Camera Help - Grainy Film

I got some film developed the other day, two black and white rolls, both illford but i can't remember the exact type. The pictures i got were alright, but they seem to be really grainy, anyone have any idea why? Each film was taken at separate times, one in the winter the other in the summer.

Examples:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/4062518060_2e017b9644_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2774/4061816005_4cb07b74c6_o.jpg

I'd imagine you were using a fast film (ie with high ISO number):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Film_sensitivity_and_grain

use a less sensitive (slower) film.

i like the grainy look, looks really good.

Yeah its an iso 400. is there anyway i can stop this happening though? Shooting with an canon ae-1 Program

Yeah its an iso 400. is there anyway i can stop this happening though? Shooting with an canon ae-1 Program

400iso Ilford would be HP5+. It's a pretty grainy film but I rate it at 800iso and get far smaller/less grain than those examples you posted. Maybe try a different shop or do it yourself.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hadrianvalentine/3731895370/

Yeah its an iso 400. is there anyway i can stop this happening though? Shooting with an canon ae-1 Program

As has already been stated, the higher the ISO of the film the more grainy it is likely to be. Use ISO 100 or 200, you may need better light and slower shutter speeds but fine for daylight.

As has already been stated, the higher the ISO of the film the more grainy it is likely to be. Use ISO 100 or 200, you may need better light and slower shutter speeds but fine for daylight.

ISO 100 can be grainier than an ISO 400 depending on how it's developed though...

Its just standard camera shop development/

There seems to be ample light in both if his pictures though, think the simple solution of lower iso would be the first step. Some filters may help reduuce glare and improve contrast too.

Its just standard camera shop development/

Yeah but someone is doing it by hand. It looks like they don't know what they're doing.

I developed some iso 400 (ilford) in Rodinal and they didn't come out that grainy, I would complain or ask how they developed it.

My guess, is that expired developer was used. The images show hardly any highlights or shadows. That said, I'd want to see the negatives, to see if the shots were originally under/over-exposed - which would be another explanation.

I'm guessing the developer was over-used (exhausted), through use on too many batches of film, to try to keep costs down at the point of development.

I honestly like the pics!

:-) I love the pics...

If your negative was under exposed then it will be physically quite thin - this means that less light will be shined through it to create the print, if the Negative was over exposed, it would be much thicker and so more light would be needed to pass through it to get a 'correct' exposure.

The pictures u posted are grainy because they are under exposed originally - whether that be broken appeture on ur camera or bad metering?... it could also be down to the stock itself - damaged stock will react differently - the older or poorer the stock the more the Halide crystals clump together and so when exposed you see more of them.

I hope that helps in some way?...

that grain is lovely, don't look at it as something negative.Like the guys said you just need to use lower ISO (100?? or maybe 200??) if you want to get sharper images.
Nonetheless there's awalys going to be a certain level of grain, unless that you shoot with 160 transparency with a mediun format camera (not the case I guess..)

just think that some people try to get similar results with digital... as they really look nice!

High ISO seems to be the problem.

Depends on the quality of the camera itself. Some ISO's of 400 will appear a lot less grainy than other camera's as for an example. Lenses do help the higher the aperture is. e.g f1.4 or something. But they are lenses that are prime, (fixed). Basically no zoom.

The higher the aperture, the more light is let in. Which means you can use a less ISO, say of 200 which should produce much better results.

Lenses with a zoom means that it is longer in length, even if using the same mm compared to a prime lense. Because of it being able to extend it requires a bit more material, meaning that you will probably get a minimal of f2.5 if you're lucky. f3.6 is the usual I think, unless you've a really expensive lens.

Depending on the technologic of the camera, (expense wise) you can reach up to 1600 ISO without hardly any noise and compare it to a very cheap camera's ISO of 400. They would probably appear the same.

ISO is basically a sort of way of making things brighter, allowing you to gain a faster shutter speed so you've not much motion blur at all. It's like editing a normal image and making it brighter, where making all little marks etc very visible.

Or something... Hope this helps. And I'm atleast understandable. I've consumed quite a lot of alcohol.

It's a long time since I shot on film, but I used to use HP5 in an AE1P with much better results than that, so at least I used to know what I was doing. OK, get ready for that credibility to disappear in a puff of powdered magnesium, but the OP says

"Its just standard camera shop development"

Since almost nobody is set up to develop HP5 any more, maybe it was XP2? In which case, we probably need to recalibrate our expectations. Just a thought.

I think this is a great photo
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2631/4062518060_2e017b9644_o.jpg

Depending on the technologic of the camera, (expense wise) you can reach up to 1600 ISO without hardly any noise and compare it to a very cheap camera's ISO of 400. They would probably appear the same.

ISO is basically a sort of way of making things brighter, allowing you to gain a faster shutter speed so you've not much motion blur at all. It's like editing a normal image and making it brighter, where making all little marks etc very visible.

Are you talking about digital cameras or are you just making things up.

just incase no one has said it, make sure your camera is set to the correct ISO unless you are pushing/pulling on purpose I dont know if the auto program detects your film speed so you might be manually set to 800 / 1600 and not know it

Are you talking about digital cameras or are you just making things up.

Oh yeah. Forgive me. I was rather drunk last night :P
Lot's of cocktails and shots.

Amazingly I can usually type really well when plastered.

Wow, thanks for the responses guys, and cheers Bigfoot for the comment :).

Yeh I'll have a look at the negs when i can find them and let you know. Its a fixed 50mm lense and i usually set the aperture to automatic, I'll set it manually next time. I don't think the negs where poorly developed, the place where I get them done are an independent shop so would do them properly, would they not?

What camera are you using?

Aperture is always manual. Most 35mm cameras have an 'automatic' setting which means when you open up the aperture (smaller number) the shutter speed increases and vice-versa; giving the right exposure for whatever aperture you choose.

The pictures i got were alright, but they seem to be really grainy, anyone have any idea why?

Because it's a fast negative:-) It's film, it's supposed to be grainy.
If you want smooth results use ISO 100 (or 50).
For example Iflord Delta 400 is a faster film which would be good at this time of the year, but with fine grain and good tonal range/sharpness.

And make sure you set the ISO value in the camera corresponding your film's speed. You don't need to know what's pulling/pushing is, as obviously it's bit too early for that.