PDA

View Full Version : TMY, Pyrocat HD and scanning



Matus Kalisky
11-Aug-2008, 02:53
I have a grain question here. I am developing my 120 and 4x5 TMY (TMAX 400) negatives with Pyrocat HD in a following manner.

120 (EI 200):
- Jobo drum
- Pyrocat HD (1:1:100)
- 16 minutes semi - stand (4 inversions every 4 minute, more at the beginning)

4x5 (EI 200):
- tray (cca 6 sheets at a time)
- Pyrocat HD (1:1:100)
- cca 12 minutes (films are shuffled through once a minute or so)

Currently and for the forseable future my negatives are scanned with Imacon X5. Let me just note that I am pleased with color positive/negative scans from this lab. I had some 6x6 scans made with Coolscan 9000 too and did not see any sizeable differences in grain (BW or color).

My problem is that I find the grain to be rahter tight and sharp and standing out strongly in the scans. With some sharpening in the post processing it may easily get worse (see bellow).

The question is:

Should I change:
a) developement procedure ?
b) developer ?
c) film (go for a slower one or .. ?)
d) or .. ?

I have read Sandys article in VC on two-bath developers - should I go that way .. ?

I am attaching an overview of 6x6 photo prepared for 20x20 cm print at 360 dpi as well as two 100% crops from the print file. Please note that these were post-procesed (constrast, sahrpness).

thank you

Ken Lee
11-Aug-2008, 03:15
Are you keeping temperature constant ? What do you use for stop bath, fix, etc. ? I have never seen grain like that, and I use the same film/developer combination.

IanG
11-Aug-2008, 04:42
I also used TMY and Pyrocat HD similar EI and dilution but 15 mins in a Jobo tank with regular inversion agitation. I don't get grain like that with prints or scanned negatives.

The only time I've seen similar has been caused by sloppy processing, the photographer didn't check his stop, fix and wash teperatures and huis images suffered from "Micro reticulation" which causes clumping of the silver grains in the emulsion, this can happen with any film.

Ian

Matus Kalisky
11-Aug-2008, 05:03
Sloppy developement you say ? ... hmm let's have a look:

Temperature tends to be rather contant - this was developed before summer. I didi develope some films recently and it was varm - the water was around 24 Celsium (instead of my normal 21) and I forgot to adjust for that so I over developed 2 films a bit. But this does not apply to the image posted.

I use clear water fix for about 4 - 5 minutes - agitation longer at the beginning and then every minute.

For fixing I use the Ilfofix form ilford, dilluted 1:4. I have prolonged fixing times to 10 minues to avoid purple cast from anti-hallation layer in the TMAX films (I got this advice longer ago as I did have this problem).

At the end come the kodak-hypo clear bath and finaly washing with clear water.

Questions:
- how much temperature variation is OK?

I will have a look at home and post crops from direct 3200 spi scans tomorrow.

Ken Lee
11-Aug-2008, 05:55
If your temperature is constant, then I am puzzled. Do you get the big grain only with roll film ? Or do you also see it on 4x5 ? It would help to eliminate some of the "variables" in our investigation.

You can remove the color cast by soaking in a 10% solution of Sodium Sulfite, instead of prolonged duration in the Fixer. Sodium Sulfite is the active ingredient in Hypo Clear, so you can save money and time this way. A 10% solution can be made with a teaspoon per liter of water. I suspect that the color cast is from the developer, not the film, but I am not sure.

IanG
11-Aug-2008, 08:29
Sloppy developement you say ? ... hmm let's have a look:

. . . . . . Questions:
- how much temperature variation is OK?

I will have a look at home and post crops from direct 3200 spi scans tomorrow.
Not saying it is sloppy processing :D

The temperature variations shouldn't really be more than 1°C between stages but it's sudden changes in temperature that shock the emulsion & cause the micro reticulation.

Normally you only really notice the difference with 35mm negatives, and it's highly unusual to get large grain with TMY.

Ian

Bruce Watson
11-Aug-2008, 09:25
...my negatives are scanned with Imacon X5. Let me just note that I am pleased with color positive/negative scans from this lab.

Are you sure the lab is scanning without any sharpening? With the Imacon software that usually means setting sharpening to -120, not just zero.

I'm just asking. This shouldn't happen, especially with a staining developer. Part of the reason to use a staining developer is that a large part of the density is the stain, not metallic silver.

So I'm thinking it's likely not the film or the processing. But I've been wrong so many times before...

Don Hutton
11-Aug-2008, 09:38
Not saying it is sloppy processing :D

The temperature variations shouldn't really be more than 1°C between stages but it's sudden changes in temperature that shock the emulsion & cause the micro reticulation.

Normally you only really notice the difference with 35mm negatives, and it's highly unusual to get large grain with TMY.

IanMicro reticulation is very easy to identify and that's not it. I've actually tried to cause reticulation on modern films by dunking in icey fixer and then hitting it with a luke warm rinse, and never succeeded (I tried this with both TMX and TMY). I suspect that modern emulsions simply "don't".

I agree with Bruce - it looks like too much sharpening to me.

IanG
11-Aug-2008, 13:29
Micro reticulation is very easy to identify and that's not it. I've actually tried to cause reticulation on modern films by dunking in icey fixer and then hitting it with a luke warm rinse, and never succeeded (I tried this with both TMX and TMY). I suspect that modern emulsions simply "don't".


Micro reticulation is not the same as reticulation. Modern films don't reticulate, we don't disagree. That type of reticulation is physical damage to the gelatin layer.

However Micro reticulation occurs with modern pre-hardened emulsions and is caused the same way but the difference is far less obvious. I'd have to agree that in this case the grain does seem abnormally large, even micro reticulation shouldn't be that bad.

Ian

Ken Lee
11-Aug-2008, 15:05
I agree with Bruce - it looks like too much sharpening to me.

This should be easy to determine: Get the scanner out of the process, and examine the negative under magnification instead.

Do you have access to an enlarger ? If not, how about a strong loupe or a weak microscope ?

Kirk Gittings
11-Aug-2008, 22:03
I agree with Bruce - it looks like too much sharpening to me.

This should be easy to determine: Get the scanner out of the process, and examine the negative under magnification instead.

Do you have access to an enlarger ? If not, how about a strong loupe or a weak microscope ?

Ditto, Ask them to do a scan truly without any sharpening or better yet rent time on an Imacon and do it yourself or have them scan it as a 3F raw file, download the software from HSBD and process the files yourself at home and play with the sharpening yourself.

BarryS
11-Aug-2008, 22:13
If the grain looks equally bad in the Imacon and the Coolscan 9000, it makes me think the problem is with development. T-grain films will turn into a sooty harsh grainy mess if you overdevelop them, so my first question is--have you optimized your development times? At the the very least you should do a clip test, shooting a roll of identical frames and developing clips for a range of times. T-grain films should have a very tight smooth grain unless they're overdeveloped.

Matus Kalisky
12-Aug-2008, 01:11
Thanks to all of your answers. I went back to the original scan and found out that it was made with Coolscan 9000, not with imacon.

Bellow are 3 following crops:

1) 100% crop from the 3000 spi scan - No post processing
2) the same crop resized approx to the size of the prit file I have submited before - No post processing
3) crop from the print file (the same as in my first post) - (levels, curves, sharpening ... )

If I compare the 3 I guess my post processing is to blame. But now I would have different questions:

Developing fim with pyrocat allows to save some of the higlights. The resulting image without any post processing may look rather flat. Now if I start to play with contrast, burning/dodging (if necessary) and at the end I sharpen the image - I may end up with with strong grain pattern. How to cope with this?

Hmmm - overdevelopement you say? I found the times am using (see my the beginning of the thread) somewhere on apug. Maybe somebody using the same combination of film/developer could comment on this .. ?

Ken Lee
12-Aug-2008, 03:29
To remove the appearance of grain from the scanned images, many techniques have been invented by our digital friends. Some involve Photoshop, others involve 3rd-party tools like Noise Ninja. You can Google the subject and explore the many options.

Meanwhile, I would be interested to see an enlargement or scan made with a diffused light source.

I'm unfamiliar with the Nikon 9000, but I once owned a Nikon 4000 35mm scanner, and found that its light source was much like a condenser enlarger. The images were certainly sharp, but the appearance of grain was exaggerated by the scanner.

While flatbed scanners are not perfect, they have the advantage (in my humble opinion) of using a diffused light source, much like the traditional "cold light head". The qualitative advantages of diffusion lighting have been discussed and illustrated many times, going back decades.

Since your enlargement is only to 20x20 cm or around 8x8 inches, you should be able to view your negative with a simple loupe, 6X, or 8X. Is the grain equally visible via a loupe ?

Ken Lee
12-Aug-2008, 03:42
The resulting image without any post processing may look rather flat.

On my calibrated monitor, the image appears to have been under-exposed, or wrongly scanned. The low values are rather dark. The skin looks a bit dark.

It's hard to evaluate an image when someone else does the scanning. You have no idea what the original negative looks like. This is especially true with b&w film which has a long range of values. The operator can "make or break" the image.

My guess is that the person doing the scanning, simply adjusted the curves so that the darkest tone reached 0, and the brightest tone reached 100. The resulting image doesn't feel like natural light. It may be a "correct scan", but it isn't a pleasing scan from that negative.

eddie
12-Aug-2008, 04:33
i would try ta few things before i continued to pull my hair out.

i would shoot another roll paying close attention to your developing times, temps, agitation etc. maybe even buy another roll from a different emulsion batch.

try printing it using an enlarger.

try another lab/scan

i use the massive development chart (http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html)for my starting times. a quick look turned up a time of 10 min for tmax 400 in pyro. so if others are correct and this film is particularly sensitive to over development this could be your culprit. i just looked again at your 120 times and i see you did it for 16 min! definitely way too much development! especially if you are rating your film at 200! if you over expose you need to under develop. you seemed to have over exposed AND over developed.

if you are doing semi stand you need to use higher dilutions. a 1:1:100 would not do it IMO. i am not sure with pyro cause i do not use semi stand at hi dilutions but i would try something like 1:1:200 or 1:1:250 for 16 or 20 min. you will need to test for sure.

i used semi stand development times with HC110. i use foma100. it develops faster than most film! be aware. anyhow. i use hc110 at 119:1 for 18 min with agitation every 3rd min. (i only mention this for comparisons).

as for your question about being flat. i would guess it is related to the day you chose to shoot this image. it looks like a flat overcast day. gray sky gray snow.

in the end i believe you are over exposing and over developing the negs. i suggest you try rating the film at 400. develop it in 1:1:100 for 9 or 10 min. try this and get back with us.

good luck.

eddie

Lenny Eiger
12-Aug-2008, 07:55
One of the good things about scanning - especially with a scanner with a good dynamic ranges - is that you don't have to worry about blown out highlights. A good scanner operator can pull them back easily.

Of course if the film is very grainy, there isn't a lot one can do in the scanning to address that. Some drum scanners have aperture control which can help smooth it. In Photoshop, you can go into LAB and smooth (blur) the A and/or B channels. Sometimes this helps a bit...

Lenny


Lenny

Matus Kalisky
13-Aug-2008, 06:16
Overdeveloping, hm. Maybe those of you who use this film/developer could comment on my dev times. Yes - the Massive dev chart states 10 minutes fot TMY @ 400 but there are no notes on the agitation. I agitate only every 4 minus in the 16 minutes developement time.

Unfortunately I do not have the possibility to use and enalrger.

I woulf check the negatives with loupe but I just found yesterday that my light table died.. :mad:

Anyhow - I would livo to hear bout your times/agitation with this combinatin to nail down wheter I am overdeveloping or no (Ken, Sandy.. ?)

thanks

Ken Lee
13-Aug-2008, 07:08
"I would livo to hear bout your times/agitation with this combinatin to nail down wheter I am overdeveloping or no (Ken, Sandy.. ?)"

Sandy is the Maestro of course, but here (http://www.photoformulary.com/uploads/Pyrocat-HD-01-5091.pdf) are the times according to Photographer's Forumulary.

At 1:1:100 dilution, with Rotary Development, TMY gets a recommended 8:00 minutes at 75 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the same as 23.9 degrees Celsius. They suggest an additional 15% for standard agitation, which would bring the time to 9 minutes.

"When using minimal agitation be sure to extend development time by about 50% over normal time for rotary processing, and agitate every two or three minutes. Minimal agitation is recommended only when the adjusted development time is about fifteen minutes or more."

I don't perform semi-stand development (I avoid subjects that require it), but my "Normal" time is 12 minutes at 70 degrees. I use colder water, to get longer times, because I perform tray development by inspection, often many sheets at once, and I appreciate the additional... laxity.

BarryS
13-Aug-2008, 07:19
Using an EI, development time, and dilution suggested by someone else is a good start, but it's only a starting point. Film developing is a robust process--meaning you can get passable results under a lot of conditions, but the only way you're going to take control of your process is by testing yourself. No light table? Use a window and a sheet of paper.

eddie
13-Aug-2008, 07:55
semi stand develop is used with higher dilutions. if you are using 1:1:100 i would have to say you are over developing.

why not go out and shoot another roll. develop it for 10 min at 68 degrees at 1:1:100 agitate "normally" (first 45 seconds continuous and then every 30-60 seconds after that.) scan and get back with us.

if you really want to try semi stand try 1:1:250 for 18-20 min. scan and get back with us.

eddie

Ken Lee
13-Aug-2008, 08:16
No light table? Use a window and a sheet of paper.

Precisely ! Or a computer monitor and an empty white document.

Also, is there excessive grain on the 4x5 sheets ? They were developed differently, and are from a different batch of film at the factory.

Matus Kalisky
13-Aug-2008, 08:18
Tank you. As it was suggested - I will do my homework and try different developing procedures and finaly post here. Though it may take some time as I will be travelling/busy onver next few weeks. I guess I will start with "normal" developing with times suggested by photoformulary (thanks Ken - I had that before but lost it).

thanks again