dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #21 Posted January 14, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) 54 minutes ago, frame-it said: strange response. That was his initial thought but then he looked again and thought he needed to dial back the auto sharpening. However, he tried that and the results were actually slightly worse. He is using an older Noritsu scanner. Maybe something is up with his scanner. A few folks above thought the images looked reasonable so I may just not be a Tri-X user. Although again, I have seen a ton of images (have two authentic J. Marshal prints) that have nowhere near the grain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 Hi dkmoore, Take a look here Too much grain?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #22 Posted January 14, 2020 On 1/12/2020 at 3:03 PM, Richardgb said: If you can post an enlarged section of the image to show the image structure more clearly, this would help establish whether it is 'grain' or something else. However, from the images posted (as others have said), it looks like 'grain'. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305288-too-much-grain/?do=findComment&comment=3890966'>More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #23 Posted January 14, 2020 On 1/12/2020 at 3:03 PM, Richardgb said: If you can post an enlarged section of the image to show the image structure more clearly, this would help establish whether it is 'grain' or something else. However, from the images posted (as others have said), it looks like 'grain'. Anything peculiar? 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305288-too-much-grain/?do=findComment&comment=3890967'>More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #24 Posted January 14, 2020 At least the rangefinder is in focus! Ha. These are my first rolls out of the new MP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillavoider Posted January 14, 2020 Share #25 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) I don't think they are overly heavy on the grain for TriX, whatever you do don't buy Fomopan try out the Ilford films that are developed in C41, really really clean, I like them a lot, and as mentioned above some films are designed to scan better or apply some noise reduction in lightroom Edited January 14, 2020 by hillavoider 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted January 14, 2020 Share #26 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) Yes, don't try Bergger 200, haha. The picture of me below was taken on Bergger 200 on 35mm...developed in Xtol, a fine grain developer. Grain is not always a bad thing, but it can be a bit much... 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 January 14, 2020 by Stuart Richardson 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305288-too-much-grain/?do=findComment&comment=3890973'>More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted January 14, 2020 Share #27 Posted January 14, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) By the way, the grain you shared looked rather sharp...toning down the sharpening a bit might help, but it is hard to say without trying it on a known scanner. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted January 14, 2020 Share #28 Posted January 14, 2020 A few thoughts. Tri-X of old is not the same (to me anyway) as the Tri-X of today. I tried some rolls recently, and didn't like them, grainy etc as you found. I did put a bit of this down to me using my go-to developer, R0(, which is not overly "grain-reducing". But IU am sure the formulations have "changed". 35mm is always going to be slightly more harsh on grain etc, as opposed to M/F. And "back in the day", we all shot K25 or Pan F or similar to ensure fine-grained images. With the advent of digital, everyone is clamoring for the highest possible ISO, and few can recall Tri-X at ASA400 being "fast". Try a print, you'll possibly find a wet print will show little grain, whereas scanning (mine do too) seems to accentuate the grain. Looking on the bright side, at least none of the plug-ins give you that luscious grain you have. Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 14, 2020 Share #29 Posted January 14, 2020 Scanning ≠ wet printing. I sold my film cameras when I gave up my darkrooms. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #30 Posted January 14, 2020 37 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said: By the way, the grain you shared looked rather sharp...toning down the sharpening a bit might help, but it is hard to say without trying it on a known scanner. after your comment about slightly under exposing I remembered I did just that inside for a couple of shots and the grain does in fact look slightly smoother with a slight underexposure. 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/305288-too-much-grain/?do=findComment&comment=3890994'>More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #31 Posted January 14, 2020 15 minutes ago, Jeff S said: Scanning ≠ wet printing. I sold my film cameras when I gave up my darkrooms. Jeff I'm figuring this out, ha. Unfortunately after I dove back in, buying a new MP. I wanted to get rolls developed/scanned and I wanted to print at home via Epson 3880 printer, which I will still do at smaller sizes and with higher quality scans/slower films. That said, I'm not going to get digital prints quite like what I have seen when looking at exhibits like Winogrand's silver gelatin prints. (beautiful stuff) Question about this though, would the folks developing the film develop the negatives any differently with scanning versus wet printing in mind? I want to make sure I have the option in case I get worthy images. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #32 Posted January 14, 2020 51 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said: Yes, don't try Bergger 200, haha. The picture of me below was taken on Bergger 200 on 35mm...developed in Xtol, a fine grain developer. Grain is not always a bad thing, but it can be a bit much... 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! I definitely would NOT like this film.😎 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #33 Posted January 14, 2020 46 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said: By the way, the grain you shared looked rather sharp...toning down the sharpening a bit might help, but it is hard to say without trying it on a known scanner. Believe it or not he re-scanned them with the sharpening turned down and they came out more grainy somehow. I think he may have an issue with his scanner. He is a good photographer and develops and scans as a very small side business to help local film photographers. My thinking is that for goof around shots and family stuff I'll take to him and when I'm trying to take more serious shots I'll go to a full time lab. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted January 14, 2020 Share #34 Posted January 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, dkmoore said: Question about this though, would the folks developing the film develop the negatives any differently with scanning versus wet printing in mind? I want to make sure I have the option in case I get worthy images. Not to my mind anyway, developing is developing, and the end goal with film is printing, usually. I certainly don't develop any differently, printing/scanning. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 14, 2020 Share #35 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, dkmoore said: I'm figuring this out, ha. Unfortunately after I dove back in, buying a new MP. I wanted to get rolls developed/scanned and I wanted to print at home via Epson 3880 printer, which I will still do at smaller sizes and with higher quality scans/slower films. That said, I'm not going to get digital prints quite like what I have seen when looking at exhibits like Winogrand's silver gelatin prints. (beautiful stuff) Question about this though, would the folks developing the film develop the negatives any differently with scanning versus wet printing in mind? I want to make sure I have the option in case I get worthy images. Just like every aspect of photography, the user matters; otherwise common gear would dictate similar results. I’ve seen crappy silver prints and gorgeous digital prints, and vice versa, irrespective of the gear. Scanning introduces another intermediate process, one that I’ve not dedicated time and effort to learn, using it only for archiving some old negs. Others may get better scanned results, but for me, film means silver prints and digital means inkjet prints (P800). Jeff Edited January 14, 2020 by Jeff S 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #36 Posted January 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, Jeff S said: Just like every aspect of photography, the user matters; otherwise common gear would dictate similar results. I’ve seen crappy silver prints and gorgeous digital prints, and vice versa, irrespective of the gear. Scanning introduces another intermediate process, one that I’ve not dedicated time and effort to learn, using it only for archiving some old negs. Others may get better scanned results, but for me, film means silver prints and digital means inkjet prints (P800). Jeff Fair enough. I definitely get some very nice prints even from the older 3880. The P800 is very nice, younger sibling. I am researching local to Philadelphia printers so that I can give the silver prints a go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 14, 2020 Share #37 Posted January 14, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, dkmoore said: Fair enough. I definitely get some very nice prints even from the older 3880. The P800 is very nice, younger sibling. I am researching local to Philadelphia printers so that I can give the silver prints a go. I used the 3800 for 7 years before switching to the P800. A local school is now happily using my 3800, a robust older machine. Jeff Edited January 14, 2020 by Jeff S Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #38 Posted January 14, 2020 37 minutes ago, Jeff S said: I used the 3800 for 7 years before switching to the P800. A local school is now happily using my 3800, a robust older machine. Jeff Are the prints significantly better on the P800? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 14, 2020 Share #39 Posted January 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, dkmoore said: Are the prints significantly better on the P800? Better ink set... deeper blacks and wider gamut as the 3800 was pre-vivid magenta ink... and more current technology. But printing is a chain of events, so every stage matters. For me, ImagePrint provides distinct benefits, overriding the Epson driver and ensuring optimal settings, superb paper profiles and full time softproofing. It integrates seamlessly with LR and the P800. And as mentioned earlier, user judgment matters as much as the machine and software differences... for better or worse. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Albertson Posted January 14, 2020 Share #40 Posted January 14, 2020 The grain looks pretty typical for Tri-X. Marshall used to rate Tri-X at 800/1000 and had his lab guy process it in Acufine. That takes just 3 or 4 minutes, and less time in the developer means less grain. And his film was intended for traditional printing, it's all there was for most of his life. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.