Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,742   Posts: 1,515,594   Online: 960
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, Ontario
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    48
    Images
    13

    TriX - Rodinal: Beautiful Grain - How can I replicate it ?

    Hello -
    I am referring to the grain in the first attached photograph. The photograph has its problems, it is a bit out of focus, and the car was moving so there is that. But the grain, is something that I care for very much and I want to replicate. Both photographs were developed with Rodinal 1:50, first minute agitation, and four agitations every minute afterward for a total of 13 minutes, as per massive chart. The film was exposed at 400 iso.
    This is the catch, while developing, I moved the developing tank from the basement where I had a controlled temperature of 20C (room temp ~17C) up to my studio, where is typically warmer by ~4-5 oC (~22C).
    I understand that it is difficult to compare both photographs as they are very different subjects: "indoor" vs "outdoor" for which TriX exhibits very different behavior.
    My theory is that temperature played a major role in the 'look' of the first photograph, with grainy shadows, high contrast (t-shirt), with an overall look as if it were a lith print -not saying that it is.

    To verify this theory I want to run a test by exposing an 'indoor' subject with controlled lighting and developing the film with 4 different approaches:

    1- T=20C, agitation 1st minute, 4 times every minute for 13 minutes
    2- T=22C, agitation 1st minute, 4 times every minute minutes for 13 minutes.
    3- T=22C, agitation 1st minute, 4 times every three minutes for 13 minutes.
    4- T=22C, agitation 1st minute, 3 times every 30 seconds for 13 minutes.

    I wanted to run this by you so that I can get any comments on whether or not my reasoning is ok or if I am missing something to replicate the results of that first picture.

    thanks for comments,
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Trix_Rod50_01_2.jpg   Trix_Rod50_12_2.jpg  

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    36
    Scanned negs or enlarged pictures?
    See, if you scan a negative, it will change the grain perception compared to a scanned picture. Actually, what we call grain is lots of grains clumped together. The real grains are invisible at naked eye.
    In fact I dont like the "grain" of trix and parodinal, and prefer then in d76.
    Light measurement and EI chosen affects the appearence also.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    If you like grain, Rodinal is the stuff for sure. Evidently you like ketchup on your steak. Personally I'd prefer Rodinal as a weed killer. But it sure has its fanboys, for reasons unbeknownst to me.

  4. #4
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,493
    Images
    28
    The most beautiful grain with Tri-X imho I have experienced with Aculux 3 1+9




    crop

    http://i45.tinypic.com/21ecgnt.jpg






    Though in regards to your example, you need to underexpose your shots, as there is a distinct lack of detail in shadow areas.
    Last edited by Athiril; 07-09-2013 at 12:37 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #5
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    OP's first shot just looks underexposed and scanned using a scanner which emphasizes grain.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  6. #6
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Gabino,

    This isn't necessarily a development question.

    I think that part of what you are seeing is how grain "appears" within differing tones and "interacts" with differing subjects.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  7. #7
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    952
    The grain in your first thumbnail is because the neg was underexposed. I can tell by the empty featureless dark areas full of grain with no detail or tonal variation. The second thumb does not show such grain because it was properly exposed.
    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  8. #8
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by chriscrawfordphoto View Post
    ...because it was properly exposed.
    Gabino, Chris is probably right but I would have said normally exposed rather than properly exposed.

    The proper exposure is the one that gets you the result you expect, not necessarily the one the text books and instruction sheets suggest.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #9
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    12
    The first one is not grain, but noise introduced by the scanner trying to pull detail out of blank regions on the negative.

  10. #10
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,579
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by polyglot View Post
    The first one is not grain, but noise introduced by the scanner trying to pull detail out of blank regions on the negative.
    Very probable.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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