SFX 200

chorleyjeff · Sep 9, 2007

Developed a 35mm roll of this film in ID11 1+1 and it appears very grainy from a negative scan. Much more grainy than XP2.
Is this normal and if so what can I do to reduce the grain?
Cheers
Jeff

Videbaek · Sep 9, 2007

SFX200 is quite grainy, as are all IR-type films. You won't get nice fine grain with it in any developer I guess, but I quite like how it looks in Perceptol. HC-110 might be good too.

Black Dog · Sep 9, 2007

HC110 isn't exactly fine grain like Perceptol-PMK is good, as well as Presycycol and Exactol Lux.

jim appleyard · Sep 9, 2007

You can use ID-11/D-76 at 1+0 to shave the grain a little, although SFX is a grainy film.

Roger Hicks · Sep 9, 2007

ANY non-chromogenic is far grainier for its speed than a chromogenic, and grain is normally exacerbated by scanning instead of wet printing.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
ANY non-chromogenic is far grainier for its speed than a chromogenic, and grain is normally exacerbated by scanning instead of wet printing.

Hmm - is it really less grainy, or is that the shape of the grains makes them less noticeable?

Stephen Frizza · Sep 9, 2007

Technodol

I find the grain is moderate if you process it in Kodak Technodol Developer try some experimenting with that. Technodol is also a great developer if you wish to get a finer grain result from Kodak HIE.

~Steve
The Lighthouse Lab

Roger Hicks · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
Hmm - is it really less grainy, or is that the shape of the grains makes them less noticeable?

The 'grain' in a chromogenic is a dye image, so there's no Callier effect and little or no grain aliasing.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
The 'grain' in a chromogenic is a dye image, so there's no Callier effect and little or no grain aliasing.

Don't these 2 effects only come into play when scanning or in the case of Callier effect, printing with a condenser enlarger? It was my understanding that when printing with a diffusion light source the Callier effect was much less important.

Roger Hicks · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
Don't these 2 effects only come into play when scanning or in the case of Callier effect, printing with a condenser enlarger? It was my understanding that when printing with a diffusion light source the Callier effect was much less important.

Ah: two separate questions here. I was reinforcing mainly my second point, about scanning, which was the OP's question. Yes, the Callier effect is reduced when using diffusers, but still exists to some extent.

As for grain shape, no, I don't think so: manufacturers' claims that a chromogenic gives you ISO 100 grain at ISO 400 speed seem to me to be broadly fair. What they don't normally add, of course, is that the finer the grain, the lower the sharpness. Kodak's grain is detectably finer than Ilford's, but I prefer Ilford's sharpness and (above all) tonality.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
What they don't normally add, of course, is that the finer the grain, the lower the sharpness.

Hmm - this says to me, based on what I've read about fine-grain developers, that the grain starts out larger and is dissolved away during development as opposed to an inherently finer-grained ( and slower ) film where sharpness is improved by the fine grain. Thoughts? Speculations?

Roger Hicks · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
Hmm - this says to me, based on what I've read about fine-grain developers, that the grain starts out larger and is dissolved away during development as opposed to an inherently finer-grained ( and slower ) film where sharpness is improved by the fine grain.

No. It's a consequence of how much dye precursor you put into the film. More dye precursor = finer grain = reduced sharpness because of a more diffuse dye cloud. The rules for 'real' film often don't apply to chromogenics.

At least that's my understanding, but I'm not an emulsion chemist, just a fairly well-read amateur. Be very suspicious of any other amateurs' replies, but if (for example) PE chips in and contradicts me, I know who I'd believe.

Furthermore, slower, finer-grained films aren't always sharper. Ilford Delta 100 is sharper (though coarser grained) than Pan F. Ilford themselves will tell you that one.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Furthermore, slower, finer-grained films aren't always sharper. Ilford Delta 100 is sharper (though coarser grained) than Pan F. Ilford themselves will tell you that one.

Yes, but now you're comparing a T-grain film to a conventional film - isn't it also true that Pan-F is sharper than FP4+ or that Delta 100 is sharper that Delta 400?
Also, when Ilford says sharper, what do they mean? better acutance, higher resolution, or both?

Roger Hicks · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
Yes, but now you're comparing a T-grain film to a conventional film - isn't it also true that Pan-F is sharper than FP4+ or that Delta 100 is sharper that Delta 400?
Also, when Ilford says sharper, what do they mean? better acutance, higher resolution, or both?

Well, no, not strictly T-grain: the difference between T-grain and Delta (epitaxial growth) isn't just marketing speak. It's also true that the distinction between monosize controlled-growth crystals (Delta/T-Grain) and conventional cubic crystals with the current generation of both 'traditional' and 'new technology' films is a lot less than it used to be.

What is more, not only is T-grain more sensitive to overexposure and overdevelopment than Delta, but the 'quality crash' that you get with either or both mistreatments is worse: by this I mean the point at which sharpness is actually worse than with traditional films, as as a result of mistreatment.

With this in mind, the sharpness is indeed higher with the slower films in each emulsion type.

Like most manufacturers, Ilford define sharpness in terms of MTF.

dslater · Sep 9, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Well, no, not strictly T-grain: the difference between T-grain and Delta (epitaxial growth) isn't just marketing speak.

Interesting - I had no idea - I'd always assumed they were basically the same thing.

Roger Hicks · Sep 9, 2007

dslater said:
Interesting - I had no idea - I'd always assumed they were basically the same thing.

No. Lovely Ilford quote: 'Delta is necessarily a better technology -- but it's a better-behaved technology'. They are both monosize dispersions, and flat rather than cubic.

I am at the limit of my understanding here, but the differences can be seen in, for example, colour sensitivity (I am told that the reason for this is that T-grains are unexpectedly insensitive to blue, because some light goes through, so dye sensitization is boosted) and (as I said, and as implied by Ilford's quote) resistance to maltreatment.

Ilford R&D were quite surprised at Kodak's going for T-grain, as they reckoned that Delta was better and had been afraid that Kodak, with vastly more resources, might come up with something better still.

chorleyjeff · Sep 10, 2007

Thanks for the replies.
I just have to accept SFX is grainy.
Cheers
Jeff

jim appleyard · Sep 10, 2007

chorleyjeff said:
Thanks for the replies.
I just have to accept SFX is grainy.
Cheers
Jeff

The grain can also be its charm. I did a portrait of a woman who is very concerned about her looks with SFX and she loved it. The grain wiped out any skin imperfections she may have had.

Black Dog · Sep 10, 2007

In MF it's not a problem at all unless you're doing massive blowups with large areas of even tone in them.

Roger Hicks · Sep 10, 2007

chorleyjeff said:
Thanks for the replies.
I just have to accept SFX is grainy.
Cheers
Jeff

Dear Jeff,

Basically, yes.

Cheers,

R.

chorleyjeff · Sep 10, 2007

Black Dog said:
In MF it's not a problem at all unless you're doing massive blowups with large areas of even tone in them.

I agree but my fellow photo club members ( and we all vote in the monthly competitions) mark down pictures with visible grain. And I get the impression that except for reportage (?) visible grain is a no no generally.

dslater · Sep 10, 2007

chorleyjeff said:
I agree but my fellow photo club members ( and we all vote in the monthly competitions) mark down pictures with visible grain. And I get the impression that except for reportage (?) visible grain is a no no generally.

Hmm - I wouldn't say that at all. Visible grain has great artistic potential. There are many pictures where the visible grain adds to the mood of the photograph. I think your club members need to re-think their judging. Are a lot of them using digital equipment?

Dan

jim appleyard · Sep 10, 2007

dslater said:
Hmm - I wouldn't say that at all. Visible grain has great artistic potential. There are many pictures where the visible grain adds to the mood of the photograph. I think your club members need to re-think their judging. Are a lot of them using digital equipment?

Dan

I don't wish to insult anyone's judging ability, but I must agree. Grain can add quite a bit to a photo. Not every photo should be b/w. Not every photo should be color. Not every photo should have massive amounts of grain, but when you incorporate it into the feeling or mood of the photo it can work very nicely.

Roger Hicks · Sep 10, 2007

jim appleyard said:
I don't wish to insult anyone's judging ability...

Actually, at that point, I think I would insult it.

Cheers,

R.

Dorian Gray · Sep 10, 2007

Systematically devaluing photos with grain is a very blinkered approach. As evidence, here's a grainy photo (in colour too!) that works, by APUG member rml:

http://shardsofphotography2.blogspot.com/2004/11/paw-48-2004.html

(Click on the photo to see the grain.)

SFX 200

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency