative. I don't know why that is, though I'd really like to know. Naturally, the more you sharpen the scan or boost the contrast, the worse the problem gets.

koraks · Jun 18, 2022

snusmumriken said:
My experience is that scans (without ICE) always appear grainier than a darkroom print from the negative. I don't know why that is, though I'd really like to know. Naturally, the more you sharpen the scan or boost the contrast, the worse the problem gets.

Maybe the Callier effect - or something conceptually similar?

Yaeli · Jun 18, 2022

Thank you for your answers

@brbo : No, they were not. The HP5 at 1600 was developped and scanned by the lab, and the HP5 at 3200 was developped by me and scanned on an Epson V600.

@koraks : the grain (which still very much looks like ugly noise to me) is, thankfully, not as visible on all the pictures. But all the ones who were taken in the mist are really, really bad. The others are a little less bad. Thanks for your input If it's "normal" grain, I know I will never, ever use DDX with HP5 !

@snusmumriken : I really don't apply a lot of sharpening to my scans, and I "select" where I want it with the ALT key in LR. I don't know how what settings they used at the lab.

The more I look at all the scans I got back from different labs who developped my rolls of color and b&w film, and at the rolls I developped and scanned at home, the more I think I should really stick to home development, at least for b&w. I've had so many issues with different labs (huge fingerprints on the negs, scratches and lines, botched development, poor quality scans with major color shiftings, etc...) that either I'm really unlucky, or I really should avoid labs altogether

john_s · Jun 18, 2022

snusmumriken said:
My experience is that scans (without ICE) always appear grainier than a darkroom print from the negative. I don't know why that is, though I'd really like to know. Naturally, the more you sharpen the scan or boost the contrast, the worse the problem gets.

Maybe it's optical degradation. Even with an excellent enlarger lens, accurately focused, maybe there's slight smearing of the grains.

I have a favorite negative of someone wearing a wrist watch which is a tiny part of the picture. It was taken hand held with 400 speed film and is sharp. I think I was lucky with camera movement that time. I was looking at the neg under a microscope (not something I do often) and was surprised to see that I could read the numbers on the watch face. But the print, although it is pleasingly sharp, doesn't quite have that detail, even if I use the grain magnifier on the part of the neg where the watch is. The grain in the print looks sharp.

koraks · Jun 19, 2022

Yaeli said:
But all the ones who were taken in the mist are really, really bad.

I understand that; keep in mind you're also looking at a digital artifact in one sense, but different from what you think, I suspect: low contrast scenes will often be boosted in contrast in digital post processing to make them presentable; the scanning software at your lab probably does this automatically. Along with image contrast this will also boost the contrast of the grain, emphasizing it. Something similar happens with underexposed frames like your church.

Other effects can include the different look of grain in high vs low density areas, but then you'd probably specifically be complaining about this.

brbo · Jun 19, 2022

Yaeli said:
@brbo : No, they were not. The HP5 at 1600 was developped and scanned by the lab, and the HP5 at 3200 was developped by me and scanned on an Epson V600.

Then scan the "grainy" HP5 negatives on your V600 and I think you'll find them considerably less grainy.

Yaeli · Jun 19, 2022

Thanks for your answers ! - Is there a TFYA abbreviation ?

@koraks : I hadn't thought about that... thank you very much for that insight ! It explains a lot !!

@brbo : yes, that's what I plan on doing once I get the negatives back from the lab. Actually, for 35mm, I just bought a lightbox and will probably digitize the negs with my EOS R and macro lens, it seems to give better results than the flatbed scanner for 35mm film. I'll let you know how it goes

snusmumriken · Jun 19, 2022

john_s said:
Maybe it's optical degradation. Even with an excellent enlarger lens, accurately focused, maybe there's slight smearing of the grains.

I have a favorite negative of someone wearing a wrist watch which is a tiny part of the picture. It was taken hand held with 400 speed film and is sharp. I think I was lucky with camera movement that time. I was looking at the neg under a microscope (not something I do often) and was surprised to see that I could read the numbers on the watch face. But the print, although it is pleasingly sharp, doesn't quite have that detail, even if I use the grain magnifier on the part of the neg where the watch is. The grain in the print looks sharp.

When I said the prints are less 'grainy', I meant that the grain size (which you can also view through a focussing aid) is relatively small. I certainly didn't mean the prints are less sharp or detailed, because they definitely are not. In the scan, what passes for grain (but clearly isn't) is relatively large. There is some artefact going on there, I am sure.

faberryman · Jun 19, 2022

The scan with the Noritsu looks pretty terrible to me. Have you tried scanning that negative with your Epson V600?

koraks · Jun 19, 2022

You expect a V600 scan to come out better than one from a Noritsu?
That's...interesting.

Yaeli · Jun 19, 2022

@faberryman : I will try a home "scan", yes, but with a lightbox and my EOS R. The scans of 35mm on my V600 are usually not of a great quality (it's much better for medium format, from what I've heard).

faberryman · Jun 19, 2022

koraks said:
You expect a V600 scan to come out better than one from a Noritsu?
That's...interesting.

Granted, scanning 35mm negatives with an Epson V600 leaves a lot to be desired with a maximum actual resolution of 1560, whether the Noritsu is better or worse depends on which resolution you select with which Noritsu scanner. Some film processors let you choose among good, better, and best scan quality, with good being not very good.

koraks · Jun 20, 2022

Yeah alright, but given the images at the start of this thread, I frankly don't expect that scanning them with a flatbed will give kuch improvement. Anyway, as OP indicated that's not in the stars anyway; I think a good setup with a digital camera is both better and more convenient. Still, I don't expect any miracles. 35mm isn't all that big and HP5+ is not Delta 400 or TMY2 in terms of grain. It's a fine film in its own right for sure.

McDiesel · Jun 20, 2022

Todd Niccole said:
Despite Ilford's recommendation, DDX is a horrible developer. It makes everything grainier.

Agreed. I have no idea why Ilford is pedaling that crap so hard in their data sheets. HP5+ in particular looks awful in it. DD-X is their worst developer and they also charge premium for it.

foc · Jun 20, 2022

I think the grain in the photos is acceptable.
In the church interior photo looks fine to me.
In the first misty photo, because the image is out of focus, the contrast is low, so the grain is all your eye can. see.
In the next misty photo, the image is a bit of an improvement but because of the mist, the lack of contrast, again the eye focuses on the grain but not as much as in the previous photo.

Of course it is always difficult to judge an image without seeing the negatives. Exposure can affect the image quality and grain.

If you could post an image of your negatives (the same as the images posted), something like this, please.

Concerning labs, in my experience the cheaper the price the worse the lab is. If you can see a lab with plenty of positive feedback from customers (customer reviews) and is reasonably priced, then they should be good.
I admit fingerprints on the negatives are not a good sign, for a lab.

Noisy grain

Yaeli

Mister Ash has shared 3 photos with you!

Mister Ash has shared 2 photos with you!

jimjm

Craig

gone

mwdake

Todd Niccole

Yaeli

pentaxuser

brbo

koraks

Moderator

snusmumriken

koraks

Moderator

Yaeli

john_s

koraks

Moderator

brbo

Yaeli

snusmumriken

faberryman

koraks

Moderator

Yaeli

faberryman

koraks

Moderator

McDiesel

foc

Noisy grain

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency