Controlling grain in B&W film

[Carl Hall]

I’m not a huge lover of grain. There are some times when I think it adds to an image, but on the whole, it’s not something that I like to have in my photos. One reason I usually use 120 film over 35mm is because the grain is less apparent, although there are other reasons too. I usually try and reduce it a bit in Lightroom, but what I’d really like to do is minimize the grain in the negative so I don’t have to faff about as much on the computer later.

What factors affect the amount of grain in a black and white image? I know one of the biggest things is the choice of film and developer, which is why I switched from Rodinal to HC-110. I’ve been using FP4 a bit lately, which I know isn’t the finest grained film, but I’ve got some more rolls left to use up before I can buy something finer (PanF is the finest I've used, but it's too slow usually. I'm thinking Acros?)

I’m going to dev a roll of 35mm FP4+ tonight, in HC-110 (B). I don’t usually worry too much about the temperature and just dev it at the rooms ambient temperature, but tonight I’m going to make an effort to get the chemicals to 20 degrees first, and keep them there.

Is there anything else that I need to worry about? Over/under agitation? Temp of rinse water? Original exposure of the negative?

Getting on top of the grain is really something I’d like to do, as it’s what stops me using more 35mm film.

 

[Kodiak Qc]

What factors affect the amount of grain in a black and white image?

•


Two parameters are involved here:

— the thickness of the emulsion
— the boost factor.

A faster film has a much thinner emulsion
than a slower one resulting in bigger but
fewer molecular clusters

Exposing a 200 at say 800 will force the
developing time thus resulting in greater grain.

 

[joxby]

I'm not going to muddy the waters with push/pull, developing specifically to scan or antialiasing and usm, suffice to say the thing with grain and sharpness is, developing for one particularly always results in a reduction of the other.
Sharper negs are grainier, smoother negs sacrifice sharpness and fine detail, at what point shifts of one or the other become too apparent for you is really up to you.
I do know that solvent developers like HC 110 or Extol dissolve the edges of the film grains and give a smoother creamier finish in the final print, this effect diminishes as the developer dilution increases and thus solvent, so no weak long stands for smooth negs in HC 110.
I haven't used much HC but that's the way it is in Xtol, a good solid 1/1 - 1/2 for the recommended time, temp and agitation..

 

[Carl Hall]

•


Two parameters are involved here:

— the thickness of the emulsion
— the boost factor.

A faster film has a much thinner emulsion
than a slower one resulting in bigger but
fewer molecular clusters

Exposing a 200 at say 800 will force the
developing time thus resulting in greater grain.

Thanks Kodiak, I don't (usually) push film as I find the grain increase is too much for me. I'm mainly trying to figure out how to minimise grain at the developing stage of it all

I'm not going to muddy the waters with push/pull, developing specifically to scan or antialiasing and usm, suffice to say the thing with grain and sharpness is, developing for one particularly always results in a reduction of the other.
Sharper negs are grainier, smoother negs sacrifice sharpness and fine detail, at what point shifts of one or the other become too apparent for you is really up to you.
I do know that solvent developers like HC 110 or Extol dissolve the edges of the film grains and give a smoother creamier finish in the final print, this effect diminishes as the developer dilution increases and thus solvent, so no weak long stands for smooth negs in HC 110.
I haven't used much HC but that's the way it is in Xtol, a good solid 1/1 - 1/2 for the recommended time, temp and agitation..

Hmm I didn't know that the dilution had that much of an effect on grain; I've used dilution B so far but will have a play with other ones. Think I'm going to either have to accept grain is more apparent in 35mm and learn to love it, or just carry on using more MF!

Cheers guys!

 

[Kodiak Qc]

trying to figure out how to minimise grain at the developing stage of it all

•


Then, use the lowest ISO! I remember using FP4,
exposing this "125" at some 85 ISO and developing
accordingly.

 

[Kei]

Use 100 film or slower and develop in a lower acutance developer. (avoid the likes of rodinal for example) I've had great results from Tmax 100, ACROS 100 & Rollei Retro 80s The closest I got to grainless was rollei RPX25 but obviously no good to you if panF is too slow. Well cooked Tmax 400 isn't bad either, but certainly not up to the slower films. I have always use kodak D-76 developer which I found to give a superb balance between sharpness and grain when used at 1:1 dilution. Grain is even finer when used undiluted but I find that a bit excessive as it's a one shot dev so you use quite a lot. I also always develop at 20 degrees and make sure that all stages maintain that 20 degrees, though it'd only be the dev stage that should really have any great effect on the grain structure. Developing in colder temperatures will reduce grain so you could try 18 degrees if there is a time for it.

 

[Mr Will]

Switching to a t-grain film will cut the amount of grain too - in Ilford world this means Delta 100 instead of FP4 (or Delta 400 instead of HP5)

 

[StephenM]

What factors affect the amount of grain in a black and white image?

1. Film. Slower films are normally finer grained. I've never used tabular grain films but they are claimed to be finer grained than a conventional film for the same speed.

2. Developer. Acutance developers will increase graininess, solvent (fine grain developers) reduce it, at the expense of visual sharpness.

3. Exposure. Overexpose and you increase the grain.

4. Development. Overdevelopment will increase grain; from memory too high a temperature will also increase grain.

5. The visual appearance of grain can be simulated by reticulation - or putting it another way, if you achieve reticulation you can produce an effect that looks like increased grain. Reticulation is caused by thermal shock - a variation in processing temperatures that cracks the emulsion. Really bad reticulation is obvious - it's crazy paving appearance is unmistakeable. Slight reticulation will look like grain. I had a bad case once in the 1960s and have been even more cautious about temperatures than I was before. I use a certified themometer, and keep temperatures (including the rinse water) to within a half degree Fahrenheit of 68. I know that most people here regard this as unimportant (or obsessive) but I prefer to be as safe as I can.

6. Contrast of the print. Higher contrast will make the grain more visible.

7. Type of enlarger. Condensors will make grain more visible, diffusers reduce it.

If I think of any more, I'll add them.