Grain or Reticulation

Hi all,

I have a question regarding this pic and wondered why it looks grainy in the lighter areas. I went today and took a few shots at a reservoir in a overcast day. This particular shot seemed a little fuzzy and grainy in the sky just above the tree line when zooming in. Could this be reticulation?

The higher in the sky, the less grainy look. It looks foggy, but it really wasn't that bad. the sun it behind the heavy cloud cover in the upper left.

FP4, adonal, 1:25 9min

Exposure was lightened in PS.

I will say my rinse water was probably about 8 degrees cooler.

Thanks - Rich

Well, I can't see anything much with such a small pic, maybe you'll need to attach a larger one (or a crop).
That said, I certainly do also get a lot of visible grain in bare skies with FP4+ in Rodinal, that's just what it does.

Here's what the fuzziness looks like up close.

Just wondered if this looked like typical grain or reticulation possibly.

Can you see this in the negative with a loupe or in an enlarger?

It might be evidence of scanning artifacts.

Reticulation has a very distinctive appearance sort of like looking at a pan or worms. The pattern is full of twists and turns. Your sample does not fit the expected pattern. Then too reticulation is very hard to induce with modern pre-hardened emulsions.

Excessive grain is a micro phenomena, in others words you need some magnification to see it. Reticulation on the other hand is a macro phenomena, it is usually visible to the unaided eye. Reticulation is caused by two layers of an emulsion expanding or contracting a different rates. You can see portions of the emulsion buckled in relation to other portions of the emulsion quite clearly when viewed with a glancing light source.

yeah, it does just look like a bit of grain to me. For a comparison, here's one that I did, FP4+ in Rodinal. I can't remember the dev but probably 1+100 1-hour {semi-}stand.
Fairly typical of the rest on the roll, and others too.



It's a 1000-pixel crop of a 3200dpi scan, so the area you can see is only about 9mm square from a 6x7 neg, ie it's only really noticeable at huge enlargements or pixel-peeping. I've got some 4x5 sheets that also look the same this close up, but when you look at the whole thing it's imperceptible.
You'd probably see it making >8x10 from a 135 neg though (but I've never shot this film/dev combo that small).

Using Rodinal it may be reticulation and that's how it prints and scans, excessive graininess.

Films like FP4+ are well hardened and it's almost impossible to get the reticulation that used to be seen with films like FP3 and HP3 (Im used them in the late60's), however you can still get surface artifacts which affect how the negatives scan and print, this is called micro reticulation or incipient reticulation.

One problem is modern Rodinal contains free Hydroxide and that softens emulsions, some more than others, if temperature control is strict there's no problems, when it isn't sometimes you get this increased apparent graininess.

It's common practice in Germany and other parts of Continental Europe to use Rodinal at 16-18ºC as they claim that reduces the grain with Rodinal, it reduces the film swelling and potential of these surface artifacts, but in fact has no impact on grain size compared to using a higher temperature with good temperature control at all stages.

APUGuser19 said:

You're using Rodinal. Grain goes with that choice.

Click to expand...

I can show you many hundreds of negatives processed in Rodinal with excellent fine grain so your statement is a misconception, rather a sweeping statement, choice od developer.film combination and good craft (technique) is the key.

Ian

I've scanned every negative I've shot in the past 2 years, and regardless of the scanning technique I've used, have found that a scan tells me virtually nothing useful about how a negative will print from the enlarger, especially with regard to apparent graininess.

It looks like grain to me, but it is difficult to really tell from a scan, print the negative and see what it looks like, I often see more grain in the light areas such as skys, it shows more,

APUGuser19 said:

You're using Rodinal. Grain goes with that choice.

Click to expand...

This is why I am posting this as I have many other shots w/o much grain in Rodinal/Adonal. I know Adonal will have some grain compared to others.
Interesting about the dev temp though below 21 c with the Germans, I will have to test; this batch though, I did start at almost 22 c as my kitchen is colder in the winter.

Thanks for your replies all! - Rich

I submit it's an exposure and/or development/agitation issue. See pic below (neg scan) of a negative that was developed at 1:25 in Rodinal. This is what I expect from this developer....no apparent grain, unless you make it so. I also expect to see that light leak on the side unless I tape the back of the camera :}

This is from a 6x6 film, but even w/ 135mm the grain can be controlled quite nicely, depending on the film choice.

Dr Croubie said:

It's a 1000-pixel crop of a 3200dpi scan, so the area you can see is only about 9mm square from a 6x7 neg, ie it's only really noticeable at huge enlargements or pixel-peeping. I've got some 4x5 sheets that also look the same this close up, but when you look at the whole thing it's imperceptible.

Click to expand...

People take a scan, look at it 100% and then sharpen it until it bleeds. Wrong!

That's the problem with pixel-peeping: we don't see prints at 100%, we see them at approx 33%. What looks fuzzy at 100% will often be perfectly clear at the smaller magnification.

The easiest way to do this in Photoshop is to choose VIEW ---> PRINT SIZE. You do have to make sure that you have the appropriate Screen Resolution set under PREFERENCES ---> UNITS & RULERS.

Try it, you'll find peace and enlightenment.

Ya,

I too have rodinal scans that look fairly fined grained so I don't go for the blanket statement. As a fairly newby at this I was a little surprised to see the grain appear in bright light areas - always thought it was a low light or a fast film issue in general. The thoughts here that it is inherent in scanning seems like a possibility, once I can print again, it will determine.

I recently switched to MF and cannot print right now as my enlarger is lacking a 6x6 holder and have not gotten around to remedying this. So looking at the print is out, I will look closely at the negatives though. Boy did they look good, some of the best I have done so far as I tightened up my process. The distilled water as really helped, but I didn't control the rinse temp and thought it may have caused the issue.

Thanks for the replies.
Rich

As Flotsam would say: Its grain it is supposed to be there.