Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,849   Posts: 1,582,837   Online: 738
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,130
    One way to reduce grain that works well with 35mm is to under develop the film so that it prints correctly on grade 3 paper rather than the conventional grade 2. This was advocated by Willi Beutler in his book.
    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

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by stradibarrius View Post
    TMAX 400 in R09
    Scanning... Check. 35mm size film... Check. 400 ISO film... Check. Rodinal... Check.

    You pretty much created the recipe for grainy pictures... Well besides using TMAX which is pretty fine grain for a 400 ISO film. Every one of the things cited will contribute to grain. Try XTOL with TMAX 100. Or XTOL with TMAX 400 in 120.

  3. #23
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,250
    Images
    1
    As many have said: Rodinal, plus perhaps underdeveloped and/or underexposed too. Scanning is not the cause. It just shows the grain more due to the other issues.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #24
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,565
    Images
    46
    I don't believe Scanning can be ruled out - that doesn't make sense to me. Unless Rodinal IS the Magic Bullet for Maximum Grain!

    Stradibarrius shows MORE grain in full frame 35mm than I get with half-frame 35mm which I developed in Dektol to deliberately maximize grain.

    Here is my benchmark for MAXIMUM grain, printed optically.

    From post 27 of the thread Want more Grain...!

    Original is a dirty border print on 11x14 with about 1 inch borders. Negative is 35mm half-frame, 400TX exp. 12/2014 batch 1781. (Exposed at EI 200 in an auto-everything Samurai - I scratched and taped the DX code to say 200).

    Developed in Dektol 1:9 68-degrees F for 5 minutes.

    This crop is about 2 1/2 inches by 4 1/2 inches (Roughly 1/4 inch by 1/2 inch measured on actual negative). In this image, JPG artifacts are smaller than the grain, this is a reasonable approximation of the actual print.


  5. #25
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area (Albany, California)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,250
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I don't believe Scanning can be ruled out - that doesn't make sense to me. Unless Rodinal IS the Magic Bullet for Maximum Grain!
    I'm not saying scanning did not exacerbate the grainy look, it most likely did. But only because of the other factors creating the stronger likelihood that it would do so. Scanning does not automatically mean excessive grain. Just like a sharp lens does not give people more prominent skin pores.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  6. #26
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,429
    Images
    148
    When the first digital minilabs went into use their was excessive grain with some films, this was due to surface artefacts of the top gelatin layer of the Kodak films. Kodak did a lot of work to eliminate the problem using new hardeners in the emulsions, they measured actual grain size of the films and and perchieved graininess in prints.

    However certain emulsions can still be affected by some developers and if you want to soften and remove emulsion Hydroxide is ideal, Rodinal/R09 contains hydroxide, enough to soften the emulsion slightly more than other developers and poor temperature control cuases micro reticulation, also called surface defects of the gelatin. This causes apparent graininess in prints and is worse with scans.

    The effect has been known since the late 1920's the best way around it is to sandwich the emulsion side of film to glass with a liquid, as is done with drum scanning, Ctein wet mounts his negatives for optical printing.

    Ian

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,840
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Carnie View Post
    Scan with unsharp mask clicked off and you will not get this issue.
    Sharpening is an exacting skill set that takes time to understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    I am becoming convinced this is the reason for so much of the preoccupation with graininess.

    Many if not most of my scans appear "grainy" .. the moment I get the negatives into the enlarger, it magically disappears ...
    Please don't make assumptions about my process without evidence to support them.

    I am aware how to produce scans.

    As it happens I scan without any sharpening or contrast adjustments whatsoever ("raw") and I almost never sharpen in post-processing.

    However as this subject is off limits here, and not germane to the current topic, I'll leave it there.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    597
    I've used Tmax with Rodinal once. It looked worse to me than Tri-X with Rodinal
    Bachelor of Fine Arts and Bachelor of Arts: Journalism - University of Arkansas 2014

    Canon A-1, Canon AE-1, Canon Canonet GIII 17, Argus 21, Rolleicord Va, Mamiya RB67, Voigtländer Bessa

    http://darkroom317.deviantart.com/

  9. #29
    Bob Carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Toronto-Ontario
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    4,706
    Images
    14
    Take a chill pill dude , I could care less (how aware) you are to produce scans, I am making no assumptions. Its a known fact that sharpening at time of scan can produce artifacts and accent grain.
    You need to have a cup of tea or something or grow a thicker skin.


    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    Please don't make assumptions about my process without evidence to support them.

    I am aware how to produce scans.

    As it happens I scan without any sharpening or contrast adjustments whatsoever ("raw") and I almost never sharpen in post-processing.

    However as this subject is off limits here, and not germane to the current topic, I'll leave it there.

  10. #30
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,565
    Images
    46
    I thought I found a nice combination for MAXIMUM grain. But this thread challenges my conclusion.

    Is it scanning? In which case I will ignore the results as irrelevant.

    Or is Rodinal and TMY-2 going to give me a grainier optical print than I get with my current candidate of Tri-X and Dektol?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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