What is causing grain?

[Ariston]

I am new to C-41 development and am having a hard time running down what is causing excessive grain in my negatives. Using a freshly mixed Arista liquid kit, I am getting so much grain for low ISO film. Even on Ektar, which is supposed to be finely grained, I am getting so much grain.

I follow the instructions perfectly, including temperatures. I know my exposures are ok, because I checked with other meters and bracketed, but I am still getting grain. The crazy thing is that Ektar I developed last month is grain-free, and I am not sure what I may have done differently. It was a different camera (an RB67 instead of the Autocord), but that should not make a difference.

The Arista kit is supposed to last a long time when not mixed, so I don't think it can be the month of time between the two since the new batch is freshly mixed, right?

Any guidance is appreciated. I tried lowering the development time and agitation without improved results.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
How are you detecting the grain - optically, or by scanning?
If by scanning, see if you van view the film optically with some magnification. You may find that what appears to be grain is actually a scanning artifact.

 

[Ariston]

Thank you Matt. I have a loupe on the way for that reason, but I have not changed any of the settings in my scanner from the prior photos with less grain, so I am guessing it is in the negative. We will see, though.

I am new to this, so I am trying to check every single thing. I tried an extended blix cycle, too. Hopefully it is the scan, because I don't know what else to try with the developer without someone's advice.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you Matt. I have a loupe on the way for that reason, but I have not changed any of the settings in my scanner from the prior photos with less grain, so I am guessing it is in the negative. We will see, though.

Scanner's and scanning software can be really bossy. In most cases they are doing all sorts of "automatic" things which change from negative to negative without your adjusting anything.
Compare the older Ektar negatives with the new ones visually.
A 50mm standard SLR lens off the camera often makes a great loupe.

 

[Ariston]

Ok, hopefully it is the scanner. I just tried to use a 50mm lens, but my eyes aren't good enought to see any, or else there is no grain. I'm not sure which yet. I will update once I can tell.

 

[MattKing]

One thing you can try is turning around the negative 180 degrees and scanning it again. If the appearance of the grain changes, that is a clue that you are dealing with scanning artifacts.
Also, try changing the scanning resolution up and then down to yield two more scans. See if that changes things.

 

[koraks]

Are you sure the Blix is OK? Excessive grain sounds like a potential lack of bleaching and/or fixing. How is the contrast, is it still normal for c41 negatives?
BTW, preferably use chemistry with separate bleach and fix. It lasts longer and I understand that blix will and ways result in higher retained silver with film, even if the Blix is fresh.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Agree with the above. Suggest investigating in this order:

1. Scanner software settings (not the scanner hardware itself)
2. Post processing choices
3. Exposure - heavily or overexposed negatives are harder to scan with consumer grade CCD scanners like the Epson V series. Can you post a mobile phone photo of the negative without inversion (native image) with film edge included?
4. Fixer potency, or blix potency, as the case May be.

 

[Ariston]

Thanks, Matt, I am going to turn the film around and try that.

Koraks, the blix was freshly mixed, but the chemicals were not brand new. It was my understanding that the chemicals have a long shelf-life if the "Parts A, B and C" are not mixed together yet. Let me know if that is wrong. Film I developed one month ago in freshly mixed blix had no grain - but I have only ever been able to accomplish that once.

Wilmar - any suggestions on what to check for the scanner settings? I have a V550, and I think the only thing checked is "Unsharp Mask", but I have tried it with that unchecked, too, with not luck. I do not mess with the histogram values during the scan. As far as exposure goes, I have bracketed frames and they all were grainy. I will go through your steps.

Thanks for help, all! Hopefully when my loupe arrives I will discover no grain. I am going to try and photograph a negative and post it...

 

[Ariston]

Here is a frame from my grain test. There is grain in the road and sky in the scan - but looking at the scanned image now, maybe it is noise and not grain.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for showing us the actual negative!
The exposure looks good, as does the developing - at least to the naked eye.
When I copy the image over to my photo editing programs, enlarge it and enhance the contrast, I don't see much sign of grain.

 

[Ariston]

I believe it is the scanner. I just re-scanned an image and now it has very little noise. I cannot figure out how to avoid it though, because now I can't re-create the problem. The noise is exponentially worse on 35mm film since it is so much smaller. I'm going to keep working at it...

 

[koraks]

Yes,the negative looks fine, and if your blix was mixed just before processing it should be OK. Indeed, the separate components should have a shelf life of quite a few years.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Nice image.

Lots of grain in the sky, as you mentioned. It looks like the blue channel is clipped, not unusual in my experience. This is upon examination in Ps with ColorPerfect plugin.

What scanner software are you using? I use Epson Scan. Turn off all checkboxes, and pull the exposure sliders to 0 and 255 for all channels, and change gamma to 1.0. Scan at maximum resolution. Then see what you come up with. The goal is to remove the scanning software as much as possible from the process. Some people refer to it as a "raw" scan.

There is currently a scanner test in process at the large format site. It compares the Epson V-series against high end flatbeds and drum scanners. Additionally, read Ken Lee's scanning tutorial at: http://www.kennethleegallery.com/html/scanning/index.php

 

[Ariston]

Thanks for the input Wilmarco. I'm not sure what you mean by blue channel clipping. I thought clipping was the digital version of blowing out exposure (or lost info in the shadows).

I will try your suggestion with the scanner. I think that is where most of my issues are coming from.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Others can probably explain it better. Have a look at the histograms in the scanning or post processing software. Blue is the only channel that piles up on the vertical axis. Furthermore, look at the white stripes on the road, and the sky on the right edge of the frame. There is a lot of yellow there, which means there is not enough blue. Try adjusting blue to achieve a neutral road stripe, or to achieve a non-yellow sky. With mild, global adjustments, it is difficult to do. The image posted in this thread seems downsampled, so that is having an effect on what I am seeing. Have you looked at the negative with a loupe?

 

[Ariston]

Oh ok, I think I understand. You are saying the blue is blown out on the film? It is just photographed with an iPhone on a light table, so the iPhone may have altered the colors in the negative (the colors kept shifting on the iphone screen when I tried to shoot it)... but probably not. It was a very grayish-blue day and there was strong reflection of the overcast sky on the wet road. I suppose a warming filter might be in order, but I wasn't trying to hide the drear.

I'm not going to do any post-processing to the image. It is disposable. I am mostly trying to hone my development skills, and I have little experience with that. You guys have all been tremendously helpful, though. I think everyone is right in pointing to my scan settings. I also have a loupe on the way from Amazon so I can look at the film directly.

Thanks for all the help. I'm sure I will need more.

 

[koraks]

The negative looks fine. Deeply analyzing the histogram of an iPhone capture doesn't make sense. Going by the density of the edge data compared to the sky, the sky is exposed and developed nicely and should most likely print just fine on RA4, and if it does that, it can also be scanned alright.

If you're using an Epson scanner, try making a prescan and adjust the curve sliders so that they just contain the entire histogram of the image and then do the final scan. This way you ensure that you capture all color information in the final scan.

 

[BMbikerider]

I use a Nikon scanner with 35mm which is gives a result as sharp as anything you could wish for and that includes the grain! I have partially reduced this - noticeably so by turning off the automatic sharpening tool. That is quite an aggresive tool and even with it off the images are still sharp but the grain isn't nearly so bad. Any sharpening that is required I do it selectively in photoshop. Plain areas such as sky with no sharp edges don't need sharpening, they can be out of focus and still look fine.

 

[MattKing]

I use a Nikon scanner with 35mm which is gives a result as sharp as anything you could wish for and that includes the grain! I have partially reduced this - noticeably so by turning off the automatic sharpening tool. That is quite an aggresive tool and even with it off the images are still sharp but the grain isn't nearly so bad. Any sharpening that is required I do it selectively in photoshop. Plain areas such as sky with no sharp edges don't need sharpening, they can be out of focus and still look fine.

+1 - I should have noticed this and mentioned it earlier.

 

[Ariston]

Upon more testing, I think the "unsharp mask" tool in Epson's scanning software is the main offender. I thought I had already eliminated that as the problem, but I guess not. I'm glad to know it is not my developing, because I would have a hard time figuring that out. I need to go back and re-scan some of my earlier negatives that had a lot of scan noise that I mistook for excessive grain. Thanks to everyone for your help.

 

[dmr]

I believe it is the scanner. I just re-scanned an image and now it has very little noise. I cannot figure out how to avoid it though, because now I can't re-create the problem. The noise is exponentially worse on 35mm film since it is so much smaller. I'm going to keep working at it...

I learned the hard way that (at least in my case) scanning at a lower resolution can emphasize the apparent grain. It seems to be worse on some films. I've gotten in the habit of scanning at maximum resolution even if I don't plan to make a large print from the frame.

 

[cowanw]

Now that the main discussion has happened, may I ask a question. I thought that c-41 colour negatives did not have grain, being dye clouds. My experience with XP-2 would lead me that way. Are self developed films different?

 

[Ariston]

I am not sure of the terms myself, and I am probably the wrong one to answer since I thought digital noise from the scanner was grain. To my eyes grain/clouds/noise are all very similar, regardless of the technical term.

 

[koraks]

There are distinct technical differences between grain, dye clouds and digital noise, but they sort of look similar. But yeah, self developed c41 has dye clouds, not grain (unless the bleach and/or fix wasn't to completion).