Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,274   Posts: 1,534,651   Online: 1100
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Delta 3200 and TMZ both have very pronounced grain. Both are very good at doing what they do. They're very flat looking films with natural speeds in the 800 to 1000 range. Being flat, they can be pushed hard and still maintain a reasonable contrast index.

    But if you can't get either of these films, or if you find that they're too fast for your needs, maybe something like Tri-X will do. The secret there for getting grainy prints is simple. Frame your subjects loosely in the finder, then crop aggressively when you print. The extra magnification will emphasize the grain.

    Too easy
    Frank Schifano

  2. #22
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,848
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Delta 3200 and TMZ both have very pronounced grain. Both are very good at doing what they do. They're very flat looking films with natural speeds in the 800 to 1000 range. Being flat, they can be pushed hard and still maintain a reasonable contrast index.

    But if you can't get either of these films, or if you find that they're too fast for your needs, maybe something like Tri-X will do. The secret there for getting grainy prints is simple. Frame your subjects loosely in the finder, then crop aggressively when you print. The extra magnification will emphasize the grain.

    Too easy
    You took the words right out of my mouth.

    He could also sandwich a screen with the negative in printing. There are screens which are made for the purpose, but it would be easy enough to make one.
    Charles Hohenstein

  3. #23
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by bdial View Post
    In general, minimum grain comes with the minimum exposure for adequate shadow detail. Overexposure yields more grain. Since you can't do your own processing, using a film like Tri-X and over exposing by a stop or two should give you good grain.
    That much exposure will be easy to accomplish in daylight, perhaps even hard to avoid.
    Wait.. overexposure yields more grain? I think you have it backwards.
    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

  4. #24

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,132
    Most grain I obtained since Kodak recording film was discontinued was with Kodak 800 ISO color negative film in Rodinal.Because of the orange mask it's much easier to output with a scanner.
    http://photo.net/black-and-white-pho...g-forum/00R4T9

  6. #26
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by locutus View Post
    Thank you guys for all the very helpfull posts, man do i have some reading to do on developing.

    I oogled a bit around on flickr, and what i want to archieve is something like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozekki/2845480055/
    This look is not difficult at all. You can underexpose and push, correct exposure after the fact, use non fine-grain developers and/or higher dilution solvent developers, crop and enlarge (easiest), etc. The key is to not approach it technically.


    Heavy pushing (APX400@6400)


    Push + Crop (APX400@3200)
    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

  7. #27
    phenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    penguin-cold Montreal
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    218
    HC110 or Rodinal: both can be grainy and sharp with any film. The more you dilute them, the more grain they produce. The more you agitate, the more grain you get too. For HC110 the minimum syrup for 135/24 or 120 is 4ml (in fact, it uses only 2ml of these, but you cannot get results without the other 2). As for the developing time, it has a linear variation, so easy to calculate.
    B&W is silver.

  8. #28
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Wait.. overexposure yields more grain? I think you have it backwards.
    Nope. He's got it forwards all right.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #29
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    Nope. He's got it forwards all right.
    Are you telling me that my 400tx EI250 exposures are grainier than comparative EI400?

    Regardless of what the theory says - after correcting for under-exposure via printing or post, real world use says otherwise.
    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

  10. #30
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    Are you telling me that my 400tx EI250 exposures are grainier than comparative EI400?

    Regardless of what the theory says - after correcting for under-exposure via printing or post, real world use says otherwise.
    Not at all. Where did I say that? I am saying that an EI 200 or 100 (or lower) exposure would be more grainy than an EI 400 exposure or an EI 1280 exposure. It is the overdevelopment that is adding the grain for you, not the underexposure. If you really want to have some horrid grain, overexpose and overdevelop.

    When I want serious grain as a goal (heavier than the relatively mild grain in the two pix you posted - I really like the second one, BTW), I overexpose by four or five stops, develop in a strong developer like Dektol or D-19, then bleach back the negs to print. Adding a stop or two only makes it a tiny bit more grainy. Also, this method has the effect of opening up the shadows, which you may or may not want.

    P.S. What the @$#% is "post"?
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 06-16-2009 at 02:12 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

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