Very grainy FP-4

[cliveh]

The plot thickens, I just scanned some negs from the same roll that were taken on a different lighting set up (black background), and there is much less grain... Now I don't understand anything.

Not really, as grain is more noticeable in highlights on prints and therefore a black background will look less grainy.

 

[Rudeofus]

Because the full strength has higher sulphite concentration thus more solvent effect. Finer grain at some expense to sharpness.

The main solvent in HC-110 is not Sulfite, but a stronger organic solvent (2-Aminoethanol ?). For this reason there is different behavior change with dilution than you would expect from developers that contain only Sulfite as solvent.

I concur with others that HC-110 can give very grainy negatives if you overdevelop your film. Been there, done that. And for some reasons human faces have just the right tone and texture to make any print look grainy unless they make up >50% of the whole image.

One more thing: if you look at your 10x15 print with a loupe, you magnify it by 3 or more, which means it will look as grain as if you enlarged it to 30x45 or more. Yes, that will look grainy ....

 

[Roger Cole]

The main solvent in HC-110 is not Sulfite, but a stronger organic solvent (2-Aminoethanol ?). For this reason there is different behavior change with dilution than you would expect from developers that contain only Sulfite as solvent.

I concur with others that HC-110 can give very grainy negatives if you overdevelop your film. Been there, done that. And for some reasons human faces have just the right tone and texture to make any print look grainy unless they make up >50% of the whole image.

One more thing: if you look at your 10x15 print with a loupe, you magnify it by 3 or more, which means it will look as grain as if you enlarged it to 30x45 or more. Yes, that will look grainy ....

True but irrelevant to the question, which was "why?" in response to the claim that D76 1+1 produced more apparent grain than D76 FS.

I stand by that. I've tried it both ways and FS is a bit finer grained but not quite as sharp. The difference is small but definite.

 

[cliveh]

No. The solvent effect on granularity depends on solvent concentration AND the time is has to act. There are other variables including buffering.

Exactly and the time his has to act is less at FS than diluted, due to the change in development time.

 

[cliveh]

When a developer such as D-76 is diluted 1+1, the sulfite concentration is cut in half, but the development time is somewhat longer (though not doubled), meaning the sulfite present has more time to act. These variables tend to offset eachther to vary degrees depending on the film, developer, etc.

So can you provide proof that 1:1 dilution of D76 increases grain size as opposed to FS?

 

[Roger Cole]

I've tried it. I believe it. If you want more proof try it yourself.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Hello

The grain in your print certainly looks coarser than I get with FP4 135.

Mind you, I use XTOL in stock solution and agitate very gently.

I think you could fine tune your dev routine to minimise the grain.

 

[J.Marks]

Ilford FP 4 @ 100, Tanol 1+1+100 @ 15 min 68 deg F Follow agitation instructions = NO grain

 

[pentaxuser]

There must be other users of the OP's combo of film and developer so I am surprised that no user of this combo has replied and given an example of what a 10x15cm print looks like

There might be better combo's, agitation etc but I'd be surprised if the problem is down to just this combo of film and developer.

Let's face it if the scan of a 10x15 print is accurate and he says it is and if he can easily see grain with his naked eye on a 10x15cm print and he says he can, then this has to be the worst combo of film and developer I have ever seen

A pity that we don't have an example of a 10x15 print from FP4+ and dilution B of HC110

pentaxuser

 

[dorff]

I find this rather puzzling. FP4+ has never given me anything remotely resembling your example. The grain looks very clumpy, which suggests high temperature and overdevelopment. I would not even expect HP5+ or TriX to look like this on a 10x15 print. I could have understood exaggerated grain on a direct scan from film, as grain always seems to look worse on a film scan than a print scan. And we can rule out contamination of some sort, as you are doing one-shot development. No, I am stumped.

Did you print on RC Gloss paper? Because a scan from FB or pearl or matte paper will add other variables into the equation. Also, no large-radius sharpening done on the scan? Some automatic scanning software does that, and it will exaggerate grain in mid- and high tones where there is large spaces of the same density.

 

[dorff]

When a developer such as D-76 is diluted 1+1, the sulfite concentration is cut in half, but the development time is somewhat longer (though not doubled), meaning the sulfite present has more time to act. These variables tend to offset eachther to vary degrees depending on the film, developer, etc.

That is assuming a first order reaction. If it is second order, halving the concentration will drop the rate by a factor of 4. It could be more complex than that, though, with mass transfer playing a controlling role, in which case it would approach first order with low agitation. Mass-transfer-controlled reactions are not as temperature sensitive as purely rate-controlled reactions. I don't know which it is - maybe one of the gurus can enlighten us. It is certainly an interesting topic.

For what it's worth, maybe for the particular subject acutance is not the #1 goal, and a solvent developer would have been appropriate. I usually just use D76 or Xtol diluted 1:1, or Rodinal 1:50, which is more or less a compromise between solvent and acutance development. But for portraiture FS may be better.

 

[Xmas]

suggest a microscope on the negative to see if the grain is bad or if it might be emulsion damage. If the negative is different from the print...

 

[cliveh]

It is a complex process but has been demonstrated by Kodak etc. regarding developers such as D-76, XTOL etc. The differences may be more subtle than people expect, but they are there. It should also be noted HC-110 is a solvent developer. It was formulated to work similarly to D-76, although its chemistry is complex.

Subtle with a capital S.

 

[Ian Grant]

There must be other users of the OP's combo of film and developer so I am surprised that no user of this combo has replied and given an example of what a 10x15cm print looks like

There might be better combo's, agitation etc but I'd be surprised if the problem is down to just this combo of film and developer.

Let's face it if the scan of a 10x15 print is accurate and he says it is and if he can easily see grain with his naked eye on a 10x15cm print and he says he can, then this has to be the worst combo of film and developer I have ever seen

A pity that we don't have an example of a 10x15 print from FP4+ and dilution B of HC110

pentaxuser

Back around 1986 I tested FP4 in HC-110 and it was reasonably fine grained, the film has been improved since then It does tend to be a touch lower EI in HC-110m than D76/ID-11.

This is a 10x15cm print, so approx 6"x4" and at that size you should not be able to see any grain with a film like FP4_ or HP5+. I've an HP5+ print in front of me slightly larger degree of enlargement an the grain isn't visible to the naked eye.

I'd put this down to craft, the ability to exert total control over the process cycle. If you give a few photographers similar cameras, film, developer, stop & fixer some will consistently produce excellent results, fine grain, excellent tones & sharpness, others will end up with grainier images, less tonality etc.

All that differs is the attention to detail through out the whole exposure and development cycle, consistent agitation, close regulation of temperatures.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Based on Ian's post and others it would seem that if the OP is looking for a solution which he clearly is then it requires him to follow each and every step exactly as recommended by the film and developer manufacturers and simply try again.

He may be convinced which I am sure he is that nothing was out of the ordinary in what he did but clearly something was which got him to what he has shown us.

If the combo of FP4+ and HC110 was intrinsically as bad as this then I suspect we'd have had a longer running thread than " Alaris Responds"

OP, let us know where you think you should go from here

pentaxuser

 

[timor]

I don't think there is point in looking for the developer or OP fault in this case of sand like grain. HC110 is a very capable developer and FP4 in it should never be that grainy. But I've seen it before, in my own darkroom. IMO OP got a roll of film which was badly mishandle somewhere in distribution chain and by that I mean film was left in way too warm conditions for too long. People's mistake or ignorance, even with reputable sellers.

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't think there is point in looking for the developer or OP fault in this case of sand like grain. HC110 is a very capable developer and FP4 in it should never be that grainy. But I've seen it before, in my own darkroom. IMO OP got a roll of film which was badly mishandle somewhere in distribution chain and by that I mean film was left in way too warm conditions for too long. People's mistake or ignorance, even with reputable sellers.

That's a highly unlikely explanation, it wouldn't account for the increased grain.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that it is a combination of over exposure and over development.

 

[pentaxuser]

I would suggest that it is a combination of over exposure and over development.

It isn't possible to say what the neg was exposed at until the OP comments but if we accept that he is correct in his statement of development time can anyone say if he has seriously overdeveloped to the extent of producing such grain?

Did the OP say if all his other negs have resulted in similar grain? He may have done but if he did I don't recall it

pentaxuser

 

[timor]

That's a highly unlikely explanation, it wouldn't account for the increased grain.

Ian

OK. Another proposal; why OP doesn't buy another roll of FP4, expose on anything right a way and develop right a way the same way like the bad one. And let see, if that is his fault or not.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

looks good to me.If you need less graingo MF

 

[Simon R Galley]

Ian is correct, poorly stored film could not manifest itself as an increase in 'grain' size.

99.9999% its exposure or process, more likely a mixture of both.

As always if you buy an ILFORD product... the poster can send it to us to have it checked out if he wishes, we will gladly do it.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

OK. Another proposal; why OP doesn't buy another roll of FP4, expose on anything right a way and develop right a way the same way like the bad one. And let see, if that is his fault or not.

If people did that and actually tried to find out what might have gone wrong rather than posting here right away most of this forum wouldn't exist!

 

[JW PHOTO]

Richard, very good point! I see a few questions here that I don't chime in on, because they seem self explanatory or usually somebody beats me to it anyway. If I think a question is dumb or a waste of my time I don't get involved in it, but I don't raise cane about it either. I just move on since this site is for everybody, new and old. JW

 

[alinnman]

I have been using FP4 and HC110 quite a lot lately and my impression is 9 minutes development in dilution B at 20C being too much. Maybe even way too much. It gives me overdeveloped negatives, despite the fact that 9 minutes is the Ilford recommendation :-| .

Ok my circumstances may differ, my thermometer may be off etc, but fwiw I develop at 7 - 7.5 minutes with gentle agitation and with rather strict check of temperature... In summertime my ambient temperature is quite high and I can see that Ilford recommendation for 24C is *6* minutes. I take that as a warning that temperature gradients are bad... keep your stuff cool ;-)