Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,393   Online: 692
      
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163

    My 35mm shots always seem to be grainy?

    When I use my 35mm camera may shots always seem to have a lot of grain in them. The exposure can look great but when I scan the negatives they are grainy.
    Is that soemthing that happens when I scan. I know that 35mm does't have to be grainy unless you enlarge it too much.
    Here is an example. TMAX 400 in R09
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails TMAX-400--Rodinal589_Boomer_Cropped.jpg  
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  2. #2
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,911
    I recommend that you try Kodak XTOL replenished for finer grain, better tonality and better sharpness for 135, 120 and 4"x5".
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #3
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,435
    Images
    148
    Scanning can make negatives appear grainy, the same negs printed optically may not be. In addition I wouldn't use RO9 - Rodinal with a film like TMax 400.

    I have used Tmax 400 which is really a 200 EI film with Xtol in 35mm and you get excellent fine grain.

    Ian

  4. #4
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,675
    Images
    344
    If you don't want grain, try XP2 film.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  5. #5
    stradibarrius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Monroe, GA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,382
    Images
    163
    thanks
    "Generalizations are made because they are generally true"
    Flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradibarrius
    website: http://www.dudleyviolins.com
    Barry
    Monroe, GA

  6. #6
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,706
    Images
    14
    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.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
    The exposure can look great but when I scan the negatives they are grainy.

    Without delving too far in things digital, B&W silver negatives are more difficult to scan than color negatives because of something called Q-factor scattering caused by the silver grains.


    But in this case, I agree with Bob - it looks like reticulation.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    I agree with Bob, something about that image looks like either reticulation, or a scanner issue (you'll have to print the neg to eliminate the scanner issue).
    Reticulation, in simple terms, results from varying (usually by a lot) temperatures from the beginning of when the film gets wet till it dries (yes, including the drying temperature). Do a search on the word in this forum and you'll find plenty to read.
    The approach most use is minimum wet time (from presoak or development through drying) and all temps within 1 degree F.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Scanning can make negatives appear grainy, the same negs printed optically may not be.
    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 ...

  10. #10
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,435
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    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 ...
    Actually Tmax400 also suffers from micro-reticulkation if not processed within tight temperature tolerances +/- 1ºC with developer like Rodinal/R09 due to the hydroxide in the developer which significantly softens the emulsion.

    Kodak have tried to say it doesn't happen but their Patents and research show quite the opposite, they had huge problems with early digital minilabs and excessive grain with Kodak colour films caused by the micro-reticulation/surface emulsion artefacts with poorly hardened films and variations in temperature.

    Ian

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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