Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,705   Posts: 1,548,483   Online: 861
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,903
    Quote Originally Posted by dmschnute View Post
    Attachment 52190

    I would tend to agree with the consensus; this would appear to be grain, rather than reticulation as I see it.

    Attached is an image with a rather interesting (and stylish) pattern.

    The original is a glass plate dated circa 1914. The pattern seems to follow preferentially specific areas of the image -- dark garment, light garment, the grass, the vine on the corner of the house, the chair back. (Almost looks like a contour map!)

    The leech-like streaks at the top are emulsion that has separated from the glass. They appear maximum-black.

    I would dearly love to reproduce this; probably not possible with modern materials. I assume that this occurred during development. The leeches probably went to D-max because they were exposed to developer on both sides of the emulsion.

    The pattern is distinctly visible in the emulsion. (Quasi Kodachrome) I attempted to scan it, but I can't make it show.

    This is part of a collection, some of which also show reticulation. In all other instances, the pattern is the usual regular and uniform.

    Someone was having a bad day. Gotta wonder why .....
    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.

  2. #12
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by hoshisato View Post
    I had some weird effects quite similar to this when I used a scanner to scan the negatives and forgot to switch off the digital ICE for my black and white negatives. Can you see the effect in the negatives?
    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!

  3. #13
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave in Kansas View Post
    I've seen similar problems on negatives that were much underexposed. One in particular, was the shadow detail of a white house on a winter day. I realized it was underexposed right after I took the picture, and took a subsequent shot with proper exposure and that one had no such problem. I was only looking a scan of the negative, and never bothered to print the shot that was underexposed, so I don't know how it would look on paper. If I recall, I was using FP-4 developed in Rodinal 1:100.

    Dave
    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.

  4. #14
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    You are seeing clumps of grain. Are you keeping your processing solutions within a couple of degrees of each other? Is your temperature too high?
    Do you use an acidic stop bath? It could be too strong.
    Clumps of grain...I see. I like grain in the right situation...but why are they clumping?

    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

  5. #15
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Some people worry about reticulation but it is very hard to produce even when you want it. There is an exfellent example of it in Haist's Monobath Manual. Many, many years ago it was quite common when emulsions were very soft. But with today's harder emulsions it seldom happens unless something like a high pH monobath is used. It can be produced by subjecting film to a vary large and sudden change in solution temperature or osmotic pressure.

    It is hard to tell from your photos without a higher magnification but I would say that you are not experiencing reticulation. Reticulation produces a very distinctive pattern which is not evident in your examples.
    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.

  6. #16
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Worker 11811 View Post
    I figure the development temperature is still critical (±1ºC) but if my wash temperature varies by a couple of degrees in either direction, it won't hurt.

    Thus, I don't think your problem is from reticulation. I think it's over-emphasized grain or clumps of grain that occur during development.

    First, regardless of how you develop, the faster the film speed, the more visible grain will be. With 3200 speed film, you will see a lot more grain than you will with 100 or 400.

    Also, if you push your film you will likely see more grain, as well.

    Development time and temperature will affect grain. Higher temperatures, even if you compensate the developing time, will show increased grain.
    Different types/brands of developer can also affect the appearance of grain.

    Question: What temperature did you develop at? Was it 20ºC ±1ºC? Did you develop at a higher temperature in order to shorten development time?
    It is my understanding that Rodinal is a more aggressive developer, especially when used at higher temperatures. (Correct me if I am wrong.)

    Enlarging the image will also enlarge the grain, regardless of how well the film was developed.

    My guess is this: 3200 speed film processed in an aggressive developer at a higher than usual temperature then enlarging the image is showing more emphasized grain.

    P.S. -- Some photographers do things like this on purpose just to achieve a grainy image. In fact, some digitographers use Photoshop to simulate the effect you are achieveing naturally.

    Bottom Line: Call it art.
    (Then double check your process temps to be sure.)
    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'

    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?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	33.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	289.4 KB 
ID:	52221

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	29-2.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	1.17 MB 
ID:	52222
    Last edited by altair; 06-08-2012 at 06:48 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: attached photos

  7. #17
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by dmschnute View Post
    Attachment 52190

    I would tend to agree with the consensus; this would appear to be grain, rather than reticulation as I see it.

    Attached is an image with a rather interesting (and stylish) pattern.

    The original is a glass plate dated circa 1914. The pattern seems to follow preferentially specific areas of the image -- dark garment, light garment, the grass, the vine on the corner of the house, the chair back. (Almost looks like a contour map!)

    The leech-like streaks at the top are emulsion that has separated from the glass. They appear maximum-black.

    I would dearly love to reproduce this; probably not possible with modern materials. I assume that this occurred during development. The leeches probably went to D-max because they were exposed to developer on both sides of the emulsion.

    The pattern is distinctly visible in the emulsion. (Quasi Kodachrome) I attempted to scan it, but I can't make it show.

    This is part of a collection, some of which also show reticulation. In all other instances, the pattern is the usual regular and uniform.

    Someone was having a bad day. Gotta wonder why .....
    Thanks for showing us this photo. I agree, this pattern is extreme & very very interesting. It's kinda trippy as well

  8. #18
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffreyg View Post
    Have you tried mixing the same chemistry with distilled water? That way you could eliminate the possibility of your water being the cause (or not) of the problem. I don't use any of the products you mentioned but that would be the easiest thing to change first. I have never had reticulation but I use only water as a stop and generally have about a 5 or 6 degree difference between dev and fix.

    http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
    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.

  9. #19
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by hrst View Post
    This is discussed many times, but there is a completely different phenomenon called "microreticulation" or "grain clumping" that looks exactly like grain, without the typical reticulation pattern. Also, it is stated it happens more easily than traditional reticulation, even with modern films.

    Some people always deny its existence, but I believe in it because I've seen it myself.

    It came with Neopan 400, a film reported to more prone to both traditional reticulation and microreticulation by many, at least when compared to the current range of Kodak and Ilford products. I didn't control the temperatures very well and used a hairdryer to quickly dry the film.

    The resulting negs did not have any kind of special pattern. Densities were fine and it looked good and normal EXCEPT THAT those 6x6 frames developed in XTOL, printed at 24cm x 24 cm (10" x 10") looked as grainy as I would normally expect from 35mm frames developed in Rodinal. For a properly exposed 400 speed film in XTOL with a magnification of 4, the grain should not be practically visible, but it was pronounced. Later, I read about microreticulation and decided it has to be the cause.

    I'm not claiming this is a case of microreticulation, but it is a possibility.

    But to me, those images posted look underexposed, too. There might be two problems going on here at the same time, underexposure being first of them.
    Thank you for the information on microreticulation. Although I haven't heard of it myself, it is a probable cause. You mentioned that you didn't control the temperature very well...how far a temp difference was it? And at 10"x10", the grain looked very pronounce, you said. Did you scan those negatives? If you did, how did they look then? Or did you make a smaller enlargement?

    Below are 2 photos that I took using Neopan 400 that exhibits the same effect. It is more evident in the 1st photo. In the 2nd photo, even though the effect is still present, it is less pronounced. These two were from the same roll of Neopan 400, souped in Ultrafin 1:10.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	234.8 KB 
ID:	52223

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	7.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	205.6 KB 
ID:	52224

  10. #20
    altair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Denverdad View Post
    Do the negatives look thin? My first reaction was that this looks like underexposure. But perhaps underdevelopment would look something like this too. Either way, I would expect the negatives to look obviously thin if either of these was going on.

    Jeff
    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?

    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	270.9 KB 
ID:	52225

    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.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	35.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	1.14 MB 
ID:	52226

    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin