Tri-X Testing gone bad :(

Can anyone point me in the right direction here.
The other day thought I'd try out Kodak Tri-X 400 35mm film, after browsing the internet at loads of different example of film I thought this is the one for me.
So I ordered some up and when it arrived I got all excited and loaded it up into my Olympus OM10 and went out shooting.
Came back, deved them up and waited eagerly whilst my scanner brought them to life, but sadly I was disappointed
They just don't look like those lovely Tri-X shots that I have seen on the internet, far from it!
Now up until now I have been deving and scanning cheap film and haven't been that bothered by the quality, I just called them artistic and went on my way but with the Tri-X I was expecting a more photographic feel.
The resulting images (which I have attached a couple here) are lacking in definition. Not sure if's it's my poor camera work or a developing issue as I am quite new to this but I will try and list as much details as possible.
Camera: Olympus OM10 with a 28mm Macro Lens
Film: Kodak Tri-X 35mm
Development: Tetenal Paranol S 1:25, Developed for 9mins, agitated for 30sec and then every 30sec for 10sec
Scan: Epson Perfection 3170 scanned as a BW Negative at 2400dpi

Any pointers would be greatly appreciated

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5xCn9iCmcz2UVRQbFZOSUNLZ0k

I'm very curious about this as well. I've only run a handful of rolls of 120 Tri-X 400 through my camera so far, but I've not noticed grain that noisy (Even when zooming in) but I've only worked with it indoors with controlled lighting so far.

Are those straight scans, or were they adjusted at all for exposure value?

Scanning issues are really not an APUG topic and you may learn more on DPUG. From what I understand almost all scans will need a good amount of tweaking in post. However if you would like some feedback on the negatives and how they came out (eg. underexposed, overexposed, underdeveloped etc.), it would be best to post some images of the negatives themselves (including the rebate is best). This way people can see what may be going on. Tri-X is extremely forgiving of exposure, though many people rate it at EI 200-250 to manage contrast and keep the grain minimized.

Luckless said:

I'm very curious about this as well. I've only run a handful of rolls of 120 Tri-X 400 through my camera so far, but I've not noticed grain that noisy (Even when zooming in) but I've only worked with it indoors with controlled lighting so far.

Are those straight scans, or were they adjusted at all for exposure value?

Click to expand...

They were straight from the scanner, although the negatives were quite dense (with the exception of the two indoor shots) which in my opinion are the better looking shots.

Either there is an issue with your lens/focussing or, far more likely, with your scanner.

They simply look washed out with no definition or sharpness. Added to this, the centre seems much lighter than the edges on a number of images.

If you look on the internet, or DPUG, you will find many comments about the film holders from many manufacturers not being the correct depth for good scans or that they do not hold the film flat. A former student of mine bought expensive glass holders for his scanner from the USA and that made a monumental difference to the sharpness and detail.

The only way to really check is to have a traditional print made and assess that as it will clearly show whether it is the lens, your focussing or your scanner.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Printing in a darkened room (no custom-built darkroom needed) is both cheap and easy. There are also darkrooms available for hire, plus those running courses in evening colleges etc.

For feedback on the negatives, please post a picture of the negs. For example, stick a piece of copier-paper on a window and use that as a substitute light-box, keeping the negs far enough away that the negs are in focus while the paper structure is not..

Welcome to APUG Mr B.

Mr B said:

They were straight from the scanner, although the negatives were quite dense (with the exception of the two indoor shots) which in my opinion are the better looking shots.

Click to expand...

Ok, lesson 1 regarding negatives.

Negatives are not really meant to be used/printed/scanned "straight", intervention is the norm.

The only time "straight printing" works is when every link in the photographic chain is perfectly controlled. The camera exposure has to be absolutely perfect, the developing has to compliment the scene lighting perfectly, the printing system and paper has to be absolutely standardized...

Your "although the negatives were quite dense" statement is telling in this respect, you photographic chain isn't "perfectly controlled". That doesn't mean it's bad, it only means straight printing is not an option and you have a ways to go before you understand negatives in general and before you'll be able to see the advantages of specific films like Tri-X.

pthornto said:

Scanning issues are really not an APUG topic and you may learn more on DPUG. From what I understand almost all scans will need a good amount of tweaking in post. However if you would like some feedback on the negatives and how they came out (eg. underexposed, overexposed, underdeveloped etc.), it would be best to post some images of the negatives themselves (including the rebate is best). This way people can see what may be going on. Tri-X is extremely forgiving of exposure, though many people rate it at EI 200-250 to manage contrast and keep the grain minimized.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advise about DPUG, what's the best method for photographing the negatives? I'll see if I can get them uploaded later to try and eliminate them from my enquiry.

I've never used that developer, and when I have shot 35mm in the last few years it's been fine grain film like Acros -- or even some ancient Panatomic-X. (I shoot lots of 400TX in 120.) So I'm hardly a good source for advice here -- but -- I had two thoughts at first look: reticulation, or maybe grain aliasing. TriX tends to have sharply defined grain which can sometimes provoke problems with interference between the scan sampling and the grain. TriX is pretty solid film, so I consider reticulation unlikely in this case, but it is typically caused by a large difference in solution temperatures, such as going from room temperature processing to a wash water that's 10 or 20 degrees hotter. If the film is severely overexposed or over developed it will make results far from optimum also.

But don't give up -- you're close!

If the negatives are very dense, you may have overexposed or overdeveloped. The outdoor images look muddy to me, which suggests incorrect exposure and compensating in scan, which will reduce midtones and amplify scanner noise. I think scanner focusing looks OK - dust is sharply defined.

The sky is darkened in your photos, bringing out the clouds. Did you shoot with an orange or red filter? If so, did you meter through the lens? If not, did you compensate for the filter? Could you have overcompensated? Did you set the camera to the correct ISO?

It's probably possible to get better scans of the negatives, but for the sake of future shots you should find out why the negatives turned out too dense. Good luck, and if perfection gets in the way of fun, choose fun.

I don't see anything wrong with your beautiful shots...

Actually, I kind of like them, very retro looking, but am curious how you could get that much grain from TX. Many people (not me) complain about Tri-X being too fine grain now. You mention that the negatives are dense, so assume they are just grossly overexposed. If your other films come out better, it would seem like an ISO or metering issue. If your other rolls are dense also, then your meter may just be off. It would take quite a bit of overexposure to do that. Did you note your outdoor exposures at all? For the type of pictures I make, I usually go about a stop more exposure than sunny 16 recommendation of 1/400 sec at f16, but some of yours are pretty open shadow shots that could handle that short an exposure easily.

Other thoughts-aperture not closing properly or quick enough; overall fog from heat or some other cause; some sort of haze in the lens, or maybe just a dirty/smeared lens - odd flare in some shots.

Good luck sorting things out.

Bill Burk said:

I don't see anything wrong with your beautiful shots...

Click to expand...

I think there is an expectations gap. Tri-X was expected to be a magic bullet.

Interesting choice of (first?) developer. What led you to it?

Welcome to APUG.

A good way to share a photo of negatives is to put them on something backlit like a window or computer monitor and take a digital picture of them.

I have no experience with or knowledge about the developer you used, but the agitation you described seems to be a lot of agitation. That (and other things) can lead to over-development. Over-development and over-exposure leads to dense negatives, which don't print easily, and can be even harder to scan well.

Scanning is fine, but:
1) we really prefer not to talk about it on APUG; and
2) it adds a whole bunch of variables, some of which are not easily controlled without a lot of experience.

One other question - I'm not aware of an Olympus (Zuiko) 28mm Macro lens. Is your lens, by chance, a 28mm lens with the MC (Multicoated) designation?

That's a lot of grain. I develop 400TX in HC-110e for 7:30 and get a smoother 35mm negative.

From my experience, the scans from my Epson 4990 NEVER produce as nice of an image as do my enlargers and wet printing. I only use the scanner now just as a preview of what is on my negatives (35mm only - I gave up scanning medium and large format, I just examine those negatives on a lightbox). I would bet that printed the negatives would produce different results than the scans.

I would concur with the previous poster that your agitation routine is a bit on the heavy side. Try 3 inversions, taking about 5 seconds for all three, every minute. Always rap the tank after each set of inversions.

Keep it up - lots of good fun ahead of you!

Post a pic of negative against a light box

Perfection don't come after a roll or two. But your's look rather very good.

Make few optical prints and see where you need to change.

Good evening all,
First off thank you all for your replies, I never expected such a welcome response!
Now, I will try and acknowledge all your replies because I do appreciate your patience with new starters!

David Allen - I would love to have a print made, is that an offer

MartinP - I have added a photo of the negatives to the folder, see the link below, it's as best as I could do so hopefully you can gauge something from it.

markbarendt - I've got a feeling I know what the problem is, see attached negatives

DWThomas - Thanks for your input, "reticulation" has been added to my mental dictionary!

Arctic Amateur - I think you've hit that nail on the head, I tried the scanner again, this time in "professional mode" - didn't think that I really belonged in this group but I thought I've give it a try. I noticed that by default exposure compensation is on, after turning this off the negatives came out much paler. I have checked the metering of the OM10 and it appears to be the same as my Panasonic G5, however I have recently changed the battery because I thought that the old ones were flat, but it turned out to be dodgy contacts, could a low battery cause the meter to read wrong? I have seen posts about using Silver Oxide batteries a posed to alkaline, something to do with the discharge rate, this could be something for me to look at.
Also yes I was suing a filter, well spotted, but the OM10 meters through the lens so this should be ok.
I normally do choose fun over perfection, by favourite camera I own is my Recesky Plastic Toy Camera, but I thought I'd try and give perfection a go

Bill Berk - Thank you very much Bill

Mark Crabtree - Thanks Mark, If you want the high grain vintage look to you shots just send me your negative and I screw then up for you gladly
Sadly I didn't take note of the exposures, I must get into the habit, I did take a good look over the film but I couldn't see any exif data on them

bvy - Ebay... They had a starter pack of chemicals on there quite cheap, it;s the only chemicals I have used so far.

MattKing - Hi Matt, I have attached the negatives to the folder in the link below, not a brilliant photo of them as the garden got in the way, but as you can see, they are very dark
It did seem like a lot of agitation, but it's what it suggested
I have noted the loathe if scanning here and will not mention it again I'd love to get into proper printing I have the equipment, bought it ages ago from the local rag, £5 got me an Enlarger, patterson tank, trays, tongs, thermometer, measuring cylinders and loads of other stuff, I'm in negotiation with the wife at the moment about converting the loft!
Just dug the camera out and yea, you're right, its a 28mm

Jeff Bradford - I think I night try an different developer next time, Kodak D76 seems to be a good flavour with Tri-X

StephenT - Next time I am defiantly going to try less agitation, it seamed like I was constantly inverting the damn thing!

Garageboy - See the link below, hope this kinda helps

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)a - Thanks, hopefully with everyone's advise I can start to improve.


If I've forgotten anyone, then sorry, but thank you all for your help, see below for the negatives, but before you see them remember that I'm a newbe and don't know a great deal about correct density of negatives, I'm learning.... the hard way

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B5xCn9iCmcz2UVRQbFZOSUNLZ0k

Cheers
Martin
https://www.flickr.com/photos/noddymini/

I had that problem also, it was when I was using the R3 monobath from New55, I use HC110 now and my negatives "sharpened up" a little. I also started to use Vuescan software with my older HP scanner. That made some more improvements.

as for DPUG, I have not been there in a month and today it shows 14 new posts since my last visit. APUG shows me 176 new posts since this morning. Just a thought to consider if somebody asks about scanning.

The first negative looks properly exposed, the rest are well overexposed. Did you do anything different when shooting indoor, other than using a tripod?

Arctic amateur said:

The first negative looks properly exposed, the rest are well overexposed. Did you do anything different when shooting indoor, other than using a tripod?

Click to expand...

I too like the first one, both indoor shots looks much better, also I have one that was taken in a tunnel going from dark to light, this came out good as well.
All the shots that I have uploaded were taken on the same day, same lens, no tripod for all which is making me think that the camera is over exposing for all shots and that the ones indoors should have come out darker.

Bill Burk said:

I don't see anything wrong with your beautiful shots...

Click to expand...

Bill I'm with you on this and I think that grain in the outdoor shots really adds to the mood, even if it was accidental. Looking at your negative strips I would say they are overexposed and somewhat overdeveloped, but they are printable. Dialing in your work flow just takes time and trial, don't give up.

scheimfluger_77 said:

Bill I'm with you on this and I think that grain in the outdoor shots really adds to the mood, even if it was accidental. Looking at your negative strips I would say they are overexposed and somewhat overdeveloped, but they are printable. Dialing in your work flow just takes time and trial, don't give up.

Click to expand...

Thanks, a lot of my previous film work has this 'vintage' feel about them which I also like myself. I think the reason I am disappointed with them is because I usually just shoot, develop and process according to how they have come out. I have a recent batch from an old Pen EE which a load of them came out quite under exposed so I have processed them down even darker to give them an abstract melancholy feel about them. But this time I had a look in my head beforehand of how I wanted them to come out so was disappointed
I'm not giving up, this is just a new chapter in my film story and I understand that honing my skills will take time and patience.
So I have purchased new batteries, new film and next time I'll take along my digital camera as well to meter from to make sure that it is reading correctly!
Cheers
Mr B
www.mrbsphotography.co.uk