I make a distinction between what I call to myself constructive and destructive grain. (Disclaimer: this is entirely subjective scientific nonsense.)
Constructive grain feels like it's superimposed on the image such that you can sort of look through it and see the all the sharpness, contrast and tonality of the untouched image. Terms like 'stochastic resonance' or 'constructive interference' come to mind (in human speak: it sings). Examples are Neopan 400 (Rodinal), TMY (Xtol) and, to a slightly lesser degree, Tri-x (Rodinal).
Destructive grain seems to keep you from seeing the image, it captures the attention in an ugly way. No matter how you look, the image just doesn't seem to come out. It doesn't shine through, somehow. Examples are Fomapan 400 and Kentmere 400 (Rodinal, Xtol). In 35mm I find Tri-x (Rodinal) also a bit destructive at times. Perhaps HP5+ (Xtol) also.
Mind you, the amount of grain is not important, it's the 'character' (shape, size, density distribution, whatever) that seems to matter to me. Neopan 400 can have a lot of grain in 35mm when developed in Rodinal, yet it still adds to the image. Use FP4+ in the same developer and it destroys everything.
Creating grain is not a huge trick. The hard part is getting out nice (i.e. constructive) grain.
Again, the above is utter nonsense in any objective, scientific sense, and I'm making it worse by throwing scientific terms into the mix. Pseudo science pur sang. But it is how I feel about it- call it a personal issue.
I remember pushing Agfapan 100 to 1600 - wow (in Atomal FF)!! Grain the size of golf balls, but tight and sharp enough to cut your fingers on. ;)
Probably best not to stir it with your finger.;)
Originally Posted by Athiril
The Geoffrey Crawley formula Gerald Koch mentioned is FX-16 (Grain texture developer for high speed films).
See http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...?msg_id=0097OTfor the 1963 formula reprinted up to about 1987.
It seems to be a modification of FX-2, using metol and glycin as the developing agents. Pinacryptol Yellow was the original preferred restrainer, although Crawley said you could substitute potassium bromide for slightly "fluffier" grain. Whether it makes much difference with modern films (compared to Kodak Royal Pan-X, which must have been what Crawley mainly meant it for), might be worth testing.
I never really used it much and would also like to see a controlled comparison to Rodinal.
This is what I do. And sometimes I use Rodinal 1+10 ! , and agitate like in a cocktail party :D
Originally Posted by polyglot
The way to go, Darko. Superb grain, great resolution, beautiful tones and a high speed. Who could ask for more? :cool:
Originally Posted by darkosaric
"Warm" has nothing to do with it in most normal developers, it's time+temperature. Adjust the time to suit the temperature and results will be so similar as to be indistinguishable. I routinely develop all my black and white at 24C/75F because I use a Jobo CPE2 that will heat, but not cool. In the hottest months of summer sometimes I'm running at 76-77F because of the ambient temperature. I adjust times a bit to suit. Results are fine, no particular grain - and ALL my Delta 3200 is run like this too (albeit in T-Max developer, but it's grainier than D76.)
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
What you have here is a very long development time for the temperature. Ilford specs give only 13.5 minutes at 24C for D76 at EI 12500.
Not that you aren't getting the grainy results the OP is asking for. But you could just as well get it at 20C with a suitably longer time. Ilford publishes a temperature conversion chart that gives equivalent times at different temperatures (this is what I use when I'm a degree or two too hot in the summer - it's close enough for such small differences.) It only goes to 17:15 at 24C, but the equivalent time at 20C is given as 25:00 minutes. Some extrapolation shows the equivalent to 24C/18 minutes would be about 26:30.
Some older films could reticulate if temperature varied too much and developer was warm and then you went into cool stop or the like, but that's a different thing and very unlikely with modern films.
IIRC reticulation was discussed in a previous thread where it was stated that modern films can be made to reticulate. Itr is just harder to do this accidently.
I feel fairly certain that if you screw around with Rodinal and a couple of films you will find some combination that is near what you seek.
Kodak 5222 Double-X (B&W movie film) is almost too grainy for my tastes, but if grain is what you're looking for then you should be able to get all you want, depending on what developer you use. You have to buy it in 400' rolls and spool it down, but it relatively cheap that way. See other threads here and elsewhere for everything you could ever want to know about Double-X!