TX400 ugly grain

Last week, I took some landscapes photography’s, and I decided to print on of them in 30,5 x 40,6 (12 x 16) Ilford Printer Paper. However, it was extremely granulated so I finally did in a 24 x 30,5 (9,5 x 12) one. In this case, the grain was acceptable.
I can not understand why it has occurred, since I usually make printers as big as 30 x 40 with good results. I have work, like always, with TX400 (EI 200) developed in HC110 (E) for 6 minutes, 20ªC. The camera was my FA Nikon with AI 50 mm lens.
Why I have gotten extremely, and ugly, grain appearance in a 30 x 40 Ilford Printer Paper if I have worked with the same film, developer and general technique that I always work with? Thanks everybody and I take this opportunity to wish a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all Apug members.
Henry.

Perhaps it is the result of reticulation of the negative. Modern emulsions are much less likely to be so affected. but it can happen. Look closely at the unexposed edges. of the negative.

If you're having grain issues printing scanned negatives on an inkjet printer, that's a topic better addressed at APUG's sister site, http://www.hybridphoto.com , since there are a few points along the hybrid imaging path where grain issues may arise and be addressed, and they are generally off topic for APUG.

Have you tried printing the negatives conventionally with an enlarger in the darkroom? They might be fine, but that said, HC-110 Dil. E wouldn't be what most people would choose for fine grain. Try a solvent developer like D-76 stock or 1+1.

You may be suffering grain aliasing in scanning.

Use a loupe (or a 50mm lens) on the film -- how does the grain compare to other rolls? If it's the same, something shifted in your post-processing. If it's different, something about exposure or processing.

Also, at high dilutions of HC-110 (like E), you're getting very little solvent effect. That gives very "crisp" grain. Maybe try D-76 full strength, or Ilford Ilfotec DD-X.

If you don't like grain, then shoot ilford Pan F+ and develope in D-76 either full strength or 1+1. I shoot it 120 and can go 20x24" minimal grain. Faster films generally have more noticable grain.

Rick

John Shriver said:

You may be suffering grain aliasing in scanning.

Use a loupe (or a 50mm lens) on the film -- how does the grain compare to other rolls? If it's the same, something shifted in your post-processing. If it's different, something about exposure or processing.

Also, at high dilutions of HC-110 (like E), you're getting very little solvent effect. That gives very "crisp" grain. Maybe try D-76 full strength, or Ilford Ilfotec DD-X.

Click to expand...

In fact, I am not scanning anything; I just printed the negative in 30 x 40 size paper with an Opemus 6 enlarger, and the results were simply ugly. The rest of the negatives in the same film are also extremely grainy.
My point is that I have always worked with HC110, 1:47 (E), and the results were very good.
I have to mention that I work with this concentration because I have found appropriate densities for zones I, V and VIII with 6 minutes developing time; concentration B results, for me, in a very short developing time (more or less 3 minutes).
Henry.

Your reference to "Printer Paper" in your first post was a bit confusing. Most people I think would read that as "inkjet paper."

If you're printing these conventionally, and your densities are good, then it's most likely a developer issue. It might be that HC-110 dil. E is great for other films or perhaps TX in medium format but isn't ideal for the look you're after from TX 35mm at the print sizes you're making. If you test, you should be able to get similar densities from other developers to the densities you're getting now, but with less prominent grain.

I have gotten really nice results with Tri X 35 mm and HC 100 at 1:45. EI 200 4.75 at 68 Condenser enlarger #2 paper

Distilled or deionised water has always been trouble for me with large ugly grain. Plain ol Chicago tap works way better. Have friend. who figured out the same thing.

If you are confident your process was the same then I would expect that slight fogging may be the culprit. Film that is slightly but evenly fogged via very low level visible light (as in a small light leak in your DR that is diffuse and even or via radiation of some type causes extremely grainy results with TX HP5 and films of that ilk. What is worse is the grain does not correspond to actual image patterns which in turn makes it far more apparent. The worst film for this is TMZ in my experience if if gets old it is horrible.

The other thing that could be happening is that your eyes are playing tricks on you - like you happened to make images of scene tonalities that you usually do not make. Say your usual MO is scenes with a lot of detail and no large flat areas of Z IV V VII ish and now all of a sudden you have large flat midtone areas?

One last thing - every once in a while I have noticed that extended wet time (even at consistent temps) can cause grain to act/look differently than usual - like if you left these things in the wash for a long long long time. I have not been able to nail down the exact parameters of this nor do I care to.

Other than that maybe some sort of contamination in development?

RB

I want to thank each comment you have done: however, I do not understand what have happened. I supposed I made a mistake…
I am going to repeat the photography with a new TX400 roll, EI 200, with the same camera, with the same light, and I will develop with HC110 (E), like I always do. I guess it will go fine this time.
Thanks to everybody.
Henry.