Grain clumping, a controversial issue

"Process as carefully as you would color film". This is apparently a quote of John Sexton reproduced here by Ian Grant.

I would like to note here that color films are generally softer than B&W films due to their thickness and due to the coupler content which tends to lower hardening effects. Therefore, they should be more subject to reticulation effects than B&W films.

Here then is a problem. Kodak says that although the developer must be at 100F or 37.8C, the bleach (or stop) immediately afterwards can be as low as 75F or 24C. This is an allowable 25 degree F shift with no reticulation of any sort. Can anyone explain this? Both B&W and color films use the same hardener and use it at about the same level based as a percent / wt of gelatin coated. No problem here.

Now, if we go back to Mark's micrographs, we see that grain is randomly distributed but there has been no motion.

As for Kodak studies of lateral and vertical movement of grains, yes, there is a lot of work on this starting with Ross (among others) who proved that there are no lateral movements beyond about 2 microns, and the only vertical movement is due to the expansion and contraction of gelatin in a vertical manner due to processing, but the silver grains are all retained in place relative to each other.

There are no articles. If Grant has suddenly found any when his library is reported to be in the UK, he must have a library with him, or he took a sudden trip to England in spite of the weather there!

No, I'm afraid that the preponderance of evidence is against clumping and micro reticulation. However, lets name this unknown the "Grant Effect". It is a fugitive, unproven sudden increase in grain caused by an unknown effect. No examples have been shown that have been verified as being this effect, but it has been claimed to exist for at least 30? years. All reports have come from magazines or circular internet reports quoting each other!

PE

Several interesting comments recently.

As I do have samples, PM me if you know who might be able to examine them and persue this to the most definitive conclusion. The reticulation "footprint" needs to be compared to traditional reticulation to make any sense.

Photo Engineer said:

I'm afraid that the preponderance of evidence is against clumping and micro reticulation. However, lets name this unknown the "Grant Effect". It is a fugitive, unproven sudden increase in grain caused by an unknown effect. No examples have been shown that have been verified as being this effect, but it has been claimed to exist for at least 30? years. All reports have come from magazines or circular internet reports quoting each other!

PE

Click to expand...

I think there has been too much attention paid to the grain issue, the micro reticulation I am talking about exhibits a "graininess" probably not increased grain size (nothing measured) Actually, "granular" may even be a better term.

Ian Grant said:

Where have I edited that post ?

I've found so far, some have further references. I only started searching an hour or two ago

Ian

Click to expand...

Ian look at my post no 154
Where you said
"As to Dichroic fog that's not relevant, I've never seen it with negatives only prints.
You changed that bit and later stated you had seen it in Tmax-but it wasn't relevant
You can't deny it, your micro reticulation is probably a form of dichroic fog.

I've been reading too and can't find a single mention.
In fact I've been reading J Pouradiers tome The Properties of gelatin in relation to its use in Photographic Emulsion.

You guessed it-no mention of what you have called micro-reticulation.

If you have scientific proof lets see it-otherwise all we have is your conjecture.

I’ve tried to read through this thread this morning as carefully as possible, and it makes less and less sense. But, I don’t see the following classic reference anywhere (but, could have missed it) so I submit it to the discussion without comment, except for a tangential observation.

As almost any technology marches along, the current stages eclipse the older stages. Often, the literature can barely keep up. If you are writing the fourth edition of a textbook, you concentrate on the most current research. Information that was covered extensively in previous editions gets the ax. If the current state of the technology has ‘solved’ an old problem, the causes of that problem disappear from the literature. It has become irrelevant and is, for all intents and purposes, dismissed from reality. Reticulation is much less an issue for the modern, very thin, super-hardened emulsions, so it stands to reason it is not discussed in modern texts.

The interesting thing about analog photography is that we are marching backward to an extent. The newest emulsions on the market are in general older technologies, and we are re-visiting, whether we know it/admit it or not, some of the older issues. It is probably best to keep an open mind.

From The Theory of the Photographic Process, by C.E. Kenneth Mees, 1st edition, 1942.
“When a photographic emulsion is processed, it passes through a series of solutions which vary greatly…[much effect on swelling]… Reticulation is a condition produced by swelling and deswelling of the gelatin operating simultaneously but not at the same points (Figure 33). It can be brought about by simultaneous or successive treatment of the gelatin with swelling and dehydrating reagents. A very common cause of reticulation is the use of wash water much warmer than the processing baths. Reticulation not only involves the production of mechanical relief but a movement of the particles of the image; these tend to aggregate in the ridges of the pattern, or grain, and to become fewer in the intervening valleys. This is an actual migration of silver particles owing to tension, similar to that occurring during the drying of moisture spots; the silver particles aggregate in the drying edge (Figure 34). An observation by Freundlich perhaps throws further light upon this effect. He found that suspended particles moving in an electric field migrate through gelatin jellies almost as easily as through water. This shows that within the jelly, under certain conditions, there is a high degree of mobility of solid particles coated with gelatin. This aspect of reticulation is probably a factor in producing graininess in the photographic image.” pp 85-86.

What on earth are you on about Mark, Kodak themselves published a warning not to use Tmax developer with Tmax sheet films as there was a risk of Dichroic fogging, and I also have the originals of some of John Sexton's articles.

Where in this thread have I said I've seen Dichroic fog with a Tmax film ? I haven't. I've seen Dichroic fogging with Monbaths, but that was not with films, perhaps yet again you jump to the wrong conclusion. We worked on monobaths for processing a specialist emulsion, and did all our initial testing with Ilfospeed papers

The quote you refer to was never edited, see Post 151 in this thread.

Not quite sure how anything from 1990's research papers would get into a book published many years earlier

Ian

The quote from Mees is accurate and the same in the first two editions, but is substantially different in Mees and James. Suffice it to say, the effects on grain and image structure as they define it and show it is a macro effect that produces a pattern visible to the human eye.

The other effect referred to is Electrophoresis or: "Electrophoresis is the motion of dispersed particles relative to a fluid under the influence of a spatially uniform electric field." Since no electric field is present, and Mees is speculating, this reference was removed in later editions.

In fact, Mees and James go into detail on "Jelly Strength" as a function of hardening and drying saying that with proper hardening and drying, the strength of gels goes up considerably. Well, we know that. Howard James was well aware of the new hardeners when this was written.

PE

Ron & Mark, now I know we all accept that full scale reticulation is "the dried lake bed effect" and that either happens or it doesn't there's been no disagreement on that.

So how do you explain that Eastman Kodak categorise the type reticulation with the new hardeners (1980's) into:

A = no reticulation
B = slight reticulation
C = moderate reticulation
D = objection al reticulation
E = severe reticulation

Are B & C what we are calling Micro reticulation moving to the Dry lake effect by E

This certainly means that Kodak at least think there's different levels of reticulation which we didn't know before. Where I'm finding some brick walls is often references are to internal Eastman Kodak Reports or Private messages from named Kodak employees. So to a large degree Kodak are keeping the reticulation issue out of the public domain (even in Scientific journals).

Ian

Ian Grant said:

So how do you explain that Eastman Kodak categorise the type reticulation with the new hardeners (1980's) into:

A = no reticulation
B = slight reticulation
C = moderate reticulation
D = objection al reticulation
E = severe reticulation

Are B & C what we are calling Micro reticulation moving to the Dry lake effect by E

Click to expand...

The continuum of "no reticulation" through "severe reticulation" (A-E) implies a change in magnitude rather than frequency. There is no indication of 'micro'.

...Where I'm finding some brick walls is often references are to internal Eastman Kodak Reports or Private messages from named Kodak employees. So to a large degree Kodak are keeping the reticulation issue out of the public domain (even in Scientific journals).

Click to expand...

Back to the conspiracy theories again. Maybe Julian Assange has the answers

Ian;

Thanks. Please give a reference to A -> E.

My sources give it as a macro effect varying in severity, not size! My sources agree with Hexavalent!

PE

I'll now only give the references when I'm ready, I've had enough of you and Mark deliberately twisting things in this thread.

The implications are that the reticualtion is in the upper most layer, not through to the base of the emulsion in the slight & moderate cases which covers all the new hardeners, the more severe reticulation is in the controls.

I'll continue my research before listing the references

Ian

Ian Grant said:

The implications are that the reticulation is in the upper most layer, not through to the base of the emulsion in the slight & moderate cases which covers all the new hardeners, the more severe reticulation is in the controls.

Ian

Click to expand...

The abstract of this article seems to support that implication.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3735/9/11/039

Denise;

It is not clear from the abstract whether this is normal reticulation of which a microscopic layer is removed or if it is the micro reticulation brought up here. If the latter, then it is truly new to me and I'm sure to many others including Dick Dickerson. I would hope a holographic expert might comment or a member of that site willing to pay the price for the entire article.

Other than that, we cannot say yet. Thanks.

Ian, you have had years to prepare this response, after all, it has been years since you first put this forward.

PE

Reticulation

For those of you interested in this subject an its use, the Kodak How To book "Creative Darkroom Techniques" devotes a whole chapter to creative uses of reticulation in B&W and color films.

They describe heavy and light reticulation and large and small patterns.

Here is a photo done by two of Kodak's research photographers, one of them coincidentally a good friend of mine. So, this is one of dozens of photos illustrative of the subject matter and which only shows one type and size of pattern. The original is about 5x7 inches in the book and so the full impact will be gained by zooming to about that size.

This picture combines a mild grain pattern and an ice crystal or frosted look by heating, cooling and freezing the film to get the extreme frostlike patterns and the reticulation.

You can use temperature and the flow of the water used to create and control the size, shape and to some extent the pattern that reticulation takes. The study of reticulation was reduced to a rather high art at KRL at one time as you can see.

Enjoy.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

For those of you interested in this subject an its use, the Kodak How To book "Creative Darkroom Techniques" devotes a whole chapter to creative uses of reticulation in B&W and color films...

Click to expand...

Now THAT is reticulation! It's also quite beautiful

The Collotype process of yesteryear was in part based upon the deliberate reticulation of gelatin to produce a printing screen.

There is a wonderful example of a Collotype at Luis Nadeau's site

Yes Ian, the Collotype uses this phenomenon and an excellent example from one of Nadeau's photos is here: http://www.photoconservation.com/images/stories/pix_2/CollotPC957macro_8x6.jpg In which you can see the pattern that reticulation imparts to a Collotype image.

The Kodak book devotes 11 pages to the chapter on reticulation. This work died out though after the new hardeners were introduced as it was so hard to generate reticulation in the new films. But it does show how much work went into both identifying, studying and reducing it to an art form during its time.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

Denise;

It is not clear from the abstract whether this is normal reticulation of which a microscopic layer is removed or if it is the micro reticulation brought up here. If the latter, then it is truly new to me and I'm sure to many others including Dick Dickerson. I would hope a holographic expert might comment or a member of that site willing to pay the price for the entire article.

Other than that, we cannot say yet. Thanks.

Ian, you have had years to prepare this response, after all, it has been years since you first put this forward.

PE

Click to expand...

Ron, looking into something that's rare (in it's extremes) has been pretty pointless,a and you only began questioning this issue this Summer, hardly years ago .

I never put the idea forward, that was the Darkroom Technique article mid 80's, but I'm now finding evidence of it's existence in Kodak Research papers & Patents, so will read the link Denise has posted with interest, however I've run into other documents that require to be paid for

The big mistake is to think Reticulation went away with the newer hardeners, what I'm reading suggests it was hugely reduced but not totally eliminated and that means it's gone from a Macro to a Micro level. Any reticulaion of the coventional type is objecionable

This is why nothing is written in Text books etc, it's usially happening where full reticulation would happen in the past, which makes sense.

So in EK tests an older emulsion scores a C = Objectional reticulation, the newer emulsions score A or B which is no Visible Reticulation or Slight.

The assumption that nothings been written is wrong.

Ian

Ian Grant said:

So how do you explain that Eastman Kodak categorise the type reticulation with the new hardeners (1980's) into:

A = no reticulation
B = slight reticulation
C = moderate reticulation
D = objection al reticulation
E = severe reticulation

Ian

Click to expand...

They did? can you tell me the number of that tech doc? because until you do it's just like everything else you've posted-pure conjecture.

I'm going to bow out of this thread because it has started to become personal for some people.

If reticulation can be in the micro, and the people claiming this have seen it many times then the proof is simple.
Take a clear part of the film (before the first frame) and just enlarge 100x to see if any gelatin disruption pattern appears.
Its all that needs to be done, I can't understand why some here are being so cloak and dagger about their data-unless they have other motives.

Bye gentlemen I'm going on holiday to my cottage on the coast.

Mark, no ones being cloak and dagger, if Ron had started this thread a week earlier before I left the UK I'd have posted some negatives, or made some prints.

You've made this thread personal by trying to deliberately misquote me which is why I've now refrained from posting links etc to documents you also claimed have never existed anyway. They are easy to find using Google. You also expected data from the 80's and 90's to be in a much older book

I will be posting the links, but only when I've finished reading and evaluating, and following up cross references. There's rather a lot written about reticulation after the introduction of the new hardeners.

Ian

As a side note,
I'd like to point out that not a single person has PM'ed me about examining the evidence I claim to have.

Such is life!

I guess the worst thing that could happen from expert examination would be the decesion that it was the same as regular reticulation, but since they look different to me, I would want comparative measurements made, you know, as proof.

I too will try to leave this 'battlefield' as really there isn't much more to say; I suspect Ian or others can find more supporting material, but it doesn't really make that much difference in the long run. I have seen what looks like restrained reticulation that looks somewhat different from what's typical (to my eye anyway).

Maybe when we get some actual samples compared we will have something more substantial to talk about.

Peace.

dwross said:

The abstract of this article seems to support that implication.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0022-3735/9/11/039

Click to expand...

Thanks Denise.

While I'm not going to pay to down load that document it does introduce some terminology which I think is important.

The problem with using the term Micro reticulation is that it's not a term that seems to be in the vocabulary at Kodak etc.

However the term Microscopic surface reticulation might be easier to find

The fact that you can get it with Holograms seems to mirror the fact that you get it with prints, as well as films.

With print, fibre based or RC, you can correct the micro reticulation by steaming the surface of the emulsion - rather hard to do with a Hologram

Ian

You've made this thread personal by trying to deliberately misquote me which is why I've now refrained from posting links etc to documents you also claimed have never existed anyway

All very convenient Ian, so you've now stopped posting links etc to documents you say I said never existed?
I think you'll find I said they never existed because you wouldn't provide proof not the other way round!
If it was me and somebody doubted my findings I'd want to prove it to them; you on the other hand have the links but expect others to 'google them' what a joke!

I'll tell you what- you have a theory- you want to establish micro reticulation exists.
Here's how to do it:
First you establish a repeatable method for generating the effect.
You then publish these results with full data showing the effect for others to do likewise.
Once the wider community agree that something happens to a much smaller degree that previously thought possible then we have established your theory.

Until then its all hot air I'm afraid.
To ray i missed your offer in the crossfire, sorry I'm not sure I'm going to be able to help now as I'm away to after Christmas with my family.

This thread is a Joke it started off about grain clumping (a non physical effect) but was soon steered onto reticulation (a very different physical effect)
I wonder who steered it in that direction.....?

Read the abstract of that Holography paper:

Discusses the removal of microscopic surface reticulation from the gelatin emulsion of the photographic plates of bleached-silver phase holograms. The perfect index match for the emulsion surface is provided by gelatin.

Click to expand...

Bleached-silver phase holograms are not the same animal as 'regular' photographic film nor is the process. The key of that article is "simplified index matching". ALL Gelatin coating have surface distortions - we've already seen that in micrographs shown in this thread.

What does this all have to do with 'grain clumping'? Nothing.

I'm afraid that all films have a rather less than perfect surface both before and after processing. The article in question wants to laminate one plate to another. To do so with perfection, one would have to smooth out these imperfections by somehow shaving the surface. So, that is one interpretation of this abstract.

At EK, we were required to write a monthly project report (Periodic Report) and a quarterly summary report (Technical Report). I've written or contributed to probably several hundred of these over the years. And, these reports were circulated to every department which gave us a list to check or we just got all of them to read. I got thousands of reports over those same years and never once did reticulation feature in them except as noted right here - with the introduction of the new hardeners, reticulation virtually vanished except for extreme errors in processing including near freezing temperatures and near boiling temperatures. The claim here is that micro reticulation takes place with a tiny change in temperature. This is going to have to remain in the "unobserved/unproven" category until it is observed and proven!

As for the segue from clumping to reticulation, well they are related in most documents reported on the internet. There is oblique mention in Dickerson and in Mees and Haist as well. It is claimed by some that grains move and clump, and that micro reticulation also causes clumping or changes in grain. So I do see the logic in that segue. A true reticulated surface looks somewhat like a cobblestone street. the gap depth and size are related to the amount of reticulation, but the effect is a macro effect visible to the human eye. By incident light, the film surface looks like dichroic fog or a haze, but with no color apparent. Looked at closely, you can sometimes see rings of silver that moved with the gelatin, but which did not on their own. You can even see silver metal exposed by the cracks. You do not see clumps except as a random effect. Dickerson, Mees and Haist therefore show that there is no clumping associated with reticulation, thereby disconnecting these two subjects.

PE

Michael R 1974 said:

Ian, I posted a test I did this weekend with Delta 100. Now I wanted to try a film that might be most prone to grain clumping. would you suggest Neopan 400? something else?

Click to expand...

Very specific films such as the T-Max family have been most quoted.

PE