Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,938   Posts: 1,557,286   Online: 1114
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    Dr Croubie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rAdelaide
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,362
    Images
    2
    Combination of things, most of which have been said, but it's all of them working together against you:
    a) Rodinal is not a good idea if you don't like grain. I've pushed TMax 400 to 3200 in Xtol and gotten the same or less grain than PanF50 in Rodinal.
    b) scan is oversharpened. Was it from a shop or at home? Best way is to do it at home, use something like Silverfast, take 20 scans of it and experiment to actually learn how to use the damn program, and do it as manually as possible.
    c) also looks like a few jpeg compression aretefacts in the plain areas topleft and topright (may have just been from downscaling to post here though). Scanning to max-resolution and saving as tiff will give you a 50MB file but you won't have compression problems. (ok, that's overkill, I scan to 3200dpi and save as 100%-quality jpeg, ~10MB/35mm, that's good enough for me).

    But otherwise, the shot (lighting, subject, comp, etc) looks good...
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.

  2. #12
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Post development issue. Everything about the "grain" looks like digitally induced hyper sharpness.

    It's still possible it's reticulation but if its more than one film/dev type I highly doubt it.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #13
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,678
    I agree with clayne. Likes to me likes it's from scanning.
    Look at the negative under a loupe. That will tell you if it's reticulation or from scanning.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    213
    The "grain" on your posted image has the characteristic pattern of Jpeg compression. Try to repeat the scan:
    a) saving in tiff (not recommended for routine, large files)
    b) saving with a better jpeg quality, try 90, 95, 98, and compare.

  5. #15
    Chris Nielsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    Images
    22
    Almost looks like you had ICE turned on. That can really mess up scans

  6. #16
    Slixtiesix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    740
    Images
    21
    From my own experience, R09 is a pretty bad choice if you want fine grain, especially in combination with a 400 iso film. Better try FP4+ or PanF+ in Perceptol or Xtol.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    Your sample looks like the film is reticulated, if not under inspection by loupe, then I would say you scanner is set with a medium amount , high radius and you are oversharpening the scans.

    that is not grain you are seeing , if so you have huge problems with reticulation.

    I agree, you have reticulation, visible in the lighter areas in the background. To avoid any future graininess, use a fine grain developer, re-rate your T-Max at around 320asa, and slightly underdevelop, that should ensure you get best results.
    As has already been mentioned resist the temptation to sharpen your scans, or keep it to a bare minimum.

  8. #18
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Nothing related to development here. This is all digital BS. Turn off all auto nonsense and use vuescan for scanning or better yet print silver gelatin if you have access.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  9. #19
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,331
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Nothing related to development here. This is all digital BS. Turn off all auto nonsense and use vuescan for scanning or better yet print silver gelatin if you have access.
    Have to disagree.

    I've seen Tmax 400 with what appears to be excessive grain, actually 120 not 35mm and all the chemistry was identical to the 35mm films I processed a few minutes later (with fine grain). The only difference was the temperature control, I was horrified to see the photographer failing to check and adjust the temperature of the stop bath, fixer and wash water. The 120 Tmax 400 had microreticulation.

    Ian

  10. #20
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,676
    Images
    14
    Scan with unsharp mask clicked off and you will not get this issue.
    Sharpening is an exacting skill set that takes time to understand.

    QUOTE=pdeeh;1534448]I am becoming convinced this is the reason for so much of the preoccupation with graininess.

    Many if not most of my scans appear "grainy" .. the moment I get the negatives into the enlarger, it magically disappears ...[/QUOTE]

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin