When would you expect increased grain?

[cerber0s]

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.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[cerber0s]

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.

Excellent, thank you!

 

[cerber0s]

A follow up question. Would T-Max 1+9 produce less, or smoother grain? Or no difference?

 

[Rudeofus]

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.

 

[Craig75]

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

 

[George Collier]

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

 

[NB23]

It’s mostly from your scanning.

 

[cerber0s]

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

It’s mostly from your scanning.

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

 

[NB23]

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.

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.

 

[bluechromis]

It would be an interesting comparison for you to develop a film that is similar to yours, maybe Ilford FP4. The image is not cropped? It does seem like the grain is bit much for a 100 speed film especially since you said you under-developed it. It might be a thought to share a picture of the negative. But I don't dislike the grain.

 

[Craig75]

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.

Im sure you will have done this but if not it might be worth shooting at 100 50 25 and 12 to see what happens. Id expect the further off the film toe you are the less stress you are putting on the file by using less dramatic shadow correction curves. Conversely the more exposure could lead to more grain in highlights. There might be a sweet spot for a standard contrast shot with the film. You could even use it for effects. I do like a grainy burnt in stormy sky for instance.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

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

I don’t think is necessarily bad. From my experience, several factors cause more grain. The developer, how long the film is wet when it’s processed and how it’s printed or scanned. Prints made with Focomat enlargers are grainer. When scanning, unsharp masks can also enhance grain.

 

[MattKing]

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

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.

 

[Rudeofus]

If film is underdeveloped, significant image matter is at a part of the characteristic curve with very low contrast. when digital post then restores original contrast, scanner noise is strongly amplified.

 

[cerber0s]

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.

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.

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...

 

[NB23]

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.

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...

 

[MattKing]

The bayer array based sensor in your camera can also lead to grain aliasing.

 

[cerber0s]

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.

Sorry, I didn't know if I got that through

No it's not hard to understand, my point was that the digital camera doesn't produce this amoumt of noise at these settings. I'd expect this amount at around 12800 ISO and by then it looks completely different, more elongated.

It doesn't really matter though, I was concerned that I did something wrong when developing the film but it sounds like it's either to be expected or it's introduced when I digitize them.

Thank you all!

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[cerber0s]

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.

Yeah I got that, my digital camera doesn't have a sensor with a Bayer array. Whether mine is better or worse when it comes to aliasing I don't know.

There were however two negatives from the lot that came out with the grain structure looking really weird, I'll post one later for reference. It'd be intersting to digitize it again and rotate it as you suggested.

 

[cerber0s]

This is the one with the weird grain structure @MattKing . It's under exposed which does't help but look at the grain, it almost looks like there are swirls in it. A case of aliasing?

 

[MattKing]

A case of aliasing?

Might be.
When negatives are underexposed, sensors scanning or photographing them give results that look strange once they are processed.

 

[Craig75]

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?

 

[cerber0s]

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?

I use Capture One, it's supposed to be the one that is best at handling Fuji raw's as far as I'm aware.