Correlation between developer strength, time, and grain

[cerber0s]

My negatives have come out a bit thin before, so I tried developing my Fomapan 400 in a stronger solution of caffenol than I usually do. I used the same time and agitation and the negatives looked great, not as thin as they usually do. Then I scanned them and noticed that they were incredibly grainy.

Is this a result of the strength of the developer, or is it because they are denser? In other words: If I increase the time with the weaker solution to achieve the same density, are they likely to come out less grainy?

 

[Craig]

Of the results I have seen, caffenol tends to give weak shadows and large grain compared to other more conventional developers.

If you are looking for finer grain I would use something like Xtol or Perceptol. Even ID-11 woudl be better.

 

[redbandit]

Skip the caffenol,, Foma seems to do best with Xtol and Eco Pro powder eco friendly black and white film developer.

I have seen great results online using Rodinal.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Use stock XTOL or replenished XTOL for finer grain.

 

[otto.f]

have seen great results online using Rodinal

Then Fomapan 400 would be the first 400 film that responds to Rodinal with fine grain. If it were MF of LF films I wouldn’t be surprised but for 35mm I generally stay away from Rodinal.

 

[koraks]

Is this a result of the strength of the developer, or is it because they are denser?

It could be due to a number of things, but in the end, it mostly boils down to "it's the film". Fomapan 400 is just pretty grainy film to begin with.
There's some room for optimization; e.g. XTOL as indicated by others will reduce the graininess somewhat. Moreover, it'll optimize the effective film speed you get, i.e. get the most detail out of the shadows.

Keep in mind that when scanning dense highlights, the results are often pretty grainy. In that sense, density does result in increased apparent grain, but it also makes a difference whether you scan or darkroom print, and if the latter, if you're using a condensor or a diffusor setup.

Grain is a pretty complex phenomenon that defies being squashed into simple 'rules'. What we perceive as grain is the result of a set of variables all interacting with each other. Having said that, developing a film that's known to be pretty darn grainy to begin with in a developer that's no optimized for...well, anything, really, then it's no surprise the results may not be optimal in many respects.

 

[relistan]

My negatives have come out a bit thin before, so I tried developing my Fomapan 400 in a stronger solution of caffenol than I usually do. I used the same time and agitation and the negatives looked great, not as thin as they usually do. Then I scanned them and noticed that they were incredibly grainy.

Is this a result of the strength of the developer, or is it because they are denser? In other words: If I increase the time with the weaker solution to achieve the same density, are they likely to come out less grainy?

With Fomapan 400—I have shot and analyzed a ton of it while testing developers and bleaches—thinner negatives give finer grain. This is generally true of films, but especially true for Fomapan 400. Its graininess is especially sensitive to over-development. The thing that most matters is the amount of development, whether this happened because of the amount of developing agent present, or the length of time it was developed for. There is of course nuance around concentration vs time for many other aspects of the result, but with regard to grain in a non-solvent developer like this, I believe they are more or less equal.

 

[gone]

Scanning accentuates grain. If the negs are printed in a darkroom, much of that grain will disappear unless you go to humongous print sizes.

I get beautiful results w/ Foma 400 shot at EI 250 and developed in Clayton D-76 Plus. In Rodinal, not so much (at least the one time I tried that).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

To address your general question, as to whether there is a correlation between developer strength, time, and grain, the simple answer is: it depends.

For solvent developers (D-23, D-76, Xtol) the answer is yes, because the more you dilute, the less effective the solvent agent is.

For non-solvent, it gets more complicated. For some, like Rodinal, dilution seem to have an effect, with 1+25 reportedly more grainy than 1+50 or 1+75 (but that's disputed). For others, such as HC-110, dilution does not seem to have an effect.

From what I've read—I've never tried it—caffenol is to be considered as part of the staining developer, it's developing agent, caffeic acid, having similar properties as catechol. If so, changes in dilution and any changes in the pH will have an effect on graininess. I suggest you research in that direction for more precise answers.

On a side note, here's an article that might interest you. The experiment is similar as yours:

<!--:en-->Fomapan 400 in Caffenol-STD – Experiments and Results. And Large Format<!--:-->

This is an article of fine art figure photographer Scott Nichol from Allentown, PA, USA. You can visit his blog at The Original article can be found here. I wanted to experiment with the recipe fo…

www.caffenol.org

​

 

[Rudeofus]

Think of it like this: imagine film as granules of black matter, which are strewn out on a transparent surface. The size of these granules will become larger, if you develop more, so from this alone granularity will go up.

However: as density builds up, you do no longer have individual granules spread out over this surface. For an optical density of 2, which you have in these "nice fat negatives", only 1% of the area can be translucent. You suddenly don't have granules spread over a transparent surface, you have that surface packed with granules such that only tiny transparent holes remain. Think of a 10x10 pixel area, of which only one pixel is white. Imagine, how many pixels (i.e. silver crystals) you need to create a good transition from D=2 to D=2.2. This is what you see as granularity, not the individual granules. BTW it doesn't matter, whether your high density comes from actual image matter or from fog.

Different developers will develop fewer or more grains, and this is where developers are "fine grain" or "something else". That "something else" can be "full speed", "high acutance" or "develops rapidly" or whatever. But even the finest grain developer used on fine grain film will create an absolute grain monster at high densities. I have seen "nice fat" 6x7cm Tri-X negatives, which looked grainy as 18x24cm enlargements.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

in a stronger solution of caffenol than I usually do.

Just to be precise: do you mean more coffee but the same amount of sodium carbonate and vitamin C?

If so, you've probably got your answer. By changing the amount of sodium carbonate or vitamin C (ascorbic acid), you make the solution more alkaline (changing the pH). As I mentioned above, a change in the pH level can have strong effects on some developing agents, which, in return, can have an effect on the size of the grain. Probably is the case with caffeic acid.

That said, as momus mentioned, scanning isn't the best way to judge grain. Best would be to compare your two negatives on a lightbox with a loupe.

 

[Film-Niko]

......Having said that, developing a film that's known to be pretty darn grainy to begin with in a developer that's no optimized for...well, anything, really, then it's no surprise the results may not be optimal in many respects.

+1.

Caffenol is not "optimised for anything", because it is designed to "work at all".

When the Caffenol 'hype' started more than a decade ago I tried and tested it as well. I was curious.
The results were.......usable, but a lot worse compared to all the other established and well-reputed developers I have had used before.
Therefore after these tests I returned to my well-proven and better options.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1.

Caffenol is not "optimised for anything", because it is designed to "work at all".

When the Caffenol 'hype' started more than a decade ago I tried and tested it as well. I was curious.
The results were.......usable, but a lot worse compared to all the other established and well-reputed developers I have had used before.
Therefore after these tests I returned to my well-proven and better options.

Translation: Using coffee as a developer is using something convenient and cheap. If one want cheap, then one must pay the price. There is no free ride.

 

[JParker]

Translation: Using coffee as a developer is using something convenient and cheap. If one want cheap, then one must pay the price. There is no free ride.

Yupp.
But I would even go further: At least for me using an already finished commercial developer is even more convenient, because I don't have to mix up all by myself. Saves time, and time is money .
And if I look at prices - for Rodinal for example - it's so incredibly cheap, and can be used with wonderful results in 1+75 and 1+100 dilution as well, that I have no need to cut costs even further.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Translation: Using coffee as a developer is using something convenient and cheap. If one want cheap, then one must pay the price. There is no free ride.

Yupp.
But I would even go further: At least for me using an already finished commercial developer is even more convenient, because I don't have to mix up all by myself. Saves time, and time is money .
And if I look at prices - for Rodinal for example - it's so incredibly cheap, and can be used with wonderful results in 1+75 and 1+100 dilution as well, that I have no need to cut costs even further.

The cost of replenished XTOL is about as cheap as one can get for fine grain developer. Also some forms of pyro are also less expensive.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

OP obviously enjoys using caffenol. Moreover, OP is not asking whether or not there is a finer-grain developer out there—for all we know, he has already done all the experiments he needs with Xtol, D-76, Rodinal, etc.—but is asking why, scientifically speaking, he's getting larger grain with a different dilution.

OP can correct me if I'm misreading him, but I find it curious that so many are telling him to use a different developer to get finer grain when that doesn't seem to be what he's enquiring about.

 

[Film-Niko]

OP can correct me if I'm misreading him, but I find it curious that so many are telling him to use a different developer to get finer grain when that doesn't seem to be what he's enquiring about.

But using a developer which offers finer grain and higher real film speed (another weakness of Caffenol is its lower film speed) is exactly what will solve his problem.
He said he had too thin negatives at the beginning, and that is partly a result of the not so good shadow detail and film speed performance of Caffenol.

 

[koraks]

get finer grain when that doesn't seem to be what he's enquiring about

I think you and I read the final sentence of the first post slightly differently then
Anyway, nobody'stelling anyone what to do or not to do. It's just a lot of people pointing out the logical consequence of making a particular choice, that's all.

 

[gone]

For some, like Rodinal, dilution seem to have an effect, with 1+25 reportedly more grainy than 1+50 or 1+75 (but that's disputed)

I like mine diluted around 1:40, and actually love some shots of Tri-X that were developed at 1:25. The grain was really nice, at least on my 8x10 prints. The grain looked different at 11x14 (this is all pertaining to 35mm) because it was bigger, but it still was a nice feature that helped hold the composition together.

But all this depends on what film someone is using. Foma 400 at 1:25 looked just awful, I won't use Rodinal for that anymore. For me, Clayton F76 Plus gives beautiful results w/ an EI of 250 and diluted to 1:8-1:9. There is little visible grain at 11x14. It's also a film that looked very good in D76 stock solution.

As for cheap developers, it's hard to beat Rodinal. It lasts a loooong time too, which makes even more of a bargain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But using a developer which offers finer grain and higher real film speed (another weakness of Caffenol is its lower film speed) is exactly what will solve his problem.
He said he had too thin negatives at the beginning, and that is partly a result of the not so good shadow detail and film speed performance of Caffenol.

The OP needs a real developer, not he left over coffee.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I think you and I read the final sentence of the first post slightly differently then

If I increase the time with the weaker solution to achieve the same density, are they likely to come out less grainy?

Final sentence is pretty straightforward. My reading is he wants not know if he'll get less grain by using longer developing times in the weaker dilution of the same developper (i.e., caffenol).

In other words, does dilution #1 + more time = more density + less grain. My feeling is that he should do that experiment, and compare it to another in which he does dilution #2 but without changing the original pH of dilution #1.

By the way, cerber0s, you did not say which recipe of caffenol you are using.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The OP needs a real developer, not he left over coffee.

I'm pretty sure what OP needs is to keep experimenting and having fun doing photography the way he likes doing it.

 

[koraks]

My reading is he wants not know if he'll get less grain

So apparently he's interested in controlling grain, and it's a fair avenue to explore if other developers might fit the bill. Pretty innocuous, logical and fair, I'd say.
Anyway, enough said.

 

[cliveh]

I like to drink a cup of coffee in the morning, but develop film in a well formulated developer like D76.

 

[relistan]

I'm pretty sure what OP needs is to keep experimenting and having fun doing photography the way he likes doing it.