TMY, Pyrocat HD and scanning

[Matus Kalisky]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

...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]

Not saying it is sloppy processing

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

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".

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

[IanG]

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]

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 ?