Yes on the grain look , it does have a interesting look. Keep in mind it's not sever but it's there. I was curious about thier film and was inexspensive. I prefer the Ilford Delta 100. But wanted to try it. Next roll I'll try less agitation and see what happends.
Scanning does tend to exaggerate grain, especially if the negatives are a little thin. I'm not familiar with the film and nobody seems to be quite sure what it is---possibly some version of the HP5+ or Kentmere 400 emulsion on a different base, if you believe online discussions of the question, but there's no consensus. That level of uncertainty makes it pretty hard to say anything with confidence about what behavior to expect from the film, IMHO.
The silver grains don't know what size image they're in; a 35mm-size crop from your MF frames should be exactly as grainy as the same film in 35mm, and the full frame should be correspondingly less grainy for a given print size, if you see what I mean. And in *general* faster films tend to be grainier, but there's a lot of variation between films of the same speed.
If you're finishing in d*g*t*l, and you don't like what your scanner does with the grain of this film, then I guess there it is, but if you're also targeting wet prints it would be good to judge the apparent graininess of those results separately.
San Diego, CA, USA
The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
-The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_
We are once again back to the issue of an OP trying to judge or make comments about negs from a hybrid process involving scanning. I sympathise with anyone unable to print in a darkroom but trying to draw meaningful conclusions about a neg's graininess from scanning is very difficult.
OP, I appreciate that your question was not: "How do I minimise grain?" but simply: Is there a relationship between grain and different films?"
However, if I may add the following. If scanning from negs is all that you will have the facility to do then you might want to consider chromogenic B&W film such as Ilford XP2+ where the negs are formed with dye and lend themselves to scanning in an easier way than trad B&W negs and the scans are closer to what a print from a trad B&W darkroom print will look like
Me personally like Rolleicord Va + Fomapan 400 + Rodinal 1+50 and print on Adox Varioclassic.
OM-1n: Do I need to own a Leica?
Rolleicord Va: Humble.
Agfa Isolette III: Amazingly simple, yet it produces outstanding negatives.
Holga 120GFN: EV 11 or EV 12.
I have to agree, I've just shot some Tri-X Pan Professional from very long ago, and the grain was no where near as bad as people claimed compared to current 400TX, I could hardly tell the difference. Now I know Pan Professional was a 320 and was slightly finer than the over-the-counter "amateur" Tri-X but still...
Originally Posted by desertratt
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by ToddB
As a very general rule of thumb, the more sensitive the film (higher ISO) the more apparent the grain. This is a characteristic of the emulsion, not a characteristic of the format.
Originally Posted by ToddB
There are many other things such as exposure, type of developer, etc. which will effect the final grain size.
It's all relative. Depends on your specific developer and degree of enlargement. HP5 was a very different looking than TMY, which is quite different than TriX. Acutance-wise, TMY is the clear winner,
but you might like the look of one of the others better. I generally develop in pyro, which gives HP5 a
very smooth watercolor grain, while TMY comes out with crisp grain. I've always hated the salt and pepper look of Tri-X, but other people have done wonderful work with it. Any of these films are going
to have visible grain from 120 even in an 11X14 print (TMY the smallest, but still potentially visible
to the naked eye). And 120 film is used in a variety of formats, so 6X4.5 will require significantly more
enlargement than 6X9, for example.
I have experienced issues with grain over the past six months as I traveled around the U.S. and shot a variety of ISO400 films including Tri-X, TMax, HP5+ and Arista. I experimented with different developers including D-76, Ilfosol 3 and HC-110. The reason I was experimenting with different developers was precisely because I was having problems that I never encountered back in Japan where my default developer is Fuji Super Prodol. The first problem I encountered with D-76 was uneven developing. It appeared that not enough developer was getting to the center of the film. So I increased the agitation but then grain became rather pronounced. Like you, I noticed it most often in the sky, especially if I needed to darken the sky in PP. I found that the problem persisted with all of the films and all of the developers, although I was most pleased with HC-110.
But my final conclusion was that while all of those developers require more agitation than Super Prodol, the key is to do sufficient agitation, but not too vigorously. In other words, increase the frequency but keep the agitation gentle. In particular D-76 seems to require more agitation than others to avoid uneven development. Kodak literature suggests very fast agitations; something like one full inversion every second. I find that to be way too vigorous with resulting skies being quite grainy. I try to agitate much more slowly; doing about 4 inversions in ten seconds. (One inversion = 180 degrees two times)
Of course I realize that others may have very different results so this is just my experience. I do all of my developing with stock solution or in the case of HC-110, dilution B.
If it's that bad, you might try 2 inversions every 30 seconds instead of 4 inversions every minute, same amount but more frequently to avoid the uneven development and to quiet the grain through slow inversions?
Originally Posted by revdocjim