When would you expect increased grain?

MattKing said:

That looks fairly grainy, but Forte film is both quite old, and quite old technology, so grain isn't surprising.
T-Max 1 +4 is a fairly energetic developer, so it would be unlikely to minimize that grain.

Click to expand...

Rudeofus said:

T-Max 1+9 will give better sharpness, but more grain. If you want finer grain, get modern film like Ilford Delta 100, Fuji Acros 100 or Kodak TMAX 100.

Click to expand...

Craig75 said:

A3 print with that grain from expired film (depending on storage) is probably about right for me. Looks cool anyway. I like the shot and the grain.

Long time since ive scanned so my knowledge will be hokey but if you are having to decent sized contrast adjustments in yr digital workflow that could also be accentuating grain? Could try developing longer and less global contrast control in digital vs shorter development and more global contrast control in digital and see which produces more grain / noise

Click to expand...

George Collier said:

It is a little grainy, but smooth and crisp. I like it. Looks like B&W film.

Click to expand...

NB23 said:

It’s mostly from your scanning.

Click to expand...

cerber0s said:

Thank you! Next time I order supplies I'll include some different films.



Thanks, yeah I notice that experimenting with contrast and exposure while converting the negatives will bring out more or less grain, especially in the shadow areas where detail is lost.



Thanks. Yeah, I like the film actually. I've tried printing an A4 (ink printer) and it looks good. At that size it appears to have pretty good detail.



Na, that grain is almost all from the negatives. With those settings the photos (scans) are virtually noise free in themselves.

Click to expand...

cerber0s said:

Thank you! Next time I order supplies I'll include some different films.



Thanks, yeah I notice that experimenting with contrast and exposure while converting the negatives will bring out more or less grain, especially in the shadow areas where detail is lost.



Thanks. Yeah, I like the film actually. I've tried printing an A4 (ink printer) and it looks good. At that size it appears to have pretty good detail.



Na, that grain is almost all from the negatives. With those settings the photos (scans) are virtually noise free in themselves.

Click to expand...

cerber0s said:

I keep shooting and practicing on the 12 year old bulk film and I think my negatives come out very grainy. As far as i know the Bulk film is Forte 100. Now I don't know if this is because I do something wrong when developing it, if it's just because it's old or if my expectations are off.

I scan these using my digital camera and a macro lens so they come out at around 13 megapixels, which would make a pretty decent A3 sized print. Maybe the grain is to be expected at this size with 35mm film?

These came out a bit under exposed as I thought digital and exposed for the highlights rather than the shadows, or an average. Possibly also a little bit under developed. The grain is there regardless though.

They are developed in Kodak Tmax 1+4 for 5 minutes @ 20 degrees C.

If I do something wrong in the developing process, what should I do to fix it?

The photo is 40% of its original size due to size limitations.

View attachment 260408

Click to expand...

cerber0s said:

Na, that grain is almost all from the negatives. With those settings the photos (scans) are virtually noise free in themselves.

Click to expand...

NB23 said:

Scanning produces its own grain. Compare your image with a wet print of the same negative and you will see by yourself.

But still, if you want smaller grain, change developer and film. Tmx100 is excellent in this regard, and combined with d76 you will have a clean digital look.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

It isn't necessarily noise.
Grain aliasing - the interaction between the grain and the scanning pattern - looks a lot like grain, but isn't.
Try scanning again with the film turned 180 degrees to see if the pattern stays unchanged or moves.

Click to expand...

cerber0s said:

Th negative isn't scanned using a scanner, I used the term freely it was put on a light table and photographed using a digital camera and a macro lens. The digital camera also produces noise but at the settings I used it's nowhere near this much, it also looks very different from this.

Aliasing is interesting. Without knowing for certain I would guess that the noise produced by a sensor would be more random than that from a scanner?

I will try wet prints as soon as I get the chance. Right now my enlarger sits on top of the spare bed but the safe light, trays and all the other stuff is still temporarily lost in storage. It (enlarger) does project a very nice negative on the wall though

An A4 wet print would still be significantly smaller than the digital file here. If I would print this on a regular photo printer I think I would have toblook pretty close to see the grain but I can't verify that since I'm all out of ink...

Click to expand...

NB23 said:

Yes I understood a long time ago. Your “scanning” introduces grain. Not hard to understand really. And as you say, the printed image will be smaller therefore the grain will get lost.

Still, if you want smaller grain, go with tmx100.

Click to expand...

MattKing said:

Grain aliasing isn't digital noise.
Digital noise is something that originates at the sensor.
Grain aliasing is a result of the interaction between the patterns in the Bayer array and the patterns in the film grain.

Click to expand...

cerber0s said:

A case of aliasing?

Click to expand...

Craig75 said:

What image software are you using? I know some do better than other with fuji raws. (Im assuming its x-trans). Or are they straight out of camera jpegs?

Click to expand...