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

[NJH]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can get images like that flickr linked shot out of an M8. Anyways I learned a couple of rules when using my KM 5400 scanner to avoid making the grain stand out more than it needs to, firstly always scan at the max resolution then reduce to the output size needed in PP using the bicubic sharper. Secondly I always use the scan diffuser on mine as after re-scanning and pixel peeping my sharpest most detailed negatives I couldn't detect any loss of detail just slightly less sharpness. The 3rd thing I do is never sharpen at the pixel level on the raw scan sizes as this amps up the grain like crazy, the reduction in output size usually takes care of sharpening the image beyond that I like to use unsharp mask with a large radius say 9 pixels to see if it will make the subject pop out. I wasted weeks of my time scanning and re-scanning the same negatives to learn this process, time which in hindsight I wished I had spent doing photography but alas as an engineer by trade and scientist by education its hard to avoid turning this game into mini science projects.

[PaulJohn]

Yes it is indeed that location. I have looked at some of your 35mm photos on flickr and I can see more clearly where you are coming from. I really like your landscape work. I've only previously seen 35mm with strong grain work on street photography.

 

I agree that the last link is (deliberately) soft focus but I still think 35mm can work well with little grain. Here are better examples that prove my point:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/_oct/4524495310

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/_oct/4187751346

 

As per the OP I am still interested in controlling the amount of grain in development and if not in pp. It seems a shame to add digital grain in LR when it can be brought out of the original film.

[250swb]

Thank you for your nice comment.

 

As far as grain goes I think it's a question of putting first-things-first when seeing a photograph by another person. What is the photo saying to me when I look at it, so is it a powerful or intriguing picture. Then does the grain help or hinder because the grain, or lack of it, is part of the language you are using to communicate with. So have the choices of film and development and printing and burning and dodging been made well to create a balanced sophisticated image?

 

As far as grain goes I think it's a question of putting first-things-first when showing a photograph to another person. The first thing is I make a choice about the film (and camera) I use because I know in advance it is a vital part of the language I'm interested in using. I chose the film because I knew where I am going and what could be there. And then I try to make an image that has some sort of quality and that hopefully justifies my initial decisions. For example an author doesn't start writing a Mills and Boon style romantic fiction and halfway through turn it into a repair guide for a Ford Cortina. So stick with the plot, stick with the choice of film and what it means to the image. And yes, some potentially good photographs I see on my day out won't work very well because the film is wrong, and this is one of the fundamental points of using film instead of digital. 

 

 

Steve

[PaulJohn]

I think my issue is that I haven't yet decided on a style. I am still trying to replicate what can and has been done by others. When something inspires me I try to replicate it. If I am honest some of my better photos were not as intentional as it might appear. I guess once I have reached a level of proficiency I am happy with I can think about creating an individual style.

 

Thanks for your point about having an end in mind before you start. That is definitely what I need to work on. 

[fotohuis]

The first choice to reduce grain is the type of film. The second choice is the approriate film developer. In 35mm and high speed films the choice is easy: Kodak TMY-2 has the finest grain in any iso 400 speed B&W film. In iso 100 it is the Fuji Acros 100. In actual film production  for slow speed panchromatic films only PAN F+ (iso 32-50). Going to any micro film (ATP1.1 ; CMS20) or aviation type film Retro 80(S) you will have big problems with a regular developing curve and the need of special low contrast type developers. So in that way you can better scale up your film format to e.g. 6x7cm roll film (4,5x more negative area) and a medium or high speed film (iso 100-400).

 

So apart from my Leica M7 with Leica-M glass (I have one C.V. SWH 15mm -M lens) I have a C.V. Bessa III 667 with F/3,5-80mm Heliar. Good Fuji optics, compact and about the same weight (1000g) then my M7 + Summicron 50mm.

 

[fotohuis]

[fotohuis]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

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

 

A can agree for landscape photography. However for wedding, street photography and other special quick response photography (sport, wildlife) 35mm (film) stays a good alternative. If you look at the H.C.B. pictures a lot of them were far away from technical perfection. The question is: How strong is the photo?

[fotohuis]

That the camera doesn't matter show my first example:

 

[fotohuis]

A regular cubical type iso 400 film, RPX-400 (Rollei) in ATM-W an Agfa Atomal copy (However without the HEAP chemical ingredient) . Zorki-6 ($20) with Jupiter-9 (F/2,0-85mm), a Zeiss pre-war Sonnar design, USSR copy from 1974 (Black version) not much less in quality then my Leica Summarit (F/2,5-75mm), $90.

[fotohuis]

So I am messing around with these sets in R.F. cameras, (for scanning an Epson V500, scan from photos, 300 dpi):

 

[fotohuis]

FED-3 special edition (50 years October revolution 1917-1967), Kiev-4AM, Zorki-6 (I have two), M7 and the C.V. Bessa III 667. The oldies and lenses have been refurbished including their lenses: J-8, I-61, I-50, J-12, J-9, J-8M (Contax/Kiev), universal V.F. For the Leica M7 and the W.A. lenses 15mm-21mm-28mm I have the C.V. zoom V.F. 15mm-35mm, a very nice accesoire.

[fotohuis]

For street photography I am using the 21mm-28mm Elmarit lenses frequently. For me the best tools! (even it is in 35mm format).

[NJH]

HCB is a good and interesting point. I bought the re-issue of his famous book, wonderful photographs but its not a look I like that much but it works if someone wants long grey tonal scale with no blacks and soft images. I understand what Steve was getting at, in terms of look I prefer the Ansel Adams tonality but I don't really like the many since that go to far with dodging and burning (like recent Salgado). If one wants that sort of strong detailed tonality with plenty of highlight detail, sharp images but not have the grain standing out in the image then surely there isn't any debate that the way to achieve that is MF?

[fotohuis]

Ansel adams is LF. H.C.B. is 35mm.

 

This book? :

 

[NJH]

That one, wonderful photographs but a great many of them are soft and lack the sort of tonality I like. Ansel shot with a Hasselblad in later years and one of his most famous photographs was taken with one, I take it from that, that he felt the quality of film had progressed to the point that he could get the end result he wanted with 120 film.

[philipus]

Just a question, which scanner was used? It seems to me (and I realise these are internet jpgs) the scanner doesn't quite resolve the grain.

 

In my humble experience, with Tri-X (edit: in 135) there will be grain. Sure it can be reduced by using different developers, but Tri-X won't look like fine-grained films.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

[A miller]

If you want to reduce grain and contrast you do not agitate the film as if you're shaking a cocktail.

 

 

Steve

 

I was just thinking the same thing.  For softer grain and contrast agitate very gently like you are holding a newborn baby.  And not more than you need to.   

[Guest]

Happy New Year!

 

Being a film guy (without a scanner) please don't mind me saying, that you're putting dreams into it.

Adam's the best for way over a year now (on the film forum with new pictures from overseas ) .

 

Though lyrics like this make digital folks smile (sneer), them being cought sitting between chairs, with the Q which might be the higher resolution i-phone of 2015 (with the same angle of view).

 

Thank you for all your inspiration (except Rondinax MF) and enthusiasm! 

Please keep on buying medium format film

 

Sorry, never meant to agitate anybody, but I remember the feeling, though I'm closer to grandparenthood now

 

Cheers,

Simon

[250swb]

That one, wonderful photographs but a great many of them are soft and lack the sort of tonality I like. Ansel shot with a Hasselblad in later years and one of his most famous photographs was taken with one, I take it from that, that he felt the quality of film had progressed to the point that he could get the end result he wanted with 120 film.

 

Irrespective of format Ansel's end result was always achieved in ways that would make your hair curl if you don't like to go as far as dodging and burning. Everything he produced was thought through from the very beginning, like what film to use and what filter etc. He already knew his exposure regime and development via the Zone System, and he knew which parts of the print would need dodging and burning at the moment he pressed the shutter. An extremely good book is Adams 'Examples: The Making of Forty Photographs' in which he takes you through the techniques and thought processes of some of his famous work.

 

And HCB's work is known for the long grey tones, but it should be remembered the prints were made to be sent out to newspapers and magazines who would through the then crude printing process add contrast by default. It was always common practice to make flat prints for reproduction, but some modern Bresson books have under-interpreted the intention and faithfully reproduced the pictures as grey as the originals. But yes, he did like his grey's.

 

Steve

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[fotohuis]

 

And HCB's work is known for the long grey tones,

 

A lot of his films were developed with Harvey's 777 Panthermic developer, based on para- Phenylene Diamine a trick from the 40's to create an ultra fine grain type developer. See also my Windisch W665 example and FP200 E.I. 100. W665 is containing ortho- Phenylene Diamine.