Grain Size - Is Defender full of *it?

L Gebhardt · Oct 27, 2005

I received the Defender newsletter today, despite never signing up for it. I don't actaully mind this as at least it is spam on a subject I am interested in. Anyway I read this

Im often asked about the fine grain claims that I make about Alpha developer.Well, they are
not just idle claim, they are the truth - Ill show an example here in a moment. Unrestrained film
developers - D-76, Rodinal, D-23, D-25, etc, will not give you the same beautiful grain structure
in a negative (particularly apparent in a small 35mm negative) that Alpha will. In fact, no
outdated developer will.Why? Fine grain is not related to film speed.
Fast films have more silver in them than slow films. Thats why they cost more. Thats the
reason they are faster. It has nothing to do with grain size. It is completely unrelated to grain
size. Development (and developers) are what contributes to grain size (in a random grain film).
Fine grain is a product of
film development.
What is a random grain film? Traditional films - Tri-X, HP-5, FP-4, our D-100 Pan and DF-200
and DF-400, etc. films are random grain. The grain in these films is all different sizes and shapes
- big, small, medium sized, regardless of the film speed.. The appearance of large grain occurs
when all the smaller silver grains have been dissolved, leaving only the larger ones. So, large
grain is a -- over-development. If development action is overly active, for
whatever reason, the result will be large appearing grain... in a random grain film.
or grain films like T-Max, Delta, etc, have all the film grain manufactured to
the same size and shape. Development has no effect on the grain size, though our Alpha
developer will give better tonal separation with these films - broader and crisper than any other
developer will. Fabricated grain films also utilize a sensitizing dye - thats the magenta cast you
see on the T-Max negatives (unless you use DF-3 fixer)... So T-Max 100 doesnt give any finer
grain than T-Max 400? Correct. Then why did Kodak make the 2 films? Because people will buy
them!Why make regular and extra strength aspirin?

and I have question? Isn't the speed of film directly related to the average grain size? As I understood it, in a really general way, if enough photons hit a grain all of the grain is activated and will be developed. So you make the grains bigger and they are more likely to be exposed, so the speed is faster. So is Anthony full of it? Am I mistaken (I am sure I don't have the details correct on anything other than a superficial level)?

gnashings · Oct 27, 2005

I would love to see what the APUG collective brain has to say on this - sounds very far out. Not impossible, but given the number of people who ise these films and actually have the technical and scientific klnowledge (there are many of those folkas on this forum), I would think they would not be so easily fooled for all these years.

BradS · Oct 27, 2005

It is perhaps, best to take unsolicited marketing hype with a grain of salt.

clay · Oct 27, 2005

Pure BS. Along the lines of Robert Allen's 'Become a Millionaire in a Weekend with No Money Down!' motivational/'finance' seminars. Old timer once told me: "Grain, Acutance, Speed. Pick two".

phfitz · Oct 27, 2005

Hi there,

Sounds like pure B.S. but there is an easy way to find out. Just develope a fine grain film in Dektol and see what happens. No, the grain does not grow, oh well.

just a thought.

Photo Engineer · Oct 27, 2005

Speed is not just a function of how much silver is coated. In fact, I have seen speeds of over 1200 with very little silver coated.

Speed is a function of grain size. It is also a function of addenda in the emulsion such as iodide and sensitzing dyes. Therefore, by using 2 grain sensitization, the new technology in Kodak motion picture negative film, there is a roughly 2/3 increase in speed at equivalent grain by using more efficient addenda.

Speed goes up as grain goes up. Grain goes down at the same speed as finer grained, more efficient emulsions are used to capture the same amount of light.

Then there is the developer used.

All that is said about development above is correct to a point. There is a balance that has to be struck between speed, grain, and sharpness with a given film, once the 'magic' goes in at the factory.

But, there is no magic bullet. Everyone here seaches and searches for one, but why then are photographic scientists and engineers not all wealthy as they share their secrets with the world. If there were such a developer, it is rare in this day and age for a guy like the one who wrote that 'hype' to come up with it. I see nothing but advertising 'hype'.

I doubt, if you ran side-by-side tests, if you would really see anything spectacular. Even so, if there were, it would be a work alike for something already available that you were unfamiliar with.

Remember, in the other thread, Bill Troop pointed out that his formuas were being sold under the FAP name (Fine Art Photography) and were unauthorized copies of his published formulas. Same guy AFAIK.

PE

Paul Sorensen · Oct 28, 2005

This is even wilder than the stuff on his website. I guess he declined my advice that he should be out shooting more rather than writing over wrought hyperbole about his products. I guess the "my developer can make any film look like your favorite old classic film" is actually as wild as this, so I might take back the even wilder comment, let's say just as wild.

Changeling1 · Oct 28, 2005

Here's the current Defender Bulletin #2

I got the Defender Bulletin today also--- check it out if you didn't receive one.

nworth · Oct 28, 2005

I agree, it's BS. PE has pretty well given the definitive word. I would mention that the developer does affect the apparent grain, although the grain is primarily determined by the film. High solvent developers like D-76 and D-23 will knock off the edges of the grain and make it look finer. (Actually, it's a bit more complicated than that.) The other developer constituants also have an effect. As implied in the original, that includes the restrainer. That may be why some people prefer Agfa 17 to D-76. Both the shape and size of the developed grain are important, and both can be affected by the developer components to some extent.

The article implies that all films should be highly pushable with no change in contrast, and we all know that is not the case. It also talks about random grain films. By that I think the author means grain size variation in the coating (as opposed to the image). As I understand it (very incompletely) the variation in grain size in an emulsion affects the contrast - little variation, higher contrast - but not speed, at least in an overall way.

mmcclellan · Oct 28, 2005

Sounds like the exact same pitch he was making for his other film/dev combination before he sold out to Photographer's Formulary. After reading that newsletter (to which I promptly "unsubscribed"), I got the distinct impression that these claims would be made for ANY film/dev combination he was selling.

No longer credible in my book. (

Bob F. · Oct 28, 2005

Is this the same guy that spammed the LF Info people (twice) when he started Fine Art Photography? Came up with some pathetic excuse that it wasn't him, it was the company he bought the mailing list from...

Sounds like he is up to his old tricks. Only difference is that I believe the US has anti-spam laws in place now...

Cheers, Bob.

L Gebhardt · Oct 28, 2005

Thanks all for confirming my suspicions of BS.

Grain Size - Is Defender full of *it?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency