Grain on Tri X - Shot on M7/ 35mm Summarit 2.4 Advice please

[thedirektor]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Should there be such heavy grain in the sky ? What could I have to done to get less grain ? Thanks .This is a JPEG from there scan supplied by developer.

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!

Edited March 5, 2018 by thedirektor

[thedirektor]

Should there be such heavy grain in the sky ? What could I have to done to get less grain ? Thanks .000015670020.jpgThese are JPEGS from there scan supplied by developer.

 

Can't seem to upload more than one photo ! And I think I've probably posted in the wrong place. Should it be in a photo bit and not the M7 bit ? A bit of a forum noob I'm afraid. Hope I don't get told off !!

Edited March 5, 2018 by thedirektor

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[DickieT]

Lots of variables here. The good news - it does not come from your M7 or Summarit. Did you shoot and develop @400 or different. Pushing film results into more grain..

What scanner was used ? Have you used this developer before ?

[thedirektor]

Lots of variables here. The good news - it does not come from your M7 or Summarit. Did you shoot and develop @400 or different. Pushing film results into more grain..

What scanner was used ? Have you used this developer before ?

Thanks for responding. Shot at box speed 400 ASA. Have used this processor a few times before but only once for black and white. That was Kentmore 100 which came out very contrasty and with quite a bit of grain but that is how that film is specced I believe

 

I do not know what the scanner was.

 

 

I had one roll of HP5 done at another place and this came out so grainy I am pretty sure there was an error in the developing.

Edited March 5, 2018 by thedirektor

[pico]

I appears that your negative is under-exposed and processing pushed the highlights down which exaggerates grain.

 

Snow is usually near white - near the highest density of the image. A typical average exposure will render snow as middle-grey (about 12%), which does not match perception and causes under-exposure.

 

Typical post processing sees the range as an error, thus the unfortunate pushing through highlights.

[thedirektor]

I appears that your negative is under-exposed and processing pushed the highlights down which exaggerates grain.

 

Snow is usually near white - near the highest density of the image. A typical average exposure will render snow as middle-grey (about 12%), which does not match perception and causes under-exposure.

 

Typical post processing sees the range as an error, thus the unfortunate pushing through highlights.

Thank you Pico. Shooting film in the snow was new for me and I knew that I had to over expose but I didn’t do enough. Should have tried two full stops maybe. Next time. When a bit of snow Brings chaos to the UK.

[Nick Bedford]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

TRI-X is a pretty grainy film all round, which is what I love about it. The appearance of the grain of course depends on the developer used, whether the film was push processed and whether the exposure was bright enough, to name the most obvious factors. I use Rodinal myself which usually makes the negative sharp and the grain prominent. I develop for 13 minutes at 20ºC as standard.

 

To me, your photo doesn't look too out of the ordinary, though the scanning process and detail level can change the results as well. I scan with my Nikon D810 at the highest possible resolution and typically find grain detail right up to 36 megapixels.

 

Here is a properly exposed frame from my Leica M7 and 35mm Voigtländer F1.7 using fresh TX400. I've scanned this as a raw file and outputted it at 1500px for my blog. You can see there's still plenty of grain, and this is from a very detailed 36mp raw file scan.

 

[250swb]

I agree with Pico, the grain has been exaggerated by under exposing the film. There also appears to be a lot of dirt in the scan, possibly stuff that has got onto the negative during processing. 

[thedirektor]

Thank you Nick and 250 for your input. Very useful. 

[Steve Ricoh]

I like grain, but understand those who don't.

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think where is more grain in the sky comparing to the rest of the frame. Right? This is how film like this is developed.

It is digital post processing which makes grain looks like this. 

 

Now you know why some of us still prefer ISO 400 film like TRI-X (film with grain) to be printed under enlarger. 

It doesn't make it grain-less, but it doesn't add digital artifacts like in the scan you have. 

[Herr Barnack]

The grain doesn't look excessively large for Tri-X IMHO. 

 

I have always developed Tri-X in D-76 and gotten good results.  Excessive agitation can cause enlarged grain, so proper agitation technique is necessary.

 

If you want really small grain, you will want to check into stand developing.

[pico]

TRI-X is a pretty grainy film all round, which is what I love about it.

 

It is not as grainy as it used to be - before Kodak changed it without telling us.

.

[pico]

[...] Now you know why some of us still prefer ISO 400 film like TRI-X (film with grain) to be printed under enlarger. 

It doesn't make it grain-less, but it doesn't add digital artifacts like in the scan you have. 

 

Also, optical printing diminishes resolution, for better or worse.

Oh, and monitor viewing diminishes digital presentation, but differently.

Together, it's an impoverished view.

 

Prints rule.

Edited March 7, 2018 by pico

[250swb]

The grain doesn't look excessively large for Tri-X IMHO. 

 

 

 

I think we have to take the OP's word for it that there is more grain than expected, however the image is underexposed and this leads to an increase in grain. But how anybody can deduce 'better' or 'worse' grain from a tiny, tiny picture is beyond my comprehension. There are all sorts of problems with the scan, it just shouldn't look like that at all, even a small image can look crisp and natural. But what poor scanning can do is automatically exaggerate fundamental problems with the film processing and/or exposure. These problems can be compounded when the original scan size is reduced for posting.

[thedirektor]

I think we have to take the OP's word for it that there is more grain than expected, however the image is underexposed and this leads to an increase in grain. But how anybody can deduce 'better' or 'worse' grain from a tiny, tiny picture is beyond my comprehension. There are all sorts of problems with the scan, it just shouldn't look like that at all, even a small image can look crisp and natural. But what poor scanning can do is automatically exaggerate fundamental problems with the film processing and/or exposure. These problems can be compounded when the original scan size is reduced for posting.

 

So if I took the negs and scanned them myself at a high res and exported as TIFF and gave them a wash and brush up with LR all would be well ? Or look better ?

Edited March 7, 2018 by thedirektor

[Nick Bedford]

That happened far before I ever ventured into shooting Tri-X, so I've been curious to see comparisons between the two. I here old Tri-X didn't curl as much as well?

 

That being said, modern TX has always trumped my experiments with other films like Delta and other t-grain films. There's something about the tonal response and grain in TX and HP5 that looks beaaautiful.

 

It is not as grainy as it used to be - before Kodak changed it without telling us.

.

[250swb]

So if I took the negs and scanned them myself at a high res and exported as TIFF and gave them a wash and brush up with LR all would be well ? Or look better ?

 

Depends how good at scanning you are, the scanner you use, and how good the negatives are, but I see on reason in theory why a better job wouldn't result. It's useful to have known what the original scene was like when scanning because the decisions made in interpreting the image are at a higher level from when a lab prints directly from a slide or neg. So I'd always advocate 'do-it-yourself' if possible, and especially with tricky subjects in which snow often tops the list.

[PaulJohn]

Play around with your scanner settings and learn how they affect the results. Scanner auto exposure can hide under exposed negs and prevent you from realising what you have done wrong. Try different resolutions too. It is surprising how much detail can be in a 35mm neg. if you want less grain then 100 tmax or ilford panf 50 are worth a try.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited March 9, 2018 by PaulJohn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[PaulJohn]

Play around with your scanner settings and learn how they affect the results. Scanner auto exposure can hide under exposed negs and prevent you from realising what you have done wrong. Try different resolutions too. It is surprising how much detail can be in a 35mm neg. if you want less grain then 100 tmax or ilford panf 50 are worth a try.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Sorry just realised OP didn't do the scanning. You can ask the processing co not to auto correct brightness though. By default they will do.