Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,694   Posts: 1,549,024   Online: 937
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31
    sandermarijn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    770
    Images
    11
    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.

    Sander

  2. #32
    ozphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,120
    Images
    1
    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.

  3. #33
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Athiril View Post

    Add sodium hydroxide until pH is 12
    Probably best not to stir it with your finger.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    26

    FX-16

    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.

    -Philip Jackson

  5. #35
    darkosaric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Hamburg, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    Fomapan 400 or Delta 3200 in Rodinal. As much as you could possibly want, even more if you run the Rodinal hotter (25C).
    This is what I do. And sometimes I use Rodinal 1+10 ! , and agitate like in a cocktail party

  6. #36
    Aron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hungary
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by darkosaric View Post
    This is what I do. And sometimes I use Rodinal 1+10 ! , and agitate like in a cocktail party
    The way to go, Darko. Superb grain, great resolution, beautiful tones and a high speed. Who could ask for more?

  7. #37
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
    Delta 3200 developed warm goes nuts, and I love it.

    This is full strength D76 for 18 minutes at 24C

    Attachment 60511
    "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.)

    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.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,864
    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.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  9. #39
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    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.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Mundelein, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    996
    Images
    1
    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!

    Duncan

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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