Tri-X Excessive Grain - who's to blame?

[BDK]

1] New to B&W film. Shot 30 exp with Nikon FM2 28mm f2.8D AF to test a roll of Tri-X, my yellow and red filters and my brand-new wide angle Nikkor. Sent off to a lab mentioned by Ken Rockwell where they were developed and scanned to 5000 x 3000. All pix taken in very, very bright sunlight in New York Harbor. All the photos have extremely annoying grain. This is well beyond being "artistic". Results are here: http://gallery.me.com/brucekowal#100188&bgcolor=black&view=grid

2] Is this characteristic of Tri-X in bright sunlight?
3] Exposures are OK it seems.
4] Is there a problem with the lab? Wrong developer? Wrong temperature? Bad scanning?
5] Is the lens simply not a sharp lens?
6] Notice the vignette in the photo shot at f2.8 1/2000 - you can't miss it.
7] I had better results under similar conditions with BW400 CN.
8] The first dozen so were with Yellow filter, and the rest using Red. The red really rocks.
9] Frustrated, as you can imagine. Everyone in every forum describes with delight how forgiving and versatile Tri-X is. I really don't want to get into developing at home and scanning. It will consume all my time. I'm a CPA, and I'm REALLY busy at this time of year.

Please advise . . .someone . . .Thank you, thank you.

 

[lxdude]

Pictures 22-23-24... What was Joe Torre doing back in New York?

 

[Jon Shiu]

It's probably a scanning issue that exaggerates and makes the grain look bad, called grain aliasing. The C-41 process black and white films will be smoother (but not easy to print in a real darkroom).

Jon

 

[BDK]

That ugly old man is me . . . When you are young - under 50 - you find a way to put yourself into pictures. When you get over 55 or so, you quietly stay away from the camera. I'm 62, and really should not be in front of a lens, but I was testing the camera, and had a tripod.

 

[BDK]

Thank you Jon. That means that the negatives are probably in good shape, then? Is there a solution to grain aliasing? Any particular instructions I can give to the lab?

 

[clayne]

My first hunch would say these are overdeveloped and over-sharpened. Tri-X doesn't have that type of grain, D3200 and TMZ do. You need a lightbox and a loupe to examine the negatives with your own eyes.

Also, frame 17, there is an issue there. That fog is not the sky, look closely at how it overlaps the ocean across 1/3 of the frame. It's uniform and represents some kind of chemical issue or possibly some strange flare effects combined with the filter. The filter itself my be causing vignetting for you BTW. Such things are usually issues with wide-angle lenses unless you use a thin type.

That lens, AF 28/2.8, which I'm pretty sure is using the same design as the AIS lens (although admittedly I could be wrong here), should be VERY sharp if it is indeed the same design.

 

[nworth]

Not terribly more grainy, but definitely noticeable. There seem to be some other artifacts as well. I assume you are comparing these results to previous results from the same lab with the same film. My first guess is outdated film. Tri-X does gain grain with age, especially if stored poorly. The bright sun makes for high contrast, which can make grain more apparent. The filters could do the same thing. The Nikkor lenses have generally been quite sharp, but camera shake can reduce sharpness a lot if you don't use a tripod. That is especially true with 35mm. The vignette is probably caused by the lens hood in combination with the filter. 28mm is really a very wide lens, and normal lens hoods can vignette with some lens hoods even without a filter.

 

[clayne]

Not terribly more grainy, but definitely noticeable. There seem to be some other artifacts as well. I assume you are comparing these results to previous results from the same lab with the same film. My first guess is outdated film. Tri-X does gain grain with age, especially if stored poorly. The bright sun makes for high contrast, which can make grain more apparent. The filters could do the same thing. The Nikkor lenses have generally been quite sharp, but camera shake can reduce sharpness a lot if you don't use a tripod. That is especially true with 35mm. The vignette is probably caused by the lens hood in combination with the filter. 28mm is really a very wide lens, and normal lens hoods can vignette with some lens hoods even without a filter.

All decent points but I've never seen any vignetting with the recommended Nikkor hoods from Nikon. Additionally, camera shake in the middle of the day? Extremely doubtful w/ ISO400 film, even if he rated it at 100 or something. Wide-angles allow even more latitude for shutter speeds and sharpness when hand-held. Even the 20/2.8 can be shot at 1/15th hand-held and still achieve reasonably sharp negatives if handled well.

The grain I believe to be from scanning or sharpening. I honestly don't think it's in the negative.

 

[BDK]

1] Nworth. I used the same lab. The film was purchase two weeks ago at B&H in Manhattan and was "fresh". Good point about the lens hood causing the vignette. And the effect of the red filter upon grain. It was freezing that day, and I may have not been 100% steady, but I did my level best.

2] Clayne - I don't what that mottled image is in the upper left of frame 17. It is limited to that particular frame though. The Nikkor 28mm f2.8D AF was purchased new two weeks ago, also at B&H.

Thank you both for your kind suggestions.

 

[BDK]

Clayne - yes I was using the HR-2 lens hood for all shots. And for frames 25 - 29 I rested my arms on a chain link fence to shoot across the icey pond into Manhattan. Back to grain aliasing.

 

[BDK]

No sharpening

All decent points but I've never seen any vignetting with the recommended Nikkor hoods from Nikon. Additionally, camera shake in the middle of the day? Extremely doubtful w/ ISO400 film, even if he rated it at 100 or something. Wide-angles allow even more latitude for shutter speeds and sharpness when hand-held. Even the 20/2.8 can be shot at 1/15th hand-held and still achieve reasonably sharp negatives if handled well.

The grain I believe to be from scanning or sharpening. I honestly don't think it's in the negative.

The images were not sharpened. I have iPhoto for now to do some digital lab work, but these that were posted are untouched jpgs.

 

[clayne]

1] Nworth. I used the same lab. The film was purchase two weeks ago at B&H in Manhattan and was "fresh". Good point about the lens hood causing the vignette. And the effect of the red filter upon grain. It was freezing that day, and I may have not been 100% steady, but I did my level best.

2] Clayne - I don't what that mottled image is in the upper left of frame 17. It is limited to that particular frame though. The Nikkor 28mm f2.8D AF was purchased new two weeks ago, also at B&H.

Thank you both for your kind suggestions.

Nikkor Hood List

BDK, if the hood is an HN-2 - it's the right hood and will NOT cause vignetting. Unless you were shivering entirely and shaking the camera all over the place, you're not going to get camera shake here. For one, at EI400, those are easily f/8-f/11 conditions @ 1/250-1/500s. Even with allowing 1-stop loss for the filter, it's not even close to the threshold of camera shake.

One thing to take into account is that if you view the images with a large browser window size, the MMe gallery application is just resizing the image to the window size. This is killing sharpness. For example, here's the original size of one:

http://gallery.me.com/brucekowal/100188/05490030/web.jpg?ver=12661089150002

Anyways, the grain is excessive (although *easily* looked past) but without examining the negatives under a loupe we're just speculating.

The images were not sharpened. I have iPhoto for now to do some digital lab work, but these that were posted are untouched jpgs.

^ The scanning place is going to crank up the sharpness on the negatives they scan - usually with the scanning software. Very common issue.

Here is an example of a very sharp shot on Tri-X, Zeiss 18mm that I was using at the time:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/3646003837/

Nikkor 20/2.8:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/3663895771/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kediwah/3200422959/

It's something on the input side. Tri-X is fine-grain.

 

[BDK]

Thank you Clayne. It's reassuring that Tri-X does give such nice results. Especially "Carnival". I'll have to look at the negative. Is there anything I can do in the future in dealing with the lab? Any particular instructions I can give? The Extended Photo Information says that the lab is using a Nortisu Koki QS-33, 33. I had hope to avoid all this minutiae by just sending it out and getting it scanned. Thanks for being up Saturday night!

 

[BetterSense]

Scanning is a good way to exaggerate grain. From looking at those pictures I don't see anything odder than some tri-x, scanned, maybe sharpened too much. I have much better luck scanning prints, then the grain comes out right. B&W negatives were invented 100+ years before scanners, and weren't designed to be scanned by any means.

 

[David William White]

I sense there may be an issue with expectations.

 

[MCTuomey]

BDK, if you are really short time and can't develop your own film, i'd suggest using Kodak BW400CN or Ilford XP2 Super. Both lovely C41 B&W films that scan very nicely.

 

[clayne]

Scanning is a good way to exaggerate grain. From looking at those pictures I don't see anything odder than some tri-x, scanned, maybe sharpened too much. I have much better luck scanning prints, then the grain comes out right. B&W negatives were invented 100+ years before scanners, and weren't designed to be scanned by any means.

You need to clarify things. It's not scanning itself that's the issue - it's the use of certain light sources that most scanners use which cause the issue. It's similar to enlarging through a point-source enlarger - in fact, extremely similar.

I personally do both, but of course enjoy my prints more.

 

[eddym]

Make optical prints from the negatives and check the grain. Scanning traditional B&W films emphasizes grain; for that reason, C41 B&W films such as XP2 are better for scanning.

 

[Rick A]

As to the vignetting, it could be caused by the filter. When I use a filter on a wide angle lens, I use a step-up ring and alrger filter. I have all 62mm screw on filters with the appropriate ring to fit each lens owned. I also have a Cokin P series set with adapter rings for all my lenses. I also stay away from polarizers when there is much sky in the photo, as it renders the sky blotchy.

Rick

 

[BobD]

Looks over-developed to me.

 

[BDK]

I went to B&H this morning, and showed various people there the negatives. [1] In the category of "My Bad" is the fact that I used TWO filters, plus the HN-2 hood. The skylight and the Red 52R25. I am a knucklehead. [2] Two photo geeks/salespeople looked at the negatives, one on a light table, and both remarked that there was a lot of waterspotting and other indications of sloppy development. Both of these people, in separate departments [Nikon and Darkroom] also speculated that the deveopment times and/or temperature ranges were likewise not followed by the lab. [3] I went to B&H because I bought the film there, and I wanted to follow up on Clayne's suggestion that I take a close look at the negative before I begin to blame "grain alias". [4] So, the long and short of this is that the lens is fine, and the shooter is a klutz, and that the lab recommended by Ken Rockwell [you can find it on his site - I don't want to deprive anyone of a living] on this occasion turned out poor quality work. So much for the Hostert Dip & Dunk with Clayton F76. If the quality control is non-existent, the machines are useless. [5] Thank you all for your input. I am new to B&W and this fraternity of analog photographers. The enthusiasm is tremendous. At B&H when you talk film, people's eye's light up. You'd think you were talking sports. This is quite an amazing brotherhood of enthusiasts. We should all be at the UN negotiating peace treaties, and all diplomats should be required to bring their cameras and best photos for a roundtable of critiques and hints.

 

[Anscojohn]

The images are somewhat small; perhaps that is the reason I do not see anything particularly excessive about the grain.

Considering the minimal amount of time, effort, chemistry (D-76 film developer), and equipment needed to soup your own negs, I suggest you begin doing so. If after you learn something about what a Tri-x negative is supposed to look like, you still find the grain "excessive," then you might consider a slower speed film.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I can`t get them big enoungh to see bad grain, but tri x is not the smoothest film in the world. Has nice tones and is a little forgiving, but not grain free.

I best I have ever done with it by a mile is EI200, D76 stock, 4.4 min at 68 and print in my Focomat 1C. I can grain sniff full frame prints on 8x10 paper, ie 6.6X, and can`t find any.

So you do what I said for get a camera that takes large film.
4x5 tri x in HC110 will knock your socks off.

 

[hrst]

I would guess it's mainly a scanning problem. Low-resolution images on low-res computer screen just look either soft or grainy compared to same-size prints. These scans certainly have much sharpening. It's a trade-off problem that cannot be solved completely. Very good drum scans are really expensive. I suggest to print optically. It's what we discuss here at APUG. You can get stunning results quite easily, and grain is very seldom any kind of problem in analog workflow.

 

[BDK]

Thank you hrst. My goal has been to shoot film, get processing and scanning at same time as a substitute for an optical contact sheet. And then print. In looking at the negatives on a light table with a 10X magnifier, I can see that the large grain, and the water spots. It may be a combination of aliasing and bad development. In any event, the emotional roller-coaster is too much. I guess I'm going to have to learn to develop myself - I was hoping to avoid this. And then to print. Was looking at the Nova Darkroom Tent, or a modified Hydroponic tent. Best of luck to Suomi in the Olympics!