# Too much grain



## smithdan (Mar 20, 2014)

Test drives on a Voigtlander Vitomatic  have come up with a bit more grain than I would like.


First outing, HP5+ :




so next roll FP4:


 

And well, pretty lumpy.

Both developed in D76  1:1, with the usual care on temp time agitation and all that stuff.   Scanner isn't to blame as negs from files coming out OK.  Heard that D76 at 1:1 dilution results in grain but this much?  Also stock solution is approaching its best before date but still within specs.

Can anyone shed  any light on this and is D76 a compatable developer for Ilford film.

Thanks  D


----------



## compur (Mar 20, 2014)

HP5 at what ISO? You don't need ISO 400 or higher outdoors in daylight. Try FP4 or  Pan-F.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 20, 2014)

I used to use D76 1:1 as my standard developer and always got good results. I've never done any experimenting, but I've always heard that 1:1 delivers better shadow detail than stock and also produces a sharper neg.


----------



## compur (Mar 20, 2014)

Me too.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 20, 2014)

You'll learn to like it, lol.

Try a slower film next time?


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 20, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> You'll learn to like it, lol.
> 
> Try a slower film next time?



Yeah, I was never happy with the grain with 35mm and 400 film unless there were no other options due to conditions. 100 or 200 would have been a better choice for any of these shots.
I have to say that doesn't look right for even 400, and you did say your dev wasn't hot.


----------



## smithdan (Mar 20, 2014)

Yes.  Grain (reasonable grain)= sharpness. Used to develop in microdol x  but now all supplies have to be mail order D76 being dry ships without problems.  Wonder if the shelf life might be a problem.  Ordering some stuff and will try a fresh batch.  

Also Compur, I have to use what I can get and save the slower film for the cameras with limited shutter speeds.


----------



## smithdan (Mar 20, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> You'll learn to like it, lol.
> 
> Try a slower film next time?



FP4 shot blueprint @125 just as grainy hence the headscratching.  Motel on FP4.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 20, 2014)

smithdan said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > You'll learn to like it, lol.
> ...



No offense intended, but that looks like dog do-do...THAT is wayyyyyyyy too coarse of a grain pattern for a 100 to 125 ISO speed film! I mean...YEESH! THe grain is...awful...and judging by the burned out sky, I think you might have over-developed the negatives...I mean...wow...

Not sure why the grain is so BIG... I know Kodak's Plus-X Pan (a 125 ASA B&W panchromatic film) would look MUCH finer-grained; Kodak T-Max 400 looks about as fine-grained as Plus-X pan, due to the different, T-grain type emulsion the T-Max films use.

I do not mind grain, but a medium-speed film like FP4 ought NOT have golfball-sized grain until you get down to a reallllllly major crop.

What kind of agitation method are you using? How long are you developing? Do the negatives look like the inside of a coal mine? *Are you overexposing the ***p* out of the film perhaps???


----------



## smithdan (Mar 20, 2014)

Dunno Derrel.  This is enough to make a guy shoot digital!

Didn't do anything different than any other time.  Checked the Gossen against a selenium Kalmar and the meter on board the Vitomatic, all is good.  Development temps and times and agitation as per the box, 20c, 11 min, 10 sec /min.  Crops not silly large.

Just 50 grit grain and not enough image info for the scanner to get a handle on.

Only thing I figger is might be something in the water that's killing the developer on the shelf faster than manufacturer's specs, and wondered if anyone else ran against this problem.


----------



## Rick58 (Mar 21, 2014)

I'm relatively new to the digital game, but could this have something to do with the appearance...

You have a whole bunch of pixels crammed into a REALLY small photo. I looked at your irrigation shot, and starting at the upper left and looking across, the grain is not evenly distributed. In fact, it's so course, the upper left doesn't even look like grain. 
Just throwing stuff out there...


----------



## smithdan (Mar 21, 2014)

Think what I have to throw out is the developer.  Something is causing a premature death, blaming the local water supply so perhaps buy some distilled for the next mix of stock at least.  If I shot more then storage wouldn't be as much of a problem.    Prefer liquid concentrates but post office does not.

These films are quite forgiving in exposure latitude, that plus a "test drive" on a new to me camera causes me to push its abilities to see what she'll do.  However  looking at the stuff shot over the last 10 weeks, grain has increased over time so with everything standard except the camera and time, time gets the blame.

Thanks for all your comments


----------



## timor (Mar 21, 2014)

smithdan said:


> Prefer liquid concentrates but post office does not.


 ???
Get the stuff from Freestyle, they use UPS.
BTW HP5+ grain is extremely hard to tame. It has it's applications, but not maybe in landscape.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 21, 2014)

This is HP5 developed in DDX shot with  Rollei 35, once you get used to HP5 it is a great film 






HP5 @ iso1600 developed in LC29


----------



## timor (Mar 21, 2014)

Gary, scan from negative or print ?


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 21, 2014)

timor said:


> smithdan said:
> 
> 
> > Prefer liquid concentrates but post office does not.
> ...


It just has to be shipped on the ground, since it's classified ORM-D.

I really don't understand why some retailers won't do it.  B&H's refusal to ship ORM-D items is why all of my film/chemistry business goes to Freestyle.


----------



## smithdan (Mar 21, 2014)

Happy with HP5 and preferred it over TMax 400 when TriX became scarce few years back.  Up until last year was using ID11 1:3.  Couple of 35 mm scans dust and all from a Vito IIa with no pp,  squash leaves in sun,  tangled woods in shade.  

Supply hit and miss.  Calgary (1 3/4 hr away) expensive.  Last stuff from Calumet.  Will try Freestyle and B&H.


 

Haven't done anything with these as this was a camera test roll.

The mess at the start of this thread is a new one on me.


----------



## timor (Mar 22, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > smithdan said:
> ...


 This is a big and bizarre problem with B&H. Some time ago a guy from New York Explained to me, that it has to do with New York bridges and tunnels and rules of transporting stuff thru them. Apparently B&H is not willing to take trouble of training their stuff in rules of that. As B&H business depends on mostly electronics they don't care for few bottles of sold ORM-D chemicals.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 22, 2014)

timor said:


> Gary, scan from negative or print ?



The band shot is scan of wet print


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 22, 2014)

timor said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...


That sounds about right.

The way I see it - B&H would do just fine without selling film or chemicals, Freestyle would not.  Freestyle has a better selection, but B&H is usually slightly cheaper.  I don't have a problem paying 50 cents more per roll, and that's usually about what the difference is.


----------



## smithdan (Mar 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Gary, scan from negative or print ?
> ...




Thanks Gary,  waiting on this reply.  Have to scan all my film now.  The stonework image is great.


----------



## timor (Mar 22, 2014)

gsgary said:


> timor said:
> 
> 
> > Gary, scan from negative or print ?
> ...


INTERESTING


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 22, 2014)

Bad developer?

I shoot HP5 at 400 (or 200 and adjust) and process using Ilford LC29, and I never get that much grain!


----------



## gsgary (Mar 22, 2014)

smithdan said:


> Thanks Gary,  waiting on this reply.  Have to scan all my film now.  The stonework image is great.



Cheers thats a scan from the negative


----------



## gsgary (Mar 22, 2014)

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > timor said:
> ...



Cock up alert, that was a scan of the negative, this is a quick scan of the print


----------



## smithdan (Mar 22, 2014)

vimwiz said:


> Bad developer?
> 
> I shoot HP5 at 400 (or 200 and adjust) and process using Ilford LC29, and I never get that much grain!



That's about it it seems,  either D76 not a compatible developer for Ilford or for some reason the stuff is deteriorating on the shelf faster than expected.  Fresh mix back in early January gave great silver on FP4.  Irrigation gear shot (HP5) processed at 6 weeks in.  Motel at 8 weeks.

I could see faint negs with tired developer but not gravel.

Thanks vimwiz


----------



## vimwiz (Mar 22, 2014)

How did you store it? - At working strength or stock?

HP5+ *does* support D76, Ive got the ilford lab book and is listed in the table

For HP5+ at ISO 400, use at 1+1dilution for 11 mins, it says.

My (comncentrated, economy) developer lasts ~24h at working strength, but a good 6 months (longer is no air) at room temp, at stock strength.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Mar 22, 2014)

what's film?


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 22, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> what's film?


Har har.  That never gets old.

:raisedbrow:


----------



## timor (Mar 22, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> what's film?


Are you serious ?


----------



## timor (Mar 22, 2014)

smithdan said:


> That's about it it seems,  either D76 not a compatible developer for Ilford


 Every film is made to look in D76 rather sufficiently good. It is most popular developer in the world and for most application is satisfactory. I am not saying it is good enough but it is satisfactory as long as you don't try to print large.  There is some other reason for your too large grain in your sample, could be overheated film (sometime during storage) or your developer was too hot. Your sample displays strong contrast (that also might be from scanning, and manipulation after scanning) from mild pushing. Size of grain is not created by dying developing agent but by sodium sulfite, a salt which dissolves metallic silver. D76 has of it just too much to be a good developer for modern films. But it is "compatible".


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 22, 2014)

Ilford's ID-11 is the exact same thing as D76.


----------



## smithdan (Mar 22, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> what's film?



Floppy stuff in sheets or rolls invented to replace drippy wet glass or this equally weird and wet metal


----------



## smithdan (Mar 22, 2014)

Vimwiz  and Timor - Mixing, storage and use by the book.  used D76 0n and off for over 30 years as it was cheap and handy.  Can't think of any accidents happening for film or chemistry. HP5 was mail order from Calumet in late Dec.  may have been frozen in the mail but heat??  FP4 bought locally (Saneal Calgary).

Josh - remember now, same chemistry.

So, what I've learned here is to reload, reshoot, reprocess with fresh chemistry and hope for the results I'm used to. Ill check my thermometer as well.  High contrast probably due to pp fiddling about to try and get something visable from these.

Thanks again guys..
.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 22, 2014)

smithdan said:


> So, what I've learned here is to reload, reshoot, reprocess with fresh chemistry and hope for the results I'm used to.


Figure out what the variables are and eliminate them one by one.


----------



## timor (Mar 23, 2014)

smithdan said:


> * but heat*[/COLOR]??  FP4 bought locally (Saneal Calgary).


Yes, heat can do much bad to the emulsion. This is always possible, between factory and you there is a bunch of people handling this film, some of them ignorant. Some retailers will sell to the customers bad material knowingly. Example is Freestyle selling knowingly bad batch of Arista Edu 200.  There are simply no guaranties...


----------



## smithdan (Mar 23, 2014)

Have 1/2 roll of that FP4 left and a full bottle of D76 stock at the 3 month point.  Makes sense to repeat the exercise with what I have around. may not prove anything but at least it's a shot.

Just hate wasting materials.  Hate more reducing my old cameras to ornaments that only get dusted from time to time.


----------



## timor (Mar 23, 2014)

OK. Good luck.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 23, 2014)

smithdan said:


> Just hate wasting materials.


I bulk load, so I always have a few 12 exposure rolls laying around for testing purposes.

Without that option, I would try to narrow the possible causes down as much as possible before actually using any film.


----------



## smithdan (Mar 23, 2014)

good idea.  Already have a loader.  For tests I crank about half a 36 off and get usually two 14 - 15 rolls.  Should break down and buy 100 ft and new cassettes  anyway.  Paid almost 12CAD for the last HP4 36. Ouch!


----------



## smithdan (Jun 30, 2014)

Busy Spring and early Summer so no time to play.  Finally got a chance today to shoot and develop a roll of FP4, same camera Voigtlander Vitomatic I, processed in the same batch of D76 which was mixed in late Dec and stored at room temp in an almost full bottle.  Used the meter on the camera.  Only big difference this time was to use the developer full strength.  The developed negatives looked to have the right density and scanned well.  Whatever caused the unacceptable grain back in March, error on my part or some other factor remains a mystery.


a few examples complete with dust and scratches.   Pleasant camera to use.  nice heft, smooth controls, quiet.  Wish it was the rangefinder model but not a big deal.


----------



## timor (Jun 30, 2014)

There is a difference in your processing, you used full strength D76. That's the difference. In mean time I found  few threads about that, people complaining about too much grain while using D76 1:1 with TriX or HP5. Looks like 1:1 is very good with tabular grain films, where too much silver solving action is really unwanted. In the case of thick grain films like HP5 watered down D76 apparently doesn't work well. In any case I would switch to Tmax Dev. or DDX (isn't it same thing ?)


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 30, 2014)

Talk about zombies, this showed up with some auto-saved content I may or may not have ever posted! Since it seems moot now I'll just say your latest set of photos are very nice; I have a different model Vito but it's a great little camera.


----------

