35mm film, sharpness & fine grain

[janjohansson]

Efke KB25 developed in R09, 1:100 18min @ 20C gives me quite nice result, however there is some grain which limits the enlarging. In 24x18 cm print the grain is clearly noticable but not objectionable.

I wonder, is there some way to reduce the grain a bit while preserving the percieved sharpness of the image?

A Rodinal-article on unblinkingeye.com proposes adding some borax to rodinal to reduce fog and also graininess a bit.
I wonder if a similar effect could be expected if adding borax to R09?

Using a diffrent developer like Microdol-X or similar would give less grain, but according to all I have read the percieved sharpness would go down.
How would diffrent dilutions of Microdol-X affect the graininess/sharpness?

TechPan in technidol yes, can anyone tell something on the percieved sharpness of that comination, which is said to be virtually grain-free, compared to some other film/dev combo?

Techpan in R09 has for me produced about the same grain as KB25/R09.


What more should/could I read/try?

My wish is to be able to make up to 40x30 cm (16x12") prints without objectionable grain. Is that possible? Will i have to be satisfied if i can make 30x20 cm (12x8") withough stepping up to MF or greater.
I know i will not get the same rich tonality from a highly enlarged SF-neg, but if I can at least keep sharpness of image(not necessarily of the grain) and have a small grain it could possible make me happy for some time...


Going MF/LF is not an option for still quite a time.


Whats Your wise words on this?


-J

 

[Mick Fagan]

Sometimes the quality of the light you are shooting under will make it hard to get near grainless enlargements.

High contrast light situations with a high contrast subject will nearly always appear grainless, however there is grain present, we just don't register it too well with our eyes and brain. Think of Mid afternoon sun on the longest day of the year, which we have just had, I took such a subject. I will post it into my gallery in a week or so, when I have a small print to scan.

In low contrast lighting which is likely to happen on the shortest day of the year, which you have just had. Most subjects will appear more grainy, as the negative will have a lot of mid-tone image. Think of a portrait taken outside in light foggy conditions. Wonderful for shadowless face pictures, but it does show up the grain structure of the film in prints quite often, not always, but often.

These are considerations that I never understood for quite a while when I was starting out in photography.

I myself often enlarge 35mm film onto full frame, or cropped images on 30x40cm paper, in fact it's my standard good print size. Grainless looking pictures to that size with 35mm, can and have been done by many people.

I use Fuji Neopan 400 or Ilford HP5+ 400 as my standard films and develop them in D76 1+1. The prints run from near grainless, through to real grainy. The grain factor is often dictated by the subject and the prevailing lighting available.

If I wish for finer grained pictures, then I will use Ilford FP4+. The tonal range of FP4+ is quite staggering, this combined with the extremely fine grain of the film with the correct lighting of your subject, can produce quite stunning, grainless looking pictures. There is however grain present, just not too noticeable to our eyes.

Mick.

 

[BruceN]

I've printed 16x20's from 35mm Pan F that I thought were received rather well. It would be difficult to get the same results with FP4 or HP5, though I shoot a lot of those films in 35mm as well. That said - what's wrong with a little grain? It's film darn it, it's supposed to be there! I sometimes shoot and process specifically to enhance the grain (3200 Delta and Rodinal work wonderfully for that, thank you very much for the idea Mr. McLean). It works very well for certain subjects, the coal mine work I'm currently shooting comes quickly to mind. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't get hung up on the elimination of grain, somtimes it can be a wonderful tool to pull out of the box.

Just my 2 lux worth.

Bruce

 

[P C Headland]

Another suggestion on the unblinkingeye article is the use of Vitamin C added to the Rodinal.

I've only done one experiment with this, using Rodinal 1+100 plus some Vitamin C, and the results were "smoother" than my normal straight Rodinal 1+100.

You could try a different developer, like Neofin Blau (Ole likes this combination).

 

[robert e]

First of all, I have never used R09. Have you tried lower dilutions of R09? Dilution affects grain and acutance with most developers.

You probably read Patrick Gainer's Rodinal article on unblinking eye, but you should not miss this one http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html which discusses a few methods for reducing grain size.

As for R09-Rodinal equivalence, there's interesting data in this thread: Dead Link Removed

The consensus seems to be that the only difference is dilution.

I do not know what you shoot or how you shoot it, but if you're feeling more experimental, how about a modern super-fine-grain film like ACROS? And if you're able/willing to give up darkroom control, there is chromogenic.

If you love your emulsion and process, it would indeed be simplest to go MF. Again, I don't know your style, subject matter or focal length needs, but generally even very affordable fixed lens MF options routinely blow away the best 35mm equipment on sharpness and enlargeability.

 

[jonnyboy]

Using a diffrent developer like Microdol-X or similar would give less grain, but according to all I have read the percieved sharpness would go down.
How would diffrent dilutions of Microdol-X affect the graininess/sh............

Techpan in R09 has for me produced about the same grain as KB25/R09........


You could try Microdol 1:3 @ 75 degrees F/24 degrees C. This will increase apparent sharpness while keeping the normal Microdol grain characteristics.
As for Tech Pan producing grain equivalant to KB 25, I find this difficult to believe. I have used Tech Pan and developed it in Rodinal 1:100 for quite a few years. Grain is so difficult to find in the neg, I need to focus the enlarger by sighting on density differences, preferably sharp edges. What you may be getting is not grain, per se, but reticulation effects from temperature changes during processing, something I found Tech Pan to be a bit overly sensitive to. In my experience, temperature differences of no more than 2 or 3 degrees F at any point, including final wash, are called for. This may be what you are experiencing with the KB 25 as well.
One final note: Rodinal does NOT increase graininess, apparent or real. Any grain seen in a print is the grain that came with the film. Solvent-type developers seem to reduce grain, but really they just mush it up a bit to reduce the more objectionable appearance of grain. If grain is really bugging you, the only cure I can recommend is going to medium format or larger size film. As was said by another poster, almost any larger format camera will blow away 35mm on grain appearance and tonality, regardless of cost.

Jon

 

[gainer]

Grain can be increased by the mechanism of infectuous development. Silver in the form produced in development can act as a catalyst to make adjacent molecules develop.
The grain one sees in a print is composed of the holes between grains of the film.
Ascorbic acid tends to be a surface developer. The ascorbate combines with the p-aminophenol in Rodinal to make a sort of first cousin of Xtol. The working solution of the mix has relatively little sulfite and is more diluted than one usually uses with Xtol. The grain was less noticable than straight Rodinal, and the edge effects usually associated with highly dilute developers were still there. It's simple enough to try. Just add a teaspoon of sodium ascorbate to a liter of Rodinal 1+50 working solution and treat it as Rodinal 1+25. The recipe in Unblinkingeye covers the case where ascorbic acid and baking soda make sodium ascorbate. The ratio is 176 parts ascorbic acid to 40 parts baking soda by weight. Mix with some water and allow effervescence to subside befor adding it to the Rodinal.

 

[matti]

Efke KB25 developed in R09, 1:100 18min @ 20C gives me quite nice result, however there is some grain which limits the enlarging. In 24x18 cm print the grain is clearly noticable but not objectionable.

-J

I am looking at my 24x30 print from Efke 25 right now. Developed in R09 A:100@20C for 17 mins. I agitated 5 sec every 2 mins. Printed with a diffusing head.

To see any grain I need to look in really bright light as close as I can.

/matti

 

[Alan Johnson]

I have used the microfilms that replaced tech pan.They are not made in 120,only 35mm.
Agfa Copex Rapid in Spur Nanospeed developer,EI 25 sun/shade
Gigabit in Gigabit developer, EI 25
Kodak Imagelink in Spur Imagespeed developer,EI 25
Adox CMS 20 in Adotech developer,EI 16
Also,I did not try it:
Canadian Adox Bluefire in H&W Control type developer

The high resolution shows up the slightest camera shake,I used a monopod and shutter speed seconds=1/focal length mm.
They all curled up after drying but you get used to it.
They all outresolve the lenses,ordinary SLR prime lenses have good enough resolution to make big prints though.The grain is very small.Copex rapid has the larger grain but is lower contrast IMO and can be developed in other cheaper developers.There is an ongoing debate that very high resolution does not equal highest apparent sharpness.

The group JandCphoto.com ,Retrophotographic.co.uk and Fotoimpex.de sells some of them if you care to try one. Good luck.

 

[ath]

If you want REALLY fine grain and sharpness and high resolution in 35mm, try the Orthopan UR from SPUR, which comes with a dedicated developer, Nanospeed UR. Adox CMS20 is the same film, but the ADOX developer is said to be a bit less sharper than the Nanospeed UR. Both developers are made by SPUR (Heribert Schain).

Regards,
Andreas

 

[noseoil]

Jan, I've had good luck with KB25 and PMK pyro. Since PMK is a staining developer, it has the ability to "mask" grain by allowing the stain to fill in the gaps between the grain particles. It is reported to give 60% of the image as a result of stain, not the grain particles. It can give very sharp images, if you are using a heavy tripod which takes all movement out of the shot. One problem with 25 speed film is the need for a good lens, tripod and controlled lighting ratios.

You might try this combination to see how it works for your work. It is simple to make (or you can buy a kit) and lasts a long time. Easy to use as a "one shot" developer, but it can't be used with stand development, due to its staining properties. Agitation cycles need to be about every 15 seconds to prevent an uneven stain from showing up in clear skies or areas of even tonality. It works very well for skin tones. What type of subject matter and light do you normally work with? Best, tim

 

[jim appleyard]

You can also try diluting a general purpose dev to get a good balance. Take D-76 and try it 1+1 and 1+3; times are readily available. X-Tol can be diluted this way, too, although you'll have to do a bit of searching to find the 1+3 times as Kodak doesn't publish them anymore.

Microdol-X can be used straight or diluted 1+3. If using it straight, you're EI will be about half of box speed. When you dilute it 1+3, you will get closer to box speed, but end up will sometimes long dev times.

I use Mic-X often and I've never had unsharp images with it. Many consider it an outdated developer with the improvements in modern films. Perhaps so, but it gives me good, easy to print negs and if it ain't broke...

 

[clay]

It all depends on your tolerance for grain. I have some 16x20s on my desk that I printed last week from Tmax3200 processed in FX-37. Grainy, yes. But very sharp. I find that many of the so-called fine grain developers reduce sharpness to the point that a grainier, but sharper film/developer combo will appear sharper when printed than a very fine-grained print with mushy grain edges. It really boils down to personal taste, though. Many people recoil in horror at the first indication of grain in a print. My taste runs toward tolerating a little more grain as a tradeoff for a more visually acute print.

 

[Lee Shively]

I've not used Efke 25 although I have a few rolls of it in 120 to try out. I routinely add sodium sulfite to Rodinal. It reduces the apparent graininess and speeds up the development time a bit. You may or may not like it. If you decide to give it a try start with about 2/3 tablespoon per 8 ounces of solution and cut back the development time about 20%. Adjust from there.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

as a general rule, you cannot get fine grain and perceieved sharpness as the latter is a function of visible or barely visible grain. Yes there are various combinations whiuch seem to offer a better balance than other, very few of which involve rodinal or similar devs. This is a character developer to many and not a fine grain one. Pyro based devs offer excellent acutance for their grain size (visible), so a combo of Acros and pyrocat HD might be a good thing to try. Its good with Pan F too. Great acutance and reasobaly fine grain but certainly not in the microdal/perceptol ballpark.

 

[Lloyd Chan]

The dr5 chrome process for black and white films produces remarkably fine grain, but since it is a reversal process, yielding a slide and not a neg, it is a completely different way of shooting and printing (like Scala), which may or may not suit you.

I have had a few dozen 12X8 inch cibachromes printed optically from Delta 100, TMX 100, Rollei IR400 that were processed this way. I like to view prints very closely, and I cannot see the grain from the Delta 100 and TMX, while grain is just perceptible from the Rollei IR. Ciba by nature is very high acutance, which helps with the perceived sharpness.

 

[fparnold]

Maybe print with a cold-light or diffusion enlarger? If you're looking for minimal graininess and like your film/dev combo, then a diffusion head and a bigger negative may be what you're after. Delta 100 negatives printed from 6x6 are as close to grainless as I've seen (unless I go larger yet), and negatives big enough to contact print aren't bad either.

Just to be random, but make sure you're tightly controlling your temperatures all the way through the process. I had some issues with my first couple of rolls of Forte 200 (it was cheap, and so am I) getting granier unless I was extremely careful with keeping developer/stop/fix/wash all within a couple of degrees of each other. This has been mentioned by others here who use the older-technology films.

Finally, how much finer grained than Delta/TMX is KB25? If you're careful, TMX can be nice and effectively grainless.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Finally, how much finer grained than Delta/TMX is KB25? If you're careful, TMX can be nice and effectively grainless.

It's not. KB25 grain is fine, but it is larger than the grain in TMX-100 and Delta-100.

 

[janjohansson]

Ok, its gone some hours since posting my first post and so far many interesting replies has been written.

I must admit i possibly am being too sensitive to grain. I will continue looking into this specific issue of my perception of grain at least a few days more.

I change one statement made earlier, that i get similar grain with KB25 and Techpan. After cutting some negs, and, at highest magnification i can achieve at home this moment, examining them side by side i say techpan is about a scalar 2 smaller grain. (4x less projected area). it could be even smaller since this is a subjective comparison. no scientific measurment.

I have also loaded the camera with Fuji Acros to try it out. Maybe the grain will be smaller than for the kb25. So will probably the translation of colours to greys since they have difrent sensitivity to red. (KB25 reduced red-sensitivity)

I guess i must also dare to experiment a bit more with the developers.

jonnyboy wrote i could be seeing reticulation effects. - how can i tell if it is reticulation or not? Any pointer to good source to learn more about it?


Last, thanks to all of You.

-j

 

[nworth]

KB-25, PanF+, Delta 100, and TMX will all give sufficiently fine grain for big enlargements. At 20X, the grain will definitely be visible in a well made print from a well made negative, but it won't be obtrusive. At normal viewing distances, you are unlikely to see it. The problem is the small negative size. The film and the lens are both limited in resolution, and the defects become apparent at the high enlargements needed for a big print. Camera shake is also a big factor limiting sharpness. Generally, 11X14 has been the limit for 35mm. Depending on the subject matter, the viewing conditions, and pure luck, bigger prints may work well from 35mm negatives, but it isn't usually the case.

 

[Fotohuis]

Depending how far you would go with you iso rate
Ultra fine grain film-developer combinations tested:

Fuji Acros 100 + SPUR SD2525 E.I. 80
Fuji Acros 100 + SPUR HRX-2 E.I. 64
Fuji Acros 100 + CG512/RLS E.I. 50
Rollei PAN 25 + AM50 E.I. 25
Rollei PAN 25 + CG512/RLS E.I. 20
Rollei Ortho 25 + CG512/RLS E.I. 20
SPUR Orthopan UR (Micro film) + Nanospeed developer E.I. 16
Last 2 films are orthochromatic: Rollei Ortho 25 (> 300 ln/mm), SPUR Orthopan UR till max. 800 ln/mm (tested by Zeiss).
http://www.spur-photo.com/dat_ort_ure.pdf

Here an example with a Leica lens tested Orthopan UR versus Leica M8:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/M8_4/m8part4.html

And in case of doubt you can try all above films (except the SPUR Orthopan UR, in 120 roll film )

Best regards,

Robert

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Depending how far you would go with you iso rate
Ultra fine grain film-developer combinations tested:

Fuji Acros 100 + SPUR SD2525 E.I. 80
Fuji Acros 100 + SPUR HRX-2 E.I. 64
Fuji Acros 100 + CG512/RLS E.I. 50
Rollei PAN 25 + AM50 E.I. 25
Rollei PAN 25 + CG512/RLS E.I. 20
Rollei Ortho 25 + CG512/RLS E.I. 20
SPUR Orthopan UR (Micro film) + Nanospeed developer E.I. 16
Last 2 films are orthochromatic: Rollei Ortho 25 (> 300 ln/mm), SPUR Orthopan UR till max. 800 ln/mm (tested by Zeiss).
http://www.spur-photo.com/dat_ort_ure.pdf

Here an example with a Leica lens tested Orthopan UR versus Leica M8:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/M8_4/m8part4.html

And in case of doubt you can try all above films (except the SPUR Orthopan UR, in 120 roll film )

Best regards,

Robert

Using the slowest and finest grain film you can lay your hands on does `not` guarantee the the highest image definition. What you get is very high resolving ability but due to light scatter in the enlarger with such negatives, the prints often lack the crispness you get with classic high definition films like Plus-X, Tri-X, FP4 and HP5. Also the choice of developer can make a significant difference, fine grain developers makes the grain less visible but the solvent action can take the edge off definition and the image looks less crisp than if a non-solvent type developer had been used. High definition comes from the best grain shape, not the least visible grain. There still seems to be a lot of confusion between resolution and acutance.
For high sharpness and lack of grain in the print, one of the classic high definition films in a medium or large format camera would produce the most satisfactory results.
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/bwstateofart.html

 

[Fotohuis]

High definition comes from the best grain shape, not the least visible grain. There still seems to be a lot of confusion between resolution and acutance.

Sure, that's why I mentioned especially the Fuji Acros. Best grain shape and fine grain (depending on developer) , high resolution film and you can get a high acutance with this film. That's why the combination (and technical compromise) of the SPUR SD2525 and this film has been chosen very good.
If you look only on resolution the choice would be the Rollei Ortho 25 or SPUR Orthopan UR. The (almost same) fine grain you can also get with Rollei PAN 25 (or an equivalent type film like Efke 25). With a high acutance developer you will get ultra high sharpness (e.g. the AM50 combination, even more than a Rodinal 1+100 development). Choices enough to prepare yourself to get the right results .

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Sure, that's why I mentioned especially the Fuji Acros. Best grain shape and fine grain (depending on developer) , high resolution film and you can get a high acutance with this film. That's why the combination (and technical compromise) of the SPUR SD2525 and this film has been chosen very good.
If you look only on resolution the choice would be the Rollei Ortho 25 or SPUR Orthopan UR. The (almost same) fine grain you can also get with Rollei PAN 25 (or an equivalent type film like Efke 25). With a high acutance developer you will get ultra high sharpness (e.g. the AM50 combination, even more than a Rodinal 1+100 development). Choices enough to prepare yourself to get the right results .

CG512/RLS seems to be a liquid variant of the Kodak Microdol and Ilford Perceptol type, eg: extra-finegrain at some loss of film speed yield and acuity, I assume Spur HRX-2 falls into the same category. ( I haven`t tried any of them).
Considering that Fuji 100 Acros is available in 135-36, #120 and 4x5 QuickLoads, then I am interested in the high definition types. I am not familar with the other developers you have mentioned, which of these are high definition and where can I find technical data for Ilford, Kodak and Fuji B&W films with these developers?

 

[gainer]

Exposure and development also affect graininess. Too much of either is bad. Too much of both is really bad.