Normal grain or not?

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

This is only the second roll I shot with the 'new to me' M2/Summicron 40 combination.

Film used is Ilford HP5 Plus exposed at 400 ASA, and developed and scanned at about 4Mp size by a photo shop in Antwerp.

 

The film looks properly exposed to me, certainly for the second photo in the forest.

I would have been very pleased with the results if there was not such a heavy grain on the scans.

The uploads are not processed in any way, just resized. 1 and 3 are the full size pics and 2 and 4 are 100% crops of the scans.

 

I do not think this is normal grain for HP5, or is it?

 

Any advice is appreciated,

Dirk

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Xmas]

Hi

 

Difficult to say but it is simpler to process & scan yourself, and always temper the rinses water between dev and fix, fix solution and wash water, to avoid any risk of reticulation.

 

Noel

[tobey bilek]

Scanned film has much more Grain/noise than digital. The higher quality the scan, the more grain you get. Grain is a function of development time and emulsion structure. There is no getting around it.

 

Tri X at 200 and developed minus 20% is absolutely beautiful compared to normal ISO and development time. I use D76, and 80% of 7.5 min at 68. You do the math.

 

T Max 100 is great, but still has grain. Shoot it at 50 and 80% again. Best you an do.

 

You can resort to noiseware or other noise reduction programs. Best if you mask off edges in Photoshop first to keep the photo sharp. New Kodak Portra films are really nice. Convert to B&W with photoshop. You can apply filters after the fact, any color, any strength you desire. More than you can carry or afford to buy.

 

Nik silver effects pro is good conversion software.

 

Basically B&W film is made to be optically printed with an enlarger and that is where it shines.

[Allen in Montreal]

......

 

Basically B&W film is made to be optically printed with an enlarger and that is where it shines.

 

In 35mm, generally I would agree,

the one exception I have found is HP5 in Pyro, (I use PMK).

I wet scan with an old Linotype Hell Topaz in LAB and it scans the pyro negs very well.

[andybarton]

You don't know what the lab used to develop your film, or for how long, etc.

 

Further, you don't know whether they just scanned the film through their normal scanner settings, or if they switched off any digital ICE. These look a bit like silver film that's been scanned with ICE on. It must be turned off when scanning traditional b&w films.

 

It could also have over sharpened the scans - too much sharpening highlights the grain on b&w film.

[andym911]

with careful development you should be getting less grain and smoother tones than what is posted here....those negs are not well processed or scanned IMO.

 

Andy

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Further, you don't know whether they just scanned the film through their normal scanner settings, or if they switched off any digital ICE. These look a bit like silver film that's been scanned with ICE on. It must be turned off when scanning traditional b&w films.

 

It could also have over sharpened the scans - too much sharpening highlights the grain on b&w film.

 

Thanks Andy. This gives me hope. I think you are on to something here. I was surprised that they charged only 10€ i.s.o. the 15€ their list price for develop & scan. When I asked why, they said that when the scanning does not require much hand work, their lab guys sometimes reduce the price.

 

In this case, I think they may have noticed after the fact that this was not the best they can do. So to keep me happy they reduced the price maybe...

 

Do you think it makes sense to ask them for a rescan?

 

Thanks,

Dirk

[andybarton]

Wouldnt do any harm. Ask them to make sure ICE is off and they apply no sharpening.

[aesop]

...would be instructive to see some prints, even if just for reference.

[dpitt]

Thanks to both Andy's and aesop for their input.

I will ask them to do a rescan and make sure that ICE is off this time.

[adan]

I will say that I found HP5 specifically to be the most scanner-unfriendly emulsion I ever tried (had no issues with it for traditional enlarging, though). And that HP5 in Rodinal was like trying scan sandpaper - very much like your first overall image: flat, gray, and grainy beyond belief. I quickly switched to Delta 400.

 

I would also say that with any B&W-silver film, exposure and development (and how the negs looked) was different from what was "right" for darkroom printing. I usually underexposed 1/2 stop and underdeveloped 10% once a scanner became my "enlarger."

 

But it still won't hurt to ask for a re-scan - and find out what developer and technique your lab uses.

[Don'tknowmuch]

The main thing is not to lose heart; B+W film is just so rewarding. The images here look, as everyone says, as if they're rather over-developed to me, and certainly unsympathetically treated at some point in the process.

I wanted to put in a good word for HP5, however, which is one of my my favourite films.

I develop it in neat Perceptol having exposed at 200asa and grain is no problem.

Because I have it to hand here's a full-frame HP5|Perceptol image:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

And here's a small detail to show the grain over a variety of tones:

 

Unfortunately the dumbing down necessary for showing it on the web here doesn't really show the image properly, but I can assure you that I often print 35mm HP5 negs at A3+ with no apparent grain to be seen. Other films are, of course, equally valid, but I grew up with HP5 and FP4 and have become attached to them. I have tried Delta 400 in DD-X, and that was very good too, as are, no doubt, many other films. I think you've had the sort of experience that perhaps could encourage you to develop and scan your own films. If each film is costing you 10E to develop and scan you'd soon get back the cost of an *bay tank, some chemicals and a basically ok Epson flatbed scanner. Plus you'd have a lot of fun. And it would be better. And your M2/Summicron would be doing great things!

Jim.

[nibbler]

The issue here seems to be the scan. Even if incorrectly developed the film would not develop these types of hexagon shapes. Have it rescanned at a better shop and you should see the type of uniform density that you expect from this film.

 

Note, however, that if your ultimate aim is to produce paper images then scanning is not the best way of achieving this. Just print directly from the negative.

 

Oh, and Don'tknowmuch is right. Just develop it yourself, it is easy and even decent shops these days are unfamiliar with film.

[dpitt]

I think you've had the sort of experience that perhaps could encourage you to develop and scan your own films. If each film is costing you 10E to develop and scan you'd soon get back the cost of an *bay tank' date=' some chemicals and a basically ok Epson flatbed scanner. Plus you'd have a lot of fun. And it would be better. And your M2/Summicron would be doing great things!

Jim.[/quote']

Thank you for the example pics of HP5. They look great on the forum. It would be nice if I get half that experience from this film. The advice for developing my own film makes sense and is certainly the way to go. Some 25 years ago, me and my brother bought HP5 on 30m reels and developed and printed in our own darkroom, so I have some experience in a darkroom.

I experimented a bit with scanning in the mid 90s but sort of gave in to the convenience of digital DSLRS for over ten years now.

 

This is still just an experiment to me. My main camera is a Digilux 2, my first Leica. Still, I wanted to try out a proper RF. Because a second hand M8 is too expensive for me to buy as an experiment, I decided to go for a M2 or M3 and see how a RF feels like. The initial plan was to start acquiring a lens or two and sell on the M2 as soon as I find an M8 that will fit my budget.

 

Surprise, surprise... It looks like I am beginning to like shooting analog again.

My M2 badly needs a CLA, 1/1000 does not work and one or two frames in each roll have been ruined because it does not always spool correctly. Nevertheless, I am hooked to the RF experience and maybe even analog photography.

A full darkroom is not possible for me because I do not have the room for it. Developing my own film is an option. The main thing holding me back is the time involved.

 

The plan was to test the experience with a few rolls scanned by a lab. Then decide if it is worth investing time and money to do it myself. The problem is that good labs are harder to find these days than I thought. This is the second shop I tried.

It should be one of the best in Antwerp. Next tuesday, I will go back and ask for a rescan.

 

I am still on the fence here wether to take the money needed to scan and develop myself and invest in a second hand M8 right away, rather than experiment with analog for a while and then probably still want a digital RF for the convenience. I don't think I am ready to switch back from digital to analog like I saw some users on this forum did.

[tgray]

Minilab style scanners can really accentuate grain in my experience, as can not scanning at the scanners best resolution. I find that grain typically looks better on my Coolscan at 4000dpi than whatever I get from minilab scans.

 

I would imagine drum scans would look even better.

[Allen in Montreal]

......

I wanted to put in a good word for HP5' date=' however, which is one of my my favourite films.......

 

Unfortunately the dumbing down necessary for showing it on the web here doesn't really show the image properly.......

Jim.[/quote']

 

Jim,

 

I was about to post an HP5 neg too, thanks for beating me to the punch!

By the time you turn it down to 72dpi at 8 inches or so, everything looks does look bad. But not as badly as the service given provided to Dirk.

 

I have never tried perceptol with HP5, but it sure seems to do well in PMK.

 

Nice pic by the way!

 

Dirk,

 

The cost to get in the game is so low these days, you can break even on home processing and scanning in no time. You will have a better level of work than "service buro provided" and it will be fun a long the way.

 

With a changing bag, you don't even need a darkroom if you are only going to scan your film. The entire kit can be stored in one large storage bin and stuffed under a bed or in a closet etc.

[noah_addis]

Black and white film can be scanned beautifully, however I do think your problem here is with the scans.

 

They look like they were sharpened too much. And while you can turn off the sharpening on minilab scanners, most operators don't know how or don't want to be bothered even if you ask.

 

It's not true that higher quality scans show more grain, or at least it's a gross oversimplification. Bad, low-res or out of focus scans won't show a lot of grain (or image detail). A really good scan will be done to maximize detail while minimizing or at least not overemphasizing grain.

 

On a drum scanner you can vary the aperture to control grain. I've found I can scan at a certain aperture and produce prints very close to optical prints in terms of sharpness and grain structure. Or I can open up a bit for less grain and slightly less sharpness, or close down a bit and get more sharpness with slightly empasized grain.

 

With ccd scanners, this isn't an option. To make things worse, the pixels on the CCD are very small, sometimes similar in size or smaller than the film grain, which can cause grain aliasing. With the Nikon scanners I've used, I found the best bet was to scan at the highest resolution (often 4000dpi). This does emphasize grain somewhat but the results are very sharp and print very well.

 

Some people swear they can be good, but for me minilab scans are only good for proofing or web use or maybe small prints from medium-format negs.

[adan]

Technically, Noah, pixels smaller than the grain size will REDUCE "grain aliasing" - but they DO have to be at least 2x smaller - Nyquist's limit and all that. As you say, pixels very close to the same size as the grain size or spacing are the worst-case.

[dpitt]

And the quest continues...

 

I was in the shop today. At first, all they checked was the resolution of the scans and that is of course exactly what I ordered . And that the grain must be normal for this film.

 

After insisting that this is not a normal grain for HP5 400, the scanner operator was so kind to come and have a look. He insisted there could not be something wrong with the settings of his 'high end' scanner and even prooved it by scanning one strip again... Of course this produced exactly the same result.

 

Then, when he saw that I did not accept the easy answer, he admitted that he thought my film was exposed at 3200 ASA when he first saw it. So it seems like at least part of the problem is the film processing, which they do not in house. He even advised me NOT to use their film lab anymore

 

So it seems that about that an old and respectable shop like Grobet in Antwerp is not capable anymore to deliver quality processing. This is even more amazing if you know that they still stock a room full of analog chemicals, paper and accessories for a darkroom The operator was so kind to point me to a professional lab that still invests in analog processing. I checked it out on the web and it seems that their service is even cheaper.

 

Now, I will certainly try this shop Schelfhout in Antwerp. If any of you have experience with it, let me know.

 

In the mean while I started a DIY project on my own. I dusted off a 15 year old Minolta Dimage Dual scanner,I have lying around (SCSI, 2400 dpi, no ICE). Then found out that there is no driver available for anything younger than OS9 or Win NT.

 

After some (read several hours ) of hardware and software installs, my 10 year old Power Mac G4 was up and running again on a contemporary OS 9.2 system, Photoshop 6.0 and . It feels like computer archeology . The first results of the Minolta are now slowly filling the hard disk, and they look promissing.

 

My own scans have less contrast, and it seems that by carefully turning up contrast and other parameters in Aperture, they are more usable than the scans posted here.

Some quick comparisons with an other HP5 film showed that there is definately more grain than usual, so something went wrong while processing it for sure.

 

When I have some scans look reasonable, I will post them here.

 

Thanks for your support,

Dirk

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[fotohuis]

So it seems that about that an old and respectable shop like Grobet in Antwerp is not capable anymore to deliver quality processing

 

Now I know why so many Belgium customers are putting B&W film to Fotohuis in the Netherlands

 

Most labs are using one type developer for all their B&W films.

I am using 4 different type depending on E.I. and format:

CG-512/RLS, Rodinal/R09 one shot, AM74/RHS, HC-110.

 

HP5+ when used on E.I. 400 is not a fine grain type of film but like Tri-X or Neopan 400 not bad at all. Try to compare it with Fomapan 400 which gives more grain. But when you want fine grain expose on E.I. 200 and put it in an Ultra Fine Grain developer like W665, Perceptol, CG-512/RLS.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!