Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,461   Posts: 1,570,631   Online: 809
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Nicole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,548
    Images
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by modafoto
    The more you underexpose and overdevelop the film, the more evident the grain will become. If you rate the film (Tri-X) at ISO 400 and develop for the suiting time it will be more grainy that if you rated it 320 or 250 (and develops for the suiting time).
    Also, if you agitate too much it will lead to overdevelopment and, therefore, also to more grain.
    Last I will comment on the use of Rodinal with Tri-X. This combo is GREAT, but it is a good thing to experiment with rating the film 250-320 instead of the 400 it says on the box. The reason is, that Rodinal decreases the speed a bit.
    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this what I have been told and experienced.
    Hi M, please help me understand the different effects again.
    If I use Tri-X 400 and expose at 320, do I ask the lab to process at 320 or at 400? In doing either, what effects can I expect?
    Thanks M!

  2. #12
    ann
    ann is online now

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,883
    Images
    26
    shooting at 320 should give you more shadow detail and i wouldn't tell the lab anything, this dfifference is very small, however if they are using kodak's numbers don't be surprised if they are over deveoped, it is a common issue at least in this area fir the labs to overdevelop ,which does increase the grain

  3. #13
    sterioma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    259
    Images
    22
    I am finally home so I can post a couple of samples from the same roll (Tri-X at E.I. 400 and Rodinal 1:25 for 7 minutes). I have attached both the complete picture resized (and smoothed by the algorithm) and the detail from the scan at 3200 DPI.

    To me the difference in graininess is quite different. What do you guys think?

    Stefano
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails LowGrainExample.jpg   LowGrainDetail.jpg   HighGrainExample.jpg   HighGrainDetail.jpg  

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ┼rhus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicole McGrade
    Hi M, please help me understand the different effects again.
    If I use Tri-X 400 and expose at 320, do I ask the lab to process at 320 or at 400? In doing either, what effects can I expect?
    Thanks M!
    Don't tell them anything. It is just a third of a stop overexposure which is OK (if not better) with negative films (gives you more "information" on the film = shadows detail).
    Try doing a roll with exposures at 200, 250, 320 and 400, and write which frames have been exposed in which way. Then you can evaluate the negatives and see what kind of rating you like (at the given development the lab offers).

    Don't you have the possibilty of developing yourself. I will give total control and you'll save some money.

    Greetings Morten
    Last edited by modafoto; 11-04-2004 at 04:10 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Added a bit more :p

  5. #15
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Please don't read the things you already know, or the bits where I'm talking rubbish.

    I think that it's quite difficult to compare graininess without controlling lots of things - including what you use to make the comparison. I guess that it's OK to use a scanner for comparison, if it is the scanner that will be used for final output. A lot will depend on the scanner - and particularly the interaction between the film granularity and the scanner resolution. Grain aliasing and all that.

    Contrast affects the appearance of grain, as does density. Therefore if you don't develop the two films to the same contrast, and compare areas of the same density (preferably of the same subject) then it's difficult to be objective. You may not wish to be objective, of course, and that's perfectly valid as well.

    Some extracts from the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist) Manifesto:

    Overexposure increases graininess and decreases sharpness with conventional monochrome negative film, if the development time stays the same. Hence the saying: 'Expose just enough.'

    Overexposure decreases graininess with chomogenic B&W and colour negative film if the development time stays the same.

    Increasing developer dilution slightly increases graininess and sharpness (a very general, and dangerous, er, generalisation). The effect varies between developers, but in many cases the change is caused by the change in sulphite concentration: from a high sulphite environment (say 80 to 100 g/litre) to a low sulphite one (say less than 30 g/litre).

    Best,
    Helen

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    ┼rhus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B
    Overexposure increases graininess and decreases sharpness with conventional monochrome negative film, if the development time stays the same. Hence the saying: 'Expose just enough.'

    Overexposure decreases graininess with chomogenic B&W and colour negative film if the development time stays the same.
    Ok? I thought it was the rule for all of them...

    Thanks for expanding my knowledge!

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Quote Originally Posted by sterioma
    I am finally home so I can post a couple of samples from the same roll (Tri-X at E.I. 400 and Rodinal 1:25 for 7 minutes). I have attached both the complete picture resized (and smoothed by the algorithm) and the detail from the scan at 3200 DPI.

    To me the difference in graininess is quite different. What do you guys think?

    Stefano
    Mmmmmm Stefano sorry not helping me I'm affraid I'd suggest you shoot a whole roll of one picture with no other variations. Cut a few frames off at a time (in darkness of course) and try souping each length in different dilutions. That way you will be able to compare the results without any other distractions.

  8. #18
    sterioma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    259
    Images
    22
    Helen, thanks for your comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B
    I guess that it's OK to use a scanner for comparison, if it is the scanner that will be used for final output. A lot will depend on the scanner - and particularly the interaction between the film granularity and the scanner resolution. Grain aliasing and all that.
    I haven't got the space and money and the time to learn to do my own prints right now, hopefully this will be an option next year. In the mean time, as I mentioned before, I am using the scanner to evaluate the negatives I am producing (I have just developed 3 rolls so far!). I guess I will need to invest in a loupe. As far as the prints are concerned, I am evaluating trying both to have the prints from the scan and from the negatives (by a lab), and decide what I like better (and what's cheaper).


    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B
    Contrast affects the appearance of grain, as does density. Therefore if you don't develop the two films to the same contrast, and compare areas of the same density (preferably of the same subject) then it's difficult to be objective. [...]
    Actually the samples I have posted are from the same roll. I was experiencing a different grain across the different frames, so that's the reason of my post.

  9. #19
    Helen B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Hell's Kitchen, New York, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,557
    Images
    27
    Oh, I told you not to read the bits where I was talking rubbish...

    I did realise that they were from the same roll - but perhaps didn't make the differences between specifics and generalities clear enough. This is the root cause of all human conflict, I believe. Were the two frames scanned with exactly the same settings? (Is the software doing something behind your back, out of your control?) How does the local contrast differ in the two examples? How does the density differ? These are the kind of questions to ask yourself, I guess.

    The local contrast, density change and overall density will affect, to some degree or another, the exact way in which the developer works grain-by-grain. The more agitation, the less the effect, in general.

    I've got nothing against scanners (and you don't need to justify using one) but some of them do behave oddly when they are dealing with opaque grains/grain clumps when the grain 'size' is in the same ball-park as the scanner resolution. Just another influencing factor.

    Best,
    Helen

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    726
    Quote Originally Posted by Helen B
    I've got nothing against scanners (and you don't need to justify using one) but some of them do behave oddly when they are dealing with opaque grains/grain clumps when the grain 'size' is in the same ball-park as the scanner resolution. Just another influencing factor
    That's true, especially if you have anti dust/scratch software running as it can knock out small gaps between grains by interpreting them as dust spots. However, is there really that much difference in the grain between the shots you posted? One shows a lot of detail, the other large areas of mid tone. Grain always tends to be more visible in the latter than the former even though objectively the same size. I never did much like Tri-X because of the grain, although I am having to use it now since Delta 400 vanished in 220. If you don't like it but need the speed you can always use Delta or Tmax.

    Incidentally, I notice that the Pro medium format version of Tri-X is rated at 320. Is it the same emulsion or is it really a bit slower?

    David.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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