That photo is awesome. It's incredibly trippy the longer you look at it. The pattern, the undulations of the wrinkled emulsion, the distortions it causes as it lifts from the glass. I want to try and replicate this.
Originally Posted by dmschnute
Sorry for the late reply everyone, had a real busy day today. Thank you very much for all the replies & inputs. I'll reply to all pertinent questions & comments individually...
I've checked my scanner (Canon 8800f) and I'm pretty sure I've turned off the ICE all this while. Never used it before & not about to now. I'm using Vuescan to scan my negatives. In Vuescan, I've turned off the 'Infrared Clean' option & 'Grain Reduction' option. I think that pretty much covers it. Thanks anyway for pointing that out!
Originally Posted by hoshisato
You could be on to something here, Dave. I haven't printed any of the photos that have this type of effect using my enlarger, either...but I'm pretty sure the negatives themselves will be quite hard to print.
Originally Posted by Dave in Kansas
Clumps of grain...I see. I like grain in the right situation...but why are they clumping?
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
I'm sorry, I should have been clearer on my development procedure earlier. Here's the deal: I live in Malaysia, right near the equator. It's hot & humid here all year round. So, I process my film at 27-28 degrees Celcius. And that's at night, when it's cooler I don't bother to store the developer & fixer that I use in the fridge, so both of these working solutions are at room temp (ca. 28C). For process water, I use tap water (at night, this will also be 28C). I don't use a stop bath, I use a water stop (again, tap water). I mix my working solutions from stock chemicals using the same tap water.
I can't be 100% sure that my tap water isn't 'hard' and I know that processing at such high temperatures is less than ideal, but I've been processing my own film for almost 4 years now (yup, a newbie) and so far things have been working out for me quite well
Thanks for the info, Gerald. After looking at a photo that Ian C showed me last night & also the 'trippy' photo that's attached here in a subsequent post, I agree with you that what I'm getting isn't reticulation either. Clumps of grain or excessive grain is more likely.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Haha, thank you for the informative yet very entertaining reply, Randy. I'm just an idiot with a camera, hence I wouldn't/couldn't call any of my 'work' as 'art'
Originally Posted by Worker 11811
Anyway, for info on my development conditions, see my reply to Jim Noel above. At 27C or 28C, with Tetenal Ultrafin 1:10, I developed that roll of Delta 3200 for 5 minutes, as per the massive dev chart & also Ilford's very own temp-time compensation table. I'd like to add that in addition to not using a 'proper' stop bath, I also don't use Photoflo or any other wetting agent.
The photos I attached earlier weren't pushed. They were exposed at box speed. I know that faster films has more grain, but isn't what I'm getting a bit too excessive even for Delta 3200? Looking at other photos taken with Delta 3200 on Flickr, they're grainy yes..but not as grainy as what I'm getting.
Anyway, below are more photos that has the same 'mottled' effect. This was taken on Ilford Pan 100..a slow film & developed in Ultrafin 1:10. The 2nd photo is also from that same roll of film, but this one appears to be fine. Both were taken in dim light conditions. Puzzling?
Last edited by altair; 06-08-2012 at 06:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: attached photos
Thanks for showing us this photo. I agree, this pattern is extreme & very very interesting. It's kinda trippy as well
Originally Posted by dmschnute
Hi Jeff. Yes, after some time of getting this 'mottled' look to my photos periodically, I decided to do a test. I mixed my working solutions using bottled drinking water I bought at a store. While it's not the same as distilled water, it's the next best thing to it. As I recall, the roll that I developed using that working solution had the 'mottled' effect as well. So, I think we can cancel out my tap water as the culprit, although I can't be 100% sure.
Originally Posted by jeffreyg
Jeff, looking back at the negatives that had this effect, all of them look rather thin. Not dense at all. However, the film rebate markings are pretty clear & distinct. I have developed several rolls of the same type of film (Neopan, Ilford Pan 100, LegacyPro 400) using the same developer under the same conditions for the same amount of time, and yet they look fine. Can this effect be attributed to underdevelopment then?
Originally Posted by Denverdad
Underexposure is a bit more tricky to be certain of. I use a multitude of cameras, and although some of them has had a CLA & some haven't, and I haven't taken a shutter tester to any of them, judging by ear I'd say their shutter speeds sound pretty much right. As for metering, I use the camera meter sometimes, but I tend to use a handheld Gossen/Minolta light meter a lot more, and although I don't claim to be a master at it, I can say with some degree of certainty that my exposure readings & subsequent settings are in the ballpark.
I do tend to take a lot of photos under poor lighting, but more than a few are taken outdoors under very bright sun. Below is an example, taken on Arista II under sunny 16 conditions. I'd be hard pressed to say that I underexposed this shot.
Another example, taken in a room but next to a window that was streaming in midday sun. The effect is still there, but less pronounced. Also from the same roll of Arista II.
That being said, two things are for sure though. The negatives that exhibit this mottled look are thinner than what is considered normal. So the question now is, why are the negatives thin? Either underdevelopment or underexposure, correct?
And..we've pretty much established that this isn't reticulation. It could be microreticulation. It could be excessive grain or grain-clumping. Why does this happen?
This has got me baffled & flustered.