dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Share #1 Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I just started shooting film with a Leica MP and used my 28 Cron V2 for the first couple of rolls. A guy runs a small film developing/scanning business out of his garage and I gave him a shot. Is this amount of grain normal for Kodak Tri-X 400? I can't imagine so. Every single image came out this grainy (many way worse - this was one of the better), regardless of the light. My guess is that his developing or scanning or both was flawed. I don't remember ever getting images this grainy except with 800+ ISO. What are your thoughts? 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 12, 2020 by dkmoore 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=3890060'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 12, 2020 Posted January 12, 2020 Hi dkmoore, Take a look here Too much grain?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #2 Posted January 12, 2020 More info in case it helps. These were shot around 3:30PM so still plenty of light. Shot the tri-x at rated speed. This one has even more pronounced grain. I've seen a ton of much cleaner tri-x shots, which leads me to believe it is something the processor is doing. Looking forward to some help. 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=3890062'>More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted January 12, 2020 Share #3 Posted January 12, 2020 They look good to me, how I remember Tri X shots to look (but I've not used it in ages). I don't suppose you know what developer etc. he used? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommonego@gmail.com Posted January 12, 2020 Share #4 Posted January 12, 2020 (edited) Looking at these I think they are in the range of Tri-X 400 grain. Maybe a little grainy but not out of bounds. This is why I use T-Max 400, much lower grain. Also in both images there is large OOF areas which tend to show more grain. Edited January 12, 2020 by tommonego@gmail.com Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #5 Posted January 12, 2020 39 minutes ago, earleygallery said: They look good to me, how I remember Tri X shots to look (but I've not used it in ages). I don't suppose you know what developer etc. he used? I’ll ask. I’ll also ask what scanner was used. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #6 Posted January 12, 2020 38 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said: Looking at these I think they are in the range of Tri-X 400 grain. Maybe a little grainy but not out of bounds. This is why I use T-Max 400, much lower grain. Also in both images there is large OOF areas which tend to show more grain. It’s the faces that bothers me most because the metering/exposure was right. especially in the second image it is too grainy for my liking. I’ll try T-Max to see if I like that more. I appreciate the recommendation. keep in mind this was supposed to be high res scans. If I printed either of these at even 8 X 10 the grain would probably look Much worse (I print a lot). interesting feedback as I just assumed he used a bad setting or crap scanner for these. I have some older B&W scans from a short foray into film a year or so ago that are much cleaner and printable. I can’t remember what film I was using but thought it was tri-x. i look at tri-x shots Jim Marshall made and the images show very minimal grain, if any. I assume however he developed and scanned makes the difference? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommonego@gmail.com Posted January 12, 2020 Share #7 Posted January 12, 2020 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think the scanner definitely picked up the grain, so I don't think scanning is the problem. The developer could be a could developing technique. It would be interesting to find out what developer that was used. I would bet D-76/Ilford ID11 but can't be sure. It also could be over developed, but the shadow detail looks decent so probably not. The trick with TMax is that they are best when developed in a compensating developer, TMax developer (what I use), others like Kodak XTOL and some Rodinal. I was unhappy with my first couple of rolls TMax 400 processed in commercial labs, too contrasty, most likely D-76 was used or a commercial processor developer. I set myself up for doing my own processing, I have a scanner, Epson V700 but I am looking at using my CL to digitize the images, much faster. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richardgb Posted January 12, 2020 Share #8 Posted January 12, 2020 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'. As a related point of possible interest, many years ago (before digital) I went to a talk by a leading newspaper photographer (can't remember his name or the title now). He showed examples of an 8x10in print from a 35mm negative and the half-tone image printed in the paper (in those days, with relatively coarse paper, a 65dpi, or maybe slightly finer, half-tone screen would have been used). The dots of the half-tone image were far larger than the grain of the image in the print, where 400ISO (or ASA in those days!) film was normal. The point the photographer was making was that for normal newspaper work, 35mm film gave an image which was more than adequate for newspaper use, in many cases even when only part of the frame was used. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 12, 2020 Share #9 Posted January 12, 2020 The grain seen in the pictures shown above is not Tri-X grain but scanned Tri-X grain. That's different from Tri-X grain. As tommonego@gmail.com said, the scanning process picks up the grain and enhances it—'grain aliasing' is the keyword. That's normal. Scanning with another scanner may yield a different results. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #10 Posted January 12, 2020 10 minutes ago, 01af said: The grain seen in the pictures shown above is not Tri-X grain but scanned Tri-X grain. That's different from Tri-X grain. As tommonego@gmail.com said, the scanning process picks up the grain and enhances it—'grain aliasing' is the keyword. That's normal. Scanning with another scanner may yield a different results. Is it a good scanner vs bad scanner question or the method/technology differences between scanners? I just can’t see myself being happy with this image quality as the grain is too over powering and most importantly, I want to print at home on my Epson 3880 (still going strong - excellent printer in my view). i guess in Marshall’s day they were making prints direct from the negatives. I may just need to try another developer/scanner to see if I get better results. *note (in case this info helps) - I also had a role of Kodak e100 developed and scanned at the same time and it is equally as grainy as the tri-x. I actually should have mentioned that from the get go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #11 Posted January 12, 2020 22 minutes ago, tommonego@gmail.com said: I think the scanner definitely picked up the grain, so I don't think scanning is the problem. The developer could be a could developing technique. It would be interesting to find out what developer that was used. I would bet D-76/Ilford ID11 but can't be sure. It also could be over developed, but the shadow detail looks decent so probably not. The trick with TMax is that they are best when developed in a compensating developer, TMax developer (what I use), others like Kodak XTOL and some Rodinal. I was unhappy with my first couple of rolls TMax 400 processed in commercial labs, too contrasty, most likely D-76 was used or a commercial processor developer. I set myself up for doing my own processing, I have a scanner, Epson V700 but I am looking at using my CL to digitize the images, much faster. I sent him a message and will find out what chemicals were used. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #12 Posted January 12, 2020 18 minutes ago, 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'. As a related point of possible interest, many years ago (before digital) I went to a talk by a leading newspaper photographer (can't remember his name or the title now). He showed examples of an 8x10in print from a 35mm negative and the half-tone image printed in the paper (in those days, with relatively coarse paper, a 65dpi, or maybe slightly finer, half-tone screen would have been used). The dots of the half-tone image were far larger than the grain of the image in the print, where 400ISO (or ASA in those days!) film was normal. The point the photographer was making was that for normal newspaper work, 35mm film gave an image which was more than adequate for newspaper use, in many cases even when only part of the frame was used. I’ll send this later this evening when I’m back in front of the computer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 12, 2020 Share #13 Posted January 12, 2020 vor 18 Minuten schrieb dkmoore: Is it a good scanner vs bad scanner question ...? No. . vor 18 Minuten schrieb dkmoore: ... or the method/technology differences between scanners? Yes. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2020 Share #14 Posted January 12, 2020 What are the chemical prints like? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #15 Posted January 12, 2020 38 minutes ago, jaapv said: What are the chemical prints like? Most of my printing is done at home with my epson 3880. But, I wouldn’t Spend the money to have a printer make chemical prints of these family snaps. are you asking because you suspect a chemical print would be much cleaner grain wise? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2020 Share #16 Posted January 12, 2020 Right -it would pinpoint the problem. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 12, 2020 Author Share #17 Posted January 12, 2020 Got it. Will try if it gets to that point. 3 minutes ago, jaapv said: Right -it would pinpoint the problem. the developer just got back to me and thinks something happened during the digital transfer of images via google drive. His first response was that they shouldn’t be grainy because on his monitor they are clean. He is going to look into it and see if google somehow corrupted the images or messed with the size somehow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Richardson Posted January 14, 2020 Share #18 Posted January 14, 2020 These don't look particularly egregious to me. I think if you shoot Tri-X on 35mm and you exposed reasonably generously and they gave it substantial development (which it looks like, given the contrast) and used a standard developer like D76, then it can be rather grainy. We are attuned to digital now, which is exceptionally grainless. 35mm film IS grainy...it is why Tri-X was considered a high speed film, and people were shooting IS 25-50 films for finer grain. Given the level of grain in these, if you look at the negative with a magnifier (or just a 50mm lens turned upside down), you should be able to see the grain. If you cannot, then it is likely a scanning issue. As the others said, if the grain size lines up in the wrong way with the scanner's resolution, sometimes you can exacerbate the grain. One way around this can be wet mounting, or just trying a different scanner or resolution. If you are looking to minimize grain with 35mm, consider using a 100 speed film or Tmax 400. Additionally, unlike color negative, 35mm black and white scans a bit better if it is slightly underexposed. Not too much...you don't want to lose your shadows, but if you really hit it with a lot of light and development, it will bring out the grain. Don't go overboard, just dial it back a bit and see if it helps. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frame-it Posted January 14, 2020 Share #19 Posted January 14, 2020 On 1/13/2020 at 6:36 AM, dkmoore said: thinks something happened during the digital transfer of images via google drive. strange response. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dkmoore Posted January 14, 2020 Author Share #20 Posted January 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said: These don't look particularly egregious to me. I think if you shoot Tri-X on 35mm and you exposed reasonably generously and they gave it substantial development (which it looks like, given the contrast) and used a standard developer like D76, then it can be rather grainy. We are attuned to digital now, which is exceptionally grainless. 35mm film IS grainy...it is why Tri-X was considered a high speed film, and people were shooting IS 25-50 films for finer grain. Given the level of grain in these, if you look at the negative with a magnifier (or just a 50mm lens turned upside down), you should be able to see the grain. If you cannot, then it is likely a scanning issue. As the others said, if the grain size lines up in the wrong way with the scanner's resolution, sometimes you can exacerbate the grain. One way around this can be wet mounting, or just trying a different scanner or resolution. If you are looking to minimize grain with 35mm, consider using a 100 speed film or Tmax 400. Additionally, unlike color negative, 35mm black and white scans a bit better if it is slightly underexposed. Not too much...you don't want to lose your shadows, but if you really hit it with a lot of light and development, it will bring out the grain. Don't go overboard, just dial it back a bit and see if it helps. This is great info. I was actually exposing to the right because I had read that was the recommended path for film. I expose completely different via Leica digital cameras. I'll give this a go without completely underexposing. I am used to this approach with the M10 and M246. I slightly underexpose 1/2 to 1 stop to protect highlights. I am definitely going to try out Tmax once I use up the other rolls of Tri-X. 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.