Well...not happy with my results right out of the gate. Unsharp and lots of grain.

[Michael Hiles]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Abandon monobath processing. This approach was developed for news photographers who needed speed and simplicity - and had no need for quality. Use something that is known to work - such as Tri-X in HC110. Or any Ilford film in the developer they recommend. Get your basic developing down to a known standard - then work on the scanning. Fix one thing at a time - or risk insanity.

[Jeff S]

Fix one thing at a time - or risk insanity.

+1

 

Good advIce for every step of the workflow.  Or, as one teacher used to say..."keep one foot on a rock..."

 

Jeff

[rpavich]

Abandon monobath processing. This approach was developed for news photographers who needed speed and simplicity - and had no need for quality. Use something that is known to work - such as Tri-X in HC110. Or any Ilford film in the developer they recommend. Get your basic developing down to a known standard - then work on the scanning. Fix one thing at a time - or risk insanity.

Lol...I hear you.

 

What about Adonol? Any problem there?

[NJH]

I think you will see a huge difference in quality if you shoot something like Tmax 400 or Acros outdoors in good light and develop to standard process in say D76/ID-11. Honestly I think a big reason why so many faster films have died off is because film is just not very good in low light compared to the amazing high ISO of modern digital cameras.

 

Here is a link to one of mine processed by a local lab in ID-11. The film is Acros with a yellow filter and the image is a fairly flat scan out of my Minolta 5400 at the the full 5400 dpi, I did some clean up on the image but didn't get round to playing with the tones in PS but I like the silvery look anyway.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97808778/weymouth/PrestonBeach_Final.jpg

 

As you can see its about 35 Mp on the dimensions, I am pretty confident I could make some pretty big prints from that image even though its not as sharp as those I have taken with better lenses e.g. Leica ones rather than CV.

[rpavich]

I think you will see a huge difference in quality if you shoot something like Tmax 400 or Acros outdoors in good light and develop to standard process in say D76/ID-11. Honestly I think a big reason why so many faster films have died off is because film is just not very good in low light compared to the amazing high ISO of modern digital cameras.

 

Here is a link to one of mine processed by a local lab in ID-11. The film is Acros with a yellow filter and the image is a fairly flat scan out of my Minolta 5400 at the the full 5400 dpi, I did some clean up on the image but didn't get round to playing with the tones in PS but I like the silvery look anyway.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97808778/weymouth/PrestonBeach_Final.jpg

 

As you can see its about 35 Mp on the dimensions, I am pretty confident I could make some pretty big prints from that image even though its not as sharp as those I have taken with better lenses e.g. Leica ones rather than CV.

Holy crap..that's amazing detail...even tiny objects are detailed.

 

I appreciate the comments by everyone, it appears that there were several things happening at once.

 

That's a mind blower.

[indergaard]

1. Develop in HC110 or D76, or maybe Microphen/DDX if you want sharper results.

2. Get a dedicated film scanner. Flatbed scanners are no good for 35mm film. Even the top of the line Epson V850 is crap for 35mm film. The only advantage flatbed scanners have over dedicated film scanners is that they can't scan the grain! So you will have less grain in your scans. The downside is that to get sharp results you have to artificially sharpen the scans in PS/LR, which rather results in digital sharpening noise! And you don't want that in your scans.

3. Get the film flat, flat, flat. Use film that dries flat. Tri-X is known to curl BADLY (my experience confirms this also). Ilford HP5+ dries COMPLETELY FLAT without any effort. This makes getting sharp scans MUCH easier. Tri-X and HP5+ are otherwise very similar, and so is the cost. A no brainer.

4. Expose for the shadows. Don't be afraid of over-exposing. Be afraid of under-exposing. Quite the opposite shooting technique of digital or slide film.

5. Use coffee filters to filter your stop and fix'er after use. Save yourself the headache of silver contamination on your negatives down the line.

6. Get some lint free microfiber cloths and clean isopropyl alcohol. Use this to wipe the negatives if you get dry spots from the drying process. Based on how hard water you have, you will have none or possibly lot's! This is the cheapest solution to fix it. You don't need anything special to fix this.

 

And remember, fast film (400+) can be downrated to ISO 200 or even 100 for finer grain and more latitude/dynamic range. It can also be pushed to 800/1600 easily in most cases.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BW films scans will always be more grainy that what the film truly is.  That's just a fact and you have to get over it.  The rendering of your scanned tri-x appears normal to me.

As for the sharpness, this does appear to be an issue.  It is either with your scan, your camera/lens, or you...

 

Some people over-sample negative and thereby gain noise. Noise should not be mistaken for grain.

[A miller]

Some people over-sample negative and thereby gain noise. Noise should not be mistaken for grain.

what does "over-sample" mean?

The digital grain to which I am referring is from simply scanning B&W negs using the auto settings.  I find the enhanced grain particularly acute with 35mm film.  And my observation is universal across all digitized B&W film that I see on this forum and elsewhere on the web...

[Michael Hiles]

What about Adonol? Any problem there?

Adanol is what used to be called Rodinal - it was marketed by Agfa for eons. The formula is 100+ years old and is still one of the best. It produces very sharp images (due to high accutance), but it tends to accentuate grain. This is quite noticeable with Tri-X - the images are lovely - very sharp but quite grainy.

 

This developer is terrific with slower films that are inherently low grain. I have used it to my very great satisfaction with Panatomic-X and Adox KB-14 (back when the mountains were still cooling).

 

Very many fine photographers settled on Tri-X in HC110 (it was a favourite of Ansel Adams and Fred Picker) - the results are smooth and sharp, and the tonal scale is long and beautiful. Tests show that it is best exposed for 200 ASA to provide best shadow detail.

[rpavich]

Adanol is what used to be called Rodinal - it was marketed by Agfa for eons. The formula is 100+ years old and is still one of the best. It produces very sharp images (due to high accutance), but it tends to accentuate grain. This is quite noticeable with Tri-X - the images are lovely - very sharp but quite grainy.

 

This developer is terrific with slower films that are inherently low grain. I have used it to my very great satisfaction with Panatomic-X and Adox KB-14 (back when the mountains were still cooling).

 

Very many fine photographers settled on Tri-X in HC110 (it was a favourite of Ansel Adams and Fred Picker) - the results are smooth and sharp, and the tonal scale is long and beautiful. Tests show that it is best exposed for 200 ASA to provide best shadow detail.

Got it. I'll try that instead.

[chrism]

And to close the circle, HC-110 is the developer in the monobath you used!

[Jeff S]

 

Very many fine photographers settled on Tri-X in HC110 (it was a favourite of Ansel Adams and Fred Picker) - the results are smooth and sharp, and the tonal scale is long and beautiful. Tests show that it is best exposed for 200 ASA to provide best shadow detail.

Worked for me....in print... for 20+ years.  Picker of course recommended doing film speed tests on each camera/lens combo, and that typically resulted in lower than 400 ASA.  Tri-X also changed over the years....not quite what it was.

 

Jeff

[rpavich]

1. Develop in HC110 or D76, or maybe Microphen/DDX if you want sharper results.

2. Get a dedicated film scanner. Flatbed scanners are no good for 35mm film. Even the top of the line Epson V850 is crap for 35mm film. The only advantage flatbed scanners have over dedicated film scanners is that they can't scan the grain! So you will have less grain in your scans. The downside is that to get sharp results you have to artificially sharpen the scans in PS/LR, which rather results in digital sharpening noise! And you don't want that in your scans.

3. Get the film flat, flat, flat. Use film that dries flat. Tri-X is known to curl BADLY (my experience confirms this also). Ilford HP5+ dries COMPLETELY FLAT without any effort. This makes getting sharp scans MUCH easier. Tri-X and HP5+ are otherwise very similar, and so is the cost. A no brainer.

4. Expose for the shadows. Don't be afraid of over-exposing. Be afraid of under-exposing. Quite the opposite shooting technique of digital or slide film.

5. Use coffee filters to filter your stop and fix'er after use. Save yourself the headache of silver contamination on your negatives down the line.

6. Get some lint free microfiber cloths and clean isopropyl alcohol. Use this to wipe the negatives if you get dry spots from the drying process. Based on how hard water you have, you will have none or possibly lot's! This is the cheapest solution to fix it. You don't need anything special to fix this.

 

And remember, fast film (400+) can be downrated to ISO 200 or even 100 for finer grain and more latitude/dynamic range. It can also be pushed to 800/1600 easily in most cases.

Thanks very much...lots of things to think about here.

[semi-ambivalent]

Got it. I'll try that instead.

There have been several incarnations of Rodinal since the late 1800s, not to mention the home-brew recipes out there. A history of that is where insanity lies . As mentioned, HC-110 is a really good place to begin.

s-a

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!

[chris_livsey]

Apologies to the OP if this is wandering too far from his interest.

 

 

2. Get a dedicated film scanner. Flatbed scanners are no good for 35mm film. Even the top of the line Epson V850 is crap for 35mm film. The only advantage flatbed scanners have over dedicated film scanners is that they can't scan the grain! So you will have less grain in your scans. The downside is that to get sharp results you have to artificially sharpen the scans in PS/LR, which rather results in digital sharpening noise! And you don't want that in your scans.

 

I am far from a scanning expert, I regard it as a necessary evil to web share, and its only other advantage is it produces viewable images much faster than my wet printing. Having said that I would value your opinion on these scans, which may illustrate your point here. Having accepted the V850 is the very spawn of the devil, this was using the, dust inducing nearly useless, holders at I think 24000 or maybe 32000, sharpened of course for Flickr posting and a very heavy crop of a 35mm frame.

 

Whilst this looks like grain I presume, from what you say, it is in fact sharpening artefacts. The film is the new Foma Retropan 320 which is fairly grainy.

 

 

 

Now this one was using the method explained in the Luminous landscape article on the V850, the wet scan holder, film held flat with museum glass @64000. Small amount of sharpening post scan applied. 

I presume this softer look is a result of less sharpening artefacts and the limitation of the scanner in resolving detail?

I have not attempted to match contrast, obviously.

Full frame the "softer" image is certainly more pleasing. I intend to wet print to see what occurs on return from a few days break, Scottish Highlands with rain forecast

 

[baci]

Wow. Loving this thread. I've recently gone back to film (in addition to digital) to re-establish skills I had many years ago. My reaction to the grain and definition was exactly the same as the OP. I tend towards available light shots so was using 400 film (Kodak and Ilford) and was a bit underwhelmed by the results. My primary issue was actually managing the film drying process without introducing dust and watermarks in to the process, but with some attention to detail and a careful process that's no longer an issue. Re grain etc, I'm now trying slower films, developed using Microphen. Better, but still apples and oranges compared to digital. Which is as it should be. Still not convinced my Plustek 8100 is delivering all it should. Some blotchy files being produced... The thing is when when I go through and put a batch of images in slideshow in Lightroom the digital images are beautiful and all, but the film images just hit me in the face with this amazing energy and dynamism. Definitely not as good technically, but they carry this unique sense of immediacy. So I continue to experiment and refine, and one day...

[rpavich]

This is going to sound crazy but I just printed a 4x6 print of the guy behind the monitor shot and it's actually SHARPER than digi prints using this same printer. it doesn't make sense but what I was fussing about on my screen actually didn't mean anything in print.

 

I know I have some work to do on my knowledge and workflow with film but this was a welcome surprise.

[pico]

I intend to wet print to see what occurs

 

Thank you for posting your results.

 

I would rather deal with the first scan rather than the wet scan for digital printing because the grain/noise might even-out for a print seen at normal viewing distance. What I see there is not just grain, but also noise (noise is white, grain is black) caused, IMHO, by scanning at high resolution and sharpening (good sharpening).  But you are the judge because you did the work so I defer. The second scan is unacceptable for sharpness. I tried a high-pass filter in overlay mode and it did not help, and neither did sharpening.

 

Wet print enlargements always degrades resolution. It's an optical truth. However, they also allow better tonal gradations.

 

Here is a side-by-side.

 

[rpavich]

I thought I'd update on this thread.

I bought a really nice scanner and that really helped a lot. The Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II.

 

The grain is still there but not the mushiness. In fact, I realized that now I prefer a bit of grain because the scan is so sharp and detailed that the grain looks sort of "sharp" or something.

 

At least now I know that it was a combination of my poor focusing skills, and the scan quality. The monobath just made things more grainy; that's all. Also I think mentally I have modified my expectations because now I'm not looking at digital images all of the time. I'm used to film now.

 

Thanks for all of the advice...I learned a great deal in these few weeks.

 

PS: Tri-X curls like a mo-fo and Kentmere 400 dries flat flat flat.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

 

PS: Tri-X curls like a mo-fo and Kentmere 400 dries flat flat flat.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/227465-tri-x-questionfrustration/

 

Jeff