Topic: How to master grain on 400 speed film

[everydaylanre]

Anyone have any suggestions or tricks for getting nice smooth grain out of 400 speed film?  I mostly use Tri-x and almost always develop with HC-110.  I seem to get mixed results and I wonder if it has to do with how I develop, or maybe how I expose. 

Here is an example of one of my photos with unpleasant looking grain:


And here is one with nice looking grain:


Both were taken with Canon Canonet QL19 using Kodak Tri-X 400 and developed with HC-110 with dilution B.  I wanna say I developed for 7:30 minutes, but I can't promise - could have been anywhere from 6:30 to 8:30 minutes 

[02Pilot]

A couple factors that may or may not be involved in the variation, based on my own limited experience.

- Temperature control at all stages - developer, stop bath, fixer - seems to have an effect. The closer you can keep these in line with each other, the lower the grain.

- Exposure. Especially with very tolerant films, you can get a decent tonal range with fairly wide variance in exposure, but it seems to me that the further off of the ideal I am, the more likely I am to see pronounced grain.

[Francois]

Grain is definitely lowered when you process at lower temperatures.
But there are developers that are grain reducing...

[Indofunk]

I don't know if this is a "rule" or even reproducible at all, but I've found that higher dilutions for a longer time result in less grain. For example, I use dil H for 10 min.

[hookstrapped]

HC-110, being good at pushing, makes me think it might be grainy and contrasty.  Maybe try D-76

Or try Ilford or Fuji

[jharr]

"unpleasant looking grain" sounds like an oxymoron to me. I say under-expose it, throw some warm Rodinal at it and shake it like a red-headed step child!! But that's just me.
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/387/19396029636_3801f58c56_z.jpg

[Indofunk]

HC-110, being good at pushing, makes me think it might be grainy and contrasty.  Maybe try D-76

Or try Ilford or Fuji

I find HC110 good at pushing, and contrasty, but not grainy. However, D76 is an excellent suggestion. My very first attempt at home processing was with D76 and it came out really smooth.


Citibank needs to pay me for this free promotion by Satish Indofunk, on Flickr

[hookstrapped]

Smooth as ice

[Adam Doe]

LA,

So it's not the graininess itself but the character of the grain that concerns you?

[gsgary]

Gentler agitation

[gsgary]

This is 20 years out of dat Tri x developed in Rodinal

[Francois]

shake it like a red-headed step child!!

Ahem... just look at my avatar...
<---------

[Indofunk]

Also, maybe go back to TMax? Finer grain.

[Blaxton]

From your question, I am thinking that you don't want to remove the look of grain in Tri-X; rather you want to "master" it.  I couldn't agree more. To me, the main reason to use Tri-X, versus other excellent iso 400 films, like  HP5, is the even beauty of it grain.  Rodinal brings this out strongly—eg gsgary's spaniel.  On the other end of the spectrum, Microdol covers the grain, at the expense of acuity.  It's a matter of balance.  I like Xtol, with gentle, five-second agitation every 30 seconds but I have tried pretty much everything.  Intermittent water baths, split developers, stand development, you name it, I've given it a whirl.  (Truthfully, I haven't tried everything.  I still want to try caffeinol.  I love the look of those images posted on Filmwasters by caffeine addicts.)  I do think that technique matters as much as materials.  Exposure, temperature and agitation have as much impact on the look of the negatives as chemistry. 

[Dave Elden]

"Anyone have any suggestions or tricks for getting nice smooth grain out of 400 speed film?  I mostly use Tri-x and almost always develop with HC-110.  I seem to get mixed results and I wonder if it has to do with how I develop, or maybe how I expose.  "

Grain size & appearance in the negative is controlled by developer choice (speed enhancing dev or accutance dev will increase appearance of grain), dev time/temperature (longer/warmer than nominal=larger grain and higher contrast), exposure (more than nominal=larger grain). In the print it is controlled by paper contrast (higher=more visible grain) and slightly by agitation (more=larger grain). Stop and fixer used normally don't affect grain.

If I had to guess at the reason for your "mixed results" I would say, based on your post, that variations in neg processing were a significant factor.

If you are going to use HC110 I would suggest starting with the manufacturer's recommended time & temp ("6:30 to 8:30 minutes" is quite a variation, enough to  produce a visible effect) for the EI you are using. If the grain is still too much maybe increase exposure slightly but reduce dev time to compensate (e.g. +1 stop exposure, -15% time dev as a starting point) or use a fine grain developer such as the Perceptol already mentioned (will lose speed).

A final technique is to use a small amount of diffusion during printing, try a light diffusion camera filter for maybe 1/3 of the exposure as a starting point, this can work quite well with a good filter, e.g. Cokin #1 diffuser.

Good luck!

Dave.

[Francois]

Grain is always more apparent in underexposed negs.
But my guess is you want to stay at 400 ISO...
Hc-110 was designed for tri-x and photojournalists. The goal was to get the image no matter what. So yes grain can be strong.
But the question in my sense relates more about what you like or dislike about the grain.
Is it the size or the distribution?
Is it in details or in flat even parts of the sky?
Is it too sharp or two fuzzy for your taste?
Then comes issues of scanning or enlarging?
Then comes issues about the enlarger used if it's the case. Diffusion, condenser, point source or cold cathode?

All these things affect how the grain looks pretty directly.

[Dave Elden]

Grain is always more apparent in underexposed negs.
...
Then comes issues about the enlarger used if it's the case. Diffusion, condenser, point source or cold cathode?

Actually grain (strictly speaking "graininess" - the individual silver grains are too small to see) increases with exposure, i.e. underexposed negs will be less grainy. When you print an underexposed neg you may need to increase paper contrast to account for a low contrast neg; that will increase the appearance of the grain but of course that is a function of the print stage not the neg.
The point about the light source in the enlarger is correct, (more diffuse source = less visible grain) so if the OP is using different enlargers that may be another source of variation.

Dave.

[Francois]

I was thinking more about pushed film where grain pops up everywhere.

[Dave Elden]

I was thinking more about pushed film where grain pops up everywhere.

...because pushing = increasing apparent film speed by over-development .

Dave.

[everydaylanre]

It's not that I don't want any grain.  I like grain... when its nice and even!  The issue I am having is some rolls I get these big, irregular, sharp grains – which I do not like.  I hope this makes what I mean a bit clearer.

I do need to tighten up my development I think.  To date, I have not ever measured temperature.  At first, I'd just use lukewarm water, but now I use the coldest water my tap will give me (I read somewhere this reduces size of grain).  I usually follow the recommended time on the Massive Dev Chart website.  But if I have two rolls of non-matching film, I'll just develop halfway between both recommendations – hence some rolls developing for 6.5 minutes vs 8.5 minutes.  I guess that does play a big part in how the grain looks, so I will take better care with that part of the process.

[BernardL]

I do need to tighten up my development I think.  To date, I have not ever measured temperature.

You should have said that right from the start. The effect is potentially far worse than the +/-1 min on dev time.  Please read a basic book/article on B/W developing and follow the manufacturer's recommended temperature/time/agitation instructions. Then, and only then, a discussion about the fine points of dilution (with corresponding time adjustment) or "gentle" agitation on grain might be worthwile.

[gsgary]

Now we have the full story your iregular development is the problem

[Francois]

Yikes!
OK, lets start things the easy way and get back to some basics.
First, expose the film adequately at its rated speed. I call this setting a baseline.
Second, get a thermometer.
Third, if you don't want to buy anything, prepare the developer the night before and let it sit so that it gets to room temperature. Then you can just use your room thermometer or even the thermostat to figure out the temperature.
Fourth, if you have film that needs different development times at the same temperature, don't mix them in the tank! They'll just start up a fight like two cats stuck in the same box and you'll get uneven result.

Once this is all done, we can start talking grain...

And if all else fails, T-Max has a very tight clinical grain structure.

[Dave Elden]

Please read a basic book/article on B/W developing...
[/quote]
Or sign up for a darkroom techniques course, from your profile you are in a city where there should be some good ones on offer. Technical books are valuable but film photography is a practical craft and there is a lot to be said for a hands on course with other photographers and a good instructor.

Dave.

[imagesfrugales]

Proper development is one important thing. You surely should make your process more reproducible.

I have an additional assumption: are your samples scans from the negatives, done with a flatbedscanner? All these scanners have a rather low true resolution, no matter how high the settings were made. Making the grain visible by any sharpening algorithm can produce such an ugly grain. I guess that analogue silver gelatine prints would look much nicer regarding the grain.

[everydaylanre]

Thanks all!  I am a jerk haha. 

Satish has given me one of his extra thermometers, so my next batch I will develop as per manufacturer's recommendation.   Francois, I will take your advise and mix my developer the night before and let it sit.  I will get back to you with the results.

Part of the reason I liked B&W and specifically Tri-X is that the exposure and development process is pretty flexible.  But I see now that if I want reliable results, I need to at least set a baseline before I start going off track 

[Indofunk]

I have an additional assumption: are your samples scans from the negatives, done with a flatbedscanner? All these scanners have a rather low true resolution, no matter how high the settings were made. Making the grain visible by any sharpening algorithm can produce such an ugly grain. I guess that analogue silver gelatine prints would look much nicer regarding the grain.

This is a great point. LA, if you use the Epson scan software that was bundled with your V550, make sure the "unsharp mask" box is UNticked. Also, some other members on here highly recommend a different scanning program (Silver somethingsomething?), but I haven't used it because I'm more or less satisfied with Epson scan.

[Francois]

Francois, I will take your advise and mix my developer the night before and let it sit.  I will get back to you with the results.

With a thermometer, you don't necessarily need to do that.
But from experience with HC-110, it's easy to get developing times that are way too short to produce consistent results.
For any developer, developing times under 5 minutes are best avoided... something that's easy to get with such an active developer.

[Terry]

Interesting...is that why people seem to get better results with dilution H?

[Indofunk]

I like longer dev times because there's more wiggle room for me to screw up That's why I use dilution H.

[Francois]

Well, dilution H does work fine and allows a way to hide sloppy work.
But I still use dilution B and pay special attention to developing times and agitation. I personally feel it's easier than long agitation times... I don't have time to stress about messing up

[SLVR]

OP, no one mentioned it but your dev time for DilB with tri-x is about a minute and a half too long. I soup all of my Tri-X at 6:00 dilB. Depending on how you scan you may end up with "grainy" images that look grainy but really are noise.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is a whole science to scanning where grain and noise sync up at certain resolutions/conditions giving more optimal results. It always seemed like something that needed a lot of testing and trial and error. I've never done it. I can't remember exactly where I read this concept.

[Francois]

It's true that some film's grain structure gives better results when scanned.
The phenomena has to do with the fact that the scanner produced perfectly horizontal pixels while the grain is often totally random.
When a grain falls in between two pixels and is dark or bright enough to affect both, you get a really big spot on the scan when it's often pretty minimal.

Nowadays some companies go to great lengths to make their films easy to scan.

[everydaylanre]

OP, no one mentioned it but your dev time for DilB with tri-x is about a minute and a half too long. I soup all of my Tri-X at 6:00 dilB. Depending on how you scan you may end up with "grainy" images that look grainy but really are noise.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there is a whole science to scanning where grain and noise sync up at certain resolutions/conditions giving more optimal results. It always seemed like something that needed a lot of testing and trial and error. I've never done it. I can't remember exactly where I read this concept.

Now THESE shots have that buttery grain I love!

PS, the Mass Dev database says 7:30 for HC-110 dilution B.  That's what I've been using.

[SLVR]

give 6 min a shot  this is at 20*c too.

If it doesn't work out for you then you can adjust accordingly. But I've got quite good shadow detail from Tri-X at this time/dilution. I'm certain I'm not underdeveloping. The neg has great density.

I find Dilb to be quite a strong fast developing dilution. A lot of my times fall in that 5:30-6:30 range. Never more unless pushing.

Also im mixing straight from syrup.