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

[Matthew Rusbarsky]

BDK- A sure way to drive yourself crazy is to spend too much time looking at your negs w/ a loupe. I'm not seeing excessive grain or poor development as much as I'm seeing "noise" (not quite the correct term) from low res JPEGS. Next time order your scans at higher res and a non lossy format (like TIFF). I'm sure you will see a difference.

 

[BDK]

Thank you, Matthew for the sound advice on how to control my growing addiction. I can go over the the dark side of digital and spend time with gammas and layers, or stick with silver halide. Alas, it's still an addiction. I tell my wife, whose watching me warily, that it's still cheaper than owning and operating a boat.

 

[clayne]

Thank you, Matthew for the sound advice on how to control my growing addiction. I can go over the the dark side of digital and spend time with gammas and layers, or stick with silver halide. Alas, it's still an addiction. I tell my wife, whose watching me warily, that it's still cheaper than owning and operating a boat.

Haha, excellent.

Just keep threatening to buy a boat and that'll allow this addiction to continue. Genius.

 

[cmo]

As I scanned on all varieties of scanners in the last ten years I can tell you a few things here:

- Tri-X can be scanned easily if the operator knows what he does.

- Most scanner operators in commercial labs have no clue and use standard or automatic settings - and nearly all scanners deliver a sharpened image unless you explicitly switch off sharpening. It's not the hardware, it's the brainware.

- Many scanners are useful. I saw great examples from that Noritsu scanner and Tri-X 35mm negs. Nikon scanners are not very good for traditional black-and-white films because they have a very focussed light, like a condensor enlarger. As ICE dust removal does not work with traditional black-and-white films you get a lot of scratches, dust and grain. If the negatives are not dull the Coolscans often wash out the highlights.

 

[Athiril]

My first hunch would say these are overdeveloped and over-sharpened. Tri-X doesn't have that type of grain, D3200 and TMZ do.

"Sent off to a lab mentioned by Ken Rockwell"

 

[BDK]

Vielen Dank!

 

[janezek]

Tri-X 400 can be pretty grainy if you develop it in the "wrong" developer. Rodinal is one of them, results can be really unpleasant. I sometimes use this combination on purpose so your results are nothing unusual.
Please also note that commercial labs usually use cheap chemicals, they develop films in machines with higher temperatures which increase grain further. I've seen horrible results even from the finest films developed in labs.
It is really simple and inexpensive to develop films at home. But strongly recommended

 

[Cainquixote]

imho looks like they are over developed with scanner issues. b@w is really worth doing yourself. 3 chemicals and an hour of your time are worth it.

 

[jglass]

BDK: Another recommendation to do your own developing. It is very easy and extremely cheap. However, if you want to use a lab, maybe you can find one that will work with you. Maybe show them these negs and discuss what you want to see. A good lab will work with you.

 

[BDK]

On my visit to B&H yesterday I bought a plastic developing tank with two reels. I will master this process. Otherwise, I'll have a heart condition dealing with labs. Thank you all for your suggestions.

It's still cheaper than owning and operating a boat [I have a boat - they consume money and a lot of time,especially in the Spring when they the hull needs work etc.]

 

[BetterSense]

Still cheaper? You will be saving a boatload of money compared to using labs. Buy a cheap developer like HC110 and it will costs you less than a dollar per roll.

I know all about boats since I used to work at a marina. We used to say that the two best days of boat ownership are the day you buy it and the day you sell it.

 

[clayne]

On my visit to B&H yesterday I bought a plastic developing tank with two reels. I will master this process. Otherwise, I'll have a heart condition dealing with labs. Thank you all for your suggestions.

It's still cheaper than owning and operating a boat [I have a boat - they consume money and a lot of time,especially in the Spring when they the hull needs work etc.]

It's not only that - you'll actually enjoy the process more honestly. One feels a better connection to the film/art/work/etc. when they bring it from camera to developed negative.

 

[SilverGlow]

Most labs don't care. Often they're just mills for processing film and type, temp, chems who cares...just pay the invoice and bugger off!

I've not regretted the toil of developing my own B&W...it's fun too, and cheap, easy...and things get F'd, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[jmal]

A little late, but I'd ignore Ken Rockwell's advice on most things photography related. He's full of it. If you are near NYC, there are plenty of professional labs available. However, you have made the best choice by purchasing a tank and reels. Now you are in control. One thing I will suggest is that you use a final rinse of distilled water as your lab processed film had water spots. I have extremely hard water where I live and a final rinse with distilled water prevents water spots. Many use photoflow, but I have never tried it. Distilled water is so cheap and readily available that I see no need to switch. A good dust free environment for drying is a necessity as well. Now you just need to set up a darkroom, even if it's a temporary one in a bathroom. They are cheap and easy, and they make photography come to life. Have fun with it.

 

[5stringdeath]

Tri-X 400 can be pretty grainy if you develop it in the "wrong" developer. Rodinal is one of them, results can be really unpleasant.

Tri-X in Rodinal is one of my fav combinations ... just not at the stock dilution or film ASA

 

[bob100684]

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.

So this may be exactly what is going on or may be completely off base....
BUT
1) Tri-x does have some grain
2) Given the pixel dimensions, it sounds like the lab you are using is scanning using a fuji frontier, or a frontier scan station. In my experience leaving the scanner set at its default sharpening level gives good print results, however leaves strange crosshatch "grain" patterns, oversharpening artifacts like this image:

(note this is a small portion of the image so the grain is clear and the host site won't resize it)


It is my prefference when scanning to set sharpness to "low 2" or "low one" depending on the film type used....the coarser grained films get low 2, smooth grainless films get low 1.

However, because the images you posted are so small, I can't really tell if this is your problem or not.