I've bean having a major problem with grain when i make 8X10 prints from ilford hp5 400. Does anyone have any idea on what im doing wrong or how i can reduce some of the grain. Thank-you

-- Chris (C_j_c_104@yahoo.ca), September 06, 1999

Answers

Use slower film. HP4 will help, t-max 100, delta 100, etc. Some develpers will allow you to get another stop out of these 100-125 films, so you can shoot at 200-320, if you must have something close to a 400 film speed.

-- Gene crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), September 06, 1999.

Just-barely-visible grain in an 8x10 should be the norm with HP5+; no tricks, just develop in D-76 1:1 to "normal" or slightly below contrast. Of course a slower film will solve the problem.

-- John Hicks / John's Camera Shop (jbh@magicnet.net), September 06, 1999.

A larger negative is a good solution. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), September 07, 1999.

I do not like the grain in HP5+, but if you're hooked to it or just bought a hundred to reduce costs, expose it at 200 ASA and develop in Perceptol.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), September 07, 1999.

Oh... and it's important to choose the right gradation in printing. Even half a grade less can give less grain-impression.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), September 07, 1999.

Response to Any body have any ideas how to make 8x10 prints less grainy

Just to add .....

From experience, HP5 seems to be granier than many other films such as delta. This is usually true if simply normal processing is carried out.

-- Jerry Quek (jerryq@singnet.com.sg), September 07, 1999.

Hi Chris,

I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but use Xtol. I've been shooting HP5 because I ended up with 300 feet of the stuff, and didn't want to waste it. Xtol 1:1, 70F, 10.5 minutes, adj 5 sec every 30 sec. Be absolutely sure to use a minimum of 100cc of developer per 36 exposure roll, ie 100cc Xtol plus 100cc water. Lest there not be enough active chemicals to fully develop the film. The grain pattern will be tight, visible if you view the print up close, but very unobtrusive. I'm also getting wonderful adjacency effects that enhance sharpness, something I've never been aware of before. Oh, and if you really don't like grain, get a 4x5 or larger negative!

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), September 07, 1999.

what is your temp? how are you agitating? what developer are you using. my students have been using HP5 for years with HC110 solution b at 68 degrees. the grain becomes more of a problem when the temp. gets higher ,especially with skin tones. try microdo x, microphen or perceptol, or as been suggested elsewhere a slower film. try rating your film at 200. try a roll and do half at 400 and half at 200. you should see a marked difference. Much better shadow detail at 200. Best way to find out is to test for yourself and see how your equipment and technique produces best negative.

-- Ann CLancy (aclancy@Mediaone.com), September 10, 1999.

Now, Chris what was your question? Is it that you want to print an existing negative to perfection, i.e. with the least amount of visible grain, or do you want suggestions how to develop HP5(+) with the least amount of grain. I thought it was the former.

-- Lot (lotw@wxs.nl), September 10, 1999.

Xtol 1:1 will give about the best grain/sharpness available from HP-5+. This combination should make 8X10 prints that show 'acceptable' grain. If you are using a condenser enlarger, I strongly suggest that you change to a cold light. The Calier effect of the condensoer light source exacerbates the grain. You may want to switch to Delta 400 for better grain and sharpness, but with more demanding accuracy in exposure/developing.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 13, 1999.

Many good possible solutions posted here. Just one more thing to check. Make sure all of your chemistry is within a couple of degrees of your developing temperature of you can get a very slight reticulation that will appear to be exaggerated graininness (is that a Word?)

-- Les Warren (eyeseales@netscape.netl), September 23, 1999.

Many good possible solutions posted here. Just one more thing to check. Make sure all of your chemistry is within a couple of degrees of your developing temperature of you can get a very slight reticulation that will appear to be exaggerated graininness (is that a Word?) I have had good results over the years with HP5 and fine grain developers like Edwal'sFG7, Kodak's ne Xtol and have used accufine for shooting at EI 800, all of which I typically enlarge to 11x14 fom 35mm and 14x14 from 120 film.

-- Les Warren (eyeseales@netscape.netl), September 23, 1999.

Many good possible solutions posted here. Just one more thing to check. Make sure all of your chemistry is within a couple of degrees of your developing temperature or you can get a very slight reticulation that will appear to be exaggerated graininness (is that a Word?) I have had good results over the years with HP5 and fine grain developers like Edwal'sFG7, Kodak's ne Xtol and have used accufine for shooting at EI 800, all of which I typically enlarge to 11x14 from 35mm and 14x14 from 120 film.

-- Les Warren (eyeseales@netscape.netl), September 23, 1999.

Nobody's mentioned this: Grab that dusty "Pictrol" diffusion attachment and hook it to the enlarging lens. (hopefully no one has died of shock yet...) This clear plastic bladed diaphram needs to be dialed in pretty heavily to get "pictorial" results. Dialing it in a third may actually make your prints look sharper, and will indeed get rid of visable grain.

It does indeed look a little weird hanging on your enlarging lens... but wait til you show up at some shoot with this thing screwed to the front of your 50 Summilux. The onlooking faces may/might look weirder than the contrapti

-- Larry Welker (lwelker@turbont.net), November 07, 1999.