How to reduce grain and contrast in developing (never thought I'd ask that)

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but with scanned film using  grain aliasing by enhancing it gets rather ugly. Scanning technique comes first.

[PaulJohn]

Well the grain either isn't sharp (developer/film combination), hasn't been scanned well, or the image hasn't been sharpened sufficiently. If the grain was sharper, and I'd try sharpening the image first, it would make a wonderfully dramatic picture with more contrast (to define the grain). But I think the last thing this type of image needs is less grain because you will never get fine detail with 400 ISO 35mm film, so be bold, make it graphic and dramatic, use the grain don't hide it.

 

 

Edit: I have just tried sharpening the picture and the grain does become less mushy, so try some sharpening (but never during scanning). In fact adding more grain in Silver Efex transforms it into another sphere.

 

Steve

 

An interesting take. I do like grain but I think the grain on this particular image is too pronounced. Too contrasty.

 

As you have suggested I have adjusted my scanning and found better settings. Once scanned I have found you can't play with the files like digital so I need to relearn my workflow to work more closely with my scanner.

 

My new improved scan:

 

 

Old one for easier comparison:

 

 

 

Thanks for the advice

Paul

[250swb]

Just looks darker to me, the grain is still mushy (accepting it is just a small JPEG I'm looking at). You have an image that is OK, you need to discover what is within the image that takes it beyond being a simple record. Actually in terms of processing I like the first better, it has more separation between the tones with less dull mid-grey. That is the path to go even further down because when grain works for you it is because of it's graphic nature, and in 35mm that is nearly all a fast film has going for it. Look at the grainy B&W work of William Klein and Daido Moriyama, see how they don't try to replicate smooth tones and natural look with a grainy image. This is the fundamental nature of film and is what people mean by the character of film, fast film has one character embedded within it, fine grain slow film has another, it's very, very, hard to turn that on it's head.

 

 

Steve

[fotohuis]

You can take an Ultra Fine Grain type developer: Perceptol, Microdol-X, W665, CG-512/Rollei Low Speed, Harvey's 777 to suppress the grain however you will loose 1 F stop on film speed.

Printing via an enlarger and then scanning the (positive) photo is then the best, cheap and easy way to go.

[fotohuis]

https://flic.kr/p/BpwZL6

 

 

Rollei RPX-400 in ATM-W a new Agfa Atomal type fine grain developer even without noticeable speed loss. A new developer from the photo chemist Klaus Wehner from Paderborn, Germany.

Like Xtol or Ilfosol-3 (even finer grained)  but remarkable keeping qualities. This film (E.I. 400) is developed in 15ml(A)+ 15ml( + 270ml water in rotary in the 2523 tank in a Jobo CPA-2 with elevator: 20' at 22C 50 RPM (F-position on the CPA-2).

V500 scan (Epson) from Fomaspeed Variant 311 print.

[250swb]

None of these developer combinations offer the photographer a free lunch. Use the wrong film on the wrong day and you have to learn to live with the consequences, not try to fudge the issue and plan to do the same thing all over again with a half baked rescue plan.

 

Bringing out the language or character of film is to find a few film and developer combinations that the photographer likes and thinks will best represent their view of the world. If they like fine grain they should be using a fine grain film, not try to turn a grainy film into a fine grain film, it can only ever work up-to-a-point because there will be other downsides besides reducing grain, such as acutance etc. To put it another way, you shouldn't swot up on some common Italian phrases in preparation for a trip to Japan, understand where you are going before setting off.

 

 

Steve

[fotohuis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The most easy way to suppress grain and have a large tonal range is a larger negative format. Apart from my Leica M7 I have a C.V. Bessa III 667 and in 6x7cm roll film format this camera is on all points in a technical way superior of the M7. Although the weight is about the same (1000g) and the system as R.F. too it has the limitation to have one lens F/3,5-80mm only. In this way the M7 can be equipped in my small photo bag with M lenses from 15mm-75mm. For W.A. I have the C.V. zoom V.F. 15mm-35mm very handy on the M7.

When doing larger formats in enlarging till 40x50cm I am using a Fuji Acros 100, Fomapan 200 (E.I. 100) or Efke 25 film in the M7. For a 24x36mm negative and resolution approx. 170lp/mm for the Acros and Efke 25 which can be handled by the Leica glass too it is not any problem.

Also in an ultra fine grain type developer (W665) the FP200 is not bad at all: See example.

 

[fotohuis]

Efke 25 (135-36) in Beutler 1+1+10 (FX-1 is about the same, G. Crawley added a trace of Potassiumiodide) also a very good combination for this single layer type film. Very sad the manufacturer (Fotokemika) stopped in 2012). M7+Elmarit 28mm.

 

[fotohuis]

M7+Summarit 75mm. Acros 100 E.I. 80 in R09/Rodinal.

 

[PaulJohn]

Just looks darker to me, the grain is still mushy (accepting it is just a small JPEG I'm looking at). You have an image that is OK, you need to discover what is within the image that takes it beyond being a simple record. Actually in terms of processing I like the first better, it has more separation between the tones with less dull mid-grey. That is the path to go even further down because when grain works for you it is because of it's graphic nature, and in 35mm that is nearly all a fast film has going for it. Look at the grainy B&W work of William Klein and Daido Moriyama, see how they don't try to replicate smooth tones and natural look with a grainy image. This is the fundamental nature of film and is what people mean by the character of film, fast film has one character embedded within it, fine grain slow film has another, it's very, very, hard to turn that on it's head.

 

 

Steve

I am not sure what you mean by mushy.

 

Sometimes the grain in the sky on my 400tx photos show as different tones of grey and sometimes as black specs on white. I like them both for different applications. I just want to know how to control these differences. I have found HP5+ more grainy than 400TX but occasionally the grain on 400TX really flares up like a bad rash when I wanted the more subtle grains it usually produces.

 

The 'right' amount of grain is down to personal preference in my opinion.

 

Paul

[PaulJohn]

Just looks darker to me.

 

Can you see that the darker photo actually has lighter grain. IMO this is much more pleasing. The interesting thing I have discovered is that it is the scanning not the developing that has yielded these differences. The one that I dislike was auto exposed by the scanner. I have lightened my preferred image to show the grain differences better.

 

Image lightened in LR:

 

 

Image auto exposed by scanner:

 

 

Does this help the comparison?

[PaulJohn]

Look at the grainy B&W work of William Klein and Daido Moriyama, see how they don't try to replicate smooth tones and natural look with a grainy image. This is the fundamental nature of film and is what people mean by the character of film, fast film has one character embedded within it, fine grain slow film has another, it's very, very, hard to turn that on it's head.

 

I do like this look for street photography but I think I would need to push 400TX (or even better HP5+) to 1600 to achieve it intentionally. I see 400TX (unpushed) as a moderate grain film. It was my bad processing that made the grain too contrasty / gritty.

[PaulJohn]

M7+Summarit 75mm. Acros 100 E.I. 80 in R09/Rodinal.

 

 

Lovely photo. I think this is similar to Ilford XP2 400 but that is C41 processing.

[fotohuis]

XP2 Super is a very soft contrast film. To have a little bit more contrast you have to expose on E.I. 200-250 and then a regular C-41 development. However this monochrome type film has excellent scan qualities.

[rpavich]

...That is the path to go even further down because when grain works for you it is because of it's graphic nature, and in 35mm that is nearly all a fast film has going for it. Look at the grainy B&W work of William Klein and Daido Moriyama, see how they don't try to replicate smooth tones and natural look with a grainy image. This is the fundamental nature of film and is what people mean by the character of film, fast film has one character embedded within it, fine grain slow film has another, it's very, very, hard to turn that on it's head.

 

 

Steve

I know that most of this wasn't directed at me but upon reflection, this is something that I need to keep in mind.

[250swb]

 

Can you see that the darker photo actually has lighter grain. IMO this is much more pleasing. The interesting thing I have discovered is that it is the scanning not the developing that has yielded these differences. The one that I dislike was auto exposed by the scanner. I have lightened my preferred image to show the grain differences better.

 

 

 

You are going out of your way to confuse people, the new improved image is now as light as the previous 'out of scanner image', but at least it is lighter and not as dull as the first 'improved image'

 

I'm looking at the overall image, not the grain. Stand back, take another look, stop pixel peeping, pretend you are in a gallery. The grain is secondary if one image is better than another anyway. So yes, the new improved image is the better version, but because it is lighter, not because the grain is better, that is a small bonus.

 

 

Steve

[250swb]

M7+Summarit 75mm. Acros 100 E.I. 80 in R09/Rodinal.

 

 

This example sums up my feeling for 35mm slow speed film and how it is often a waste of time. Yes there is a wide tonal range, yes it is fine grain, but there are no nuances in the tones, there is no space for nuance on a 35mm negative, the skin of the couple looks like they have been dipped in wax. A medium format camera would have the film surface area and enlargement potential to bring out the nuances of skin tone. 35mm is about the power of the image, not subtlety, use a medium format camera if you need both power and subtlety.

 

 

Steve

[NJH]

Not to speak for Steve but like he was saying I like the first of your 3 images in the gallery the most, with a bit more micro contrast to punch it up a bit more it could look pretty dramatic. Try unsharp mask on it with fairly large radius of several pixels. The grain certainly doesn't hurt it, honestly though I think ones eyes change a bit the more you get used to looking at film images and forget about the digital stuff.

[PaulJohn]

Not to speak for Steve but like he was saying I like the first of your 3 images in the gallery the most, with a bit more micro contrast to punch it up a bit more it could look pretty dramatic. Try unsharp mask on it with fairly large radius of several pixels. The grain certainly doesn't hurt it, honestly though I think ones eyes change a bit the more you get used to looking at film images and forget about the digital stuff.

 

 

I have more experience on film than on digital although it is only recently I have developed and scanned at home and count my self a novice in home development. I remember that before digital the film industry was striving to remove grain. It used to be regarded as the chemical equivalent of noise. Kodak 400TX is a medium speed fine grained film was the fruit of all that development. Here is a properly exposed, developed and scanned shot on 400TX.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong I love the gritty strong grain images where the context suits it. It is all subjective opinion but mine is that weddings and birds don't suit strong gritty grain. I like subtle grain for these types of photos.. Look at the beautiful subtle grain on this shot

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickjoust/5341204182

 

Thanks for your opinions and a happy new year to you and yours.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

Do I recognise the embedded picture location, near Dove Holes on the way to Sparrowpit?

 

Anyway you asked for a opinion and the link to Flickr may show fine grain but all the fine grain does is highlight the lack of focus. Grain in a similar situation gives the eye and brain something to latch on to, it gives body to the image and accentuates any fast moving grab shot drama within the image. Lack of grain on the other hand not only exaggerates the soft focus but also gives it an almost semi-transparent quality where the eye darts around vainly trying to find a texture or detail that can act as an anchor. Like the seagull an inherently graphic image screaming out for grain and not fine fidelity.

 

 

Steve