How get 2475-like sharp grain?

[jtk]

I shot a lot of 2475 years ago...used D19 (I think?) and Durst 609 with exquisite condensers. Wanted sharp grain, not dissolved grain.

Should add : the Durst condensers were great with point source light...neither Beseler nor Omega worked, though you could buy special condensers from one of them if you were after highest detail resolution.

So my question: I stand process Rodinal 1:100 for the same reason I shot 2475: sharp grain (plus edge effect). Problem is, I'm not getting that gravel-road grain with new films.

What film do you suggest? I don't care about speed.

Also...fwiw.. Fuji once made a lovely, very grainy C41 film but abandoned that for one of its 35mm "press" films and then abandoned that when press photogs stopped using film. Can't remember the name of the good stuff (was just an ID number, got mine on EBay). Is there a seriously grainy color neg film today?

 

[Mackinaw]

One way to get more grain is to sheet a smaller format. I just shot a few rolls of Tri-X in a Canon Dial-35 half frame camera and loved the coarse, grainy look I got.

Jim B.

 

[jtk]

One way to get more grain is to sheet a smaller format. I just shot a few rolls of Tri-X in a Canon Dial-35 half frame camera and loved the coarse, grainy look I got.

Jim B.

Thsnks...that's true. However I'm interested in the grain itself, not a "look."

 

[tomatojoe]

What film do you suggest? I don't care about speed.

I suggest you use one of the European made films. I do not have anything against "modern" films like Ilford and Kodak but the European films seem to have an old - school edge that many modern films have lost. I can not suggest a developing agent, except for maybe something old school as well like a universal Glycin or M/HQ developer that would have been around in the 1950s and not "re-formulated" for modern tastes. Maybe even the developer you alluded to. The formulary or art craft is a website away.

 

[awty]

Have you tried 3200 iso films, Delta or Tmax?

Delta 3200 in d76 1:1

 

[Don_ih]

I shot a lot of 2475 years ago...used D19 (I think?) and Durst 609 with exquisite condensers. Wanted sharp grain, not dissolved grain.

Should add : the Durst condensers were great with point source light...neither Beseler nor Omega worked, though you could buy special condensers from one of them if you were after highest detail resolution.

So my question: I stand process Rodinal 1:100 for the same reason I shot 2475: sharp grain (plus edge effect). Problem is, I'm not getting that gravel-road grain with new films.

What film do you suggest? I don't care about speed.

Also...fwiw.. Fuji once made a lovely, very grainy C41 film but abandoned that for one of its 35mm "press" films and then abandoned that when press photogs stopped using film. Can't remember the name of the good stuff (was just an ID number, got mine on EBay). Is there a seriously grainy color neg film today?

HP5 in FX37 gives very sharp grain. Too sharp for most people. It also speed boosts.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ilfosol 3.

 

[guangong]

I always accepted grain as an expression of photography itself, but the elimination of visible grain has been the Holy Grail of a great many photographers and film manufacturers.
jtk, if and when you find a satisfactory solution please post your findings in a thread.

 

[Donald Qualls]

(Pa)Rodinal isn't crisp enough? Okay, new films just aren't as coarse as 2475. No avoiding it. Push +1 or even +2 in (Pa)Rodinal and you'll get some grain even with T-Max, but you might need a neutral density filter...

 

[jtk]

Lots of good ideas, thanks.

I'm not a chemist at all, so I want something ready to go (thats one reason I've always loved Rodinal).

Perhaps TFX-2 ?

With 35mm, how about stand processing?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/123330-REG/Photographers_Formulary_01_0090_TFX_2_Developer_for_Black.html/?ap=y&ap=y&smp=y&smp=y&lsft=BI%3A514&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj7CZBhDHARIsAPPWv3dYKMwDypRz6PBeFhZunuXC9jSnzo2psHbAekp3zbeavp2isKW9MEUaAqVXEALw_wcB

 

[xkaes]

I love 2475 -- like you.

You don't say if you are still using 2475 -- like me -- or not.

You need to clarify.

If you want something other than 2475, try 2485 -- if you can get it.

You need to clarify what you have and your goals.

For example, if you are making prints, you can create GRAIN ink a print -- even if you are using Agfapan 25 -- under the enlarger..

 

[Nokton48]

Scan-150212-0001 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is Eastman 5222 Double-X in ADOX Borax MQ which I mix myself. Has some grain to scan. I loved 2475 Recording Film. Anybody here still able to shoot any? This was scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual II.

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

Recently I got this roll of type II perfed 2485. I tried the first roll in Acufine, with a water stop bath. BIG MAJOR MISTAKE. You must use an acid stop bath with recording films, or you will get a non-removable opaque brown stain that seriously will ruin your results. I will try again soon, with Diafine (I have mixed up a gallon).

Increasing Film Speed Petersons 2485 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Nokton48 That 5222 image looks more like reticulation than grain, at least on my screen. My experience with 5222 even lightly pushed in 35 mm is smoother than that, in general.

 

[tomatojoe]

Scan-150212-0001 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is Eastman 5222 Double-X in ADOX Borax MQ which I mix myself. Has some grain to scan. I loved 2475 Recording Film. Anybody here still able to shoot any? This was scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual II.

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

Recently I got this roll of type II perfed 2485. I tried the first roll in Acufine, with a water stop bath. BIG MAJOR MISTAKE. You must use an acid stop bath with recording films, or you will get a non-removable opaque brown stain that seriously will ruin your results. I will try again soon, with Diafine (I have mixed up a gallon).

Increasing Film Speed Petersons 2485 by Nokton48, on Flickr

the fog can be removed with potassium ferricyanide

 

[jtk]

I do have a roll of 2475...kept it for nostalgia purposes. Had tried 2485 when mutha-kodak killed 2475, gave up in favor of color photography...especially Kodachrome, which evil-monstra-kodak killed when they discovered how good that was.

I forgot to mention the very best thing about 2475/D19: for me it was best rated at only 600 (tho wasn't critical) and it was incredibly beautiful digging into shadows while keeping highlights... see AWTY's accomplishment several posts above.

I fear that I'll be happy with NIK and the tech that's not-to-be-mentioned.

 

[xkaes]

Do you have a problem with "GRAIN SCREENS"?

You can make them yourself in whatever size/format you need.

Just take some 2475 -- for example -- and expose a gray card.

Stick the 2474 neg on top of whatever negative you have -- and you have 2475 grain.

And YES, exposure adjustment is required.

You can love 2475 -- like I do -- but you don't have to use 2475.

 

[jtk]

Fun idea if you're willing to sacrifice detail resolution. That was one of the several virtues of 2475 even with all that grain. BTW, did you visit Awty's post, above?

 

[Paul Howell]

Scan-150212-0001 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This is Eastman 5222 Double-X in ADOX Borax MQ which I mix myself. Has some grain to scan. I loved 2475 Recording Film. Anybody here still able to shoot any? This was scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual II.

SONY DSC by Nokton48, on Flickr

Recently I got this roll of type II perfed 2485. I tried the first roll in Acufine, with a water stop bath. BIG MAJOR MISTAKE. You must use an acid stop bath with recording films, or you will get a non-removable opaque brown stain that seriously will ruin your results. I will try again soon, with Diafine (I have mixed up a gallon).

Increasing Film Speed Petersons 2485 by Nokton48, on Flickr

As I recall Difine recommend a water stop, then fix. I would use Acufine with a standard stop.

 

[Pieter12]

Interestingly, Lewis Baltz used 35mm Kodak 2475 Recording film to get extremely sharp, yet fine grained enough negatives that rival 4x5.

 

[AZD]

Maybe Fomapan 400? I haven’t used it much, nor did I ever use 2475, but I rather like its grain. That’s good, because there’s lots of it. I’d guess you can take it as far as you want during processing.

 

[Nokton48]

@Nokton48 That 5222 image looks more like reticulation than grain, at least on my screen. My experience with 5222 even lightly pushed in 35 mm is smoother than that, in general.

Could well be reticulation. Thanks for that. Eastman 5222 has always been my go-to film. Inherently more grainy than Tri-X or HP5+, being an old school emulsion (late 50s formulation). In Rodinal it is a bit too grainy for my taste. In the seventies I carried an extra Nikon body with 2475, along with flash rig. Worked well for reportage type stuff

 

[Nokton48]

the fog can be removed with potassium ferricyanide

That's a great idea. I have some 5222 short ends that was getting really -olde- but still usuable. Then I started buying 400 foot cans fresh from Eastman in NYC. Some of those short ends do need some post processing fog reduction.

According to the Petersons Speed book, the 2485 and 2475 fog is dichroic in nature and nonremovable. What I got was so very dark brown film base as to be nearly opaque. So next 2485 run I will use acid stop bath

Increasing Film Speed Petersons 2485 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Nokton48]

Kodak 2485 Instruction Sheet 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Kodak 2485 Instruction Sheet 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

This came in my box of 70mm perfed 2485

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Nokton48 I've recently gotten a 100 foot roll of 5222; my only previous experience with the stuff was Cinestill packaged Double-X, which I pushed to 400 and processed in Df96 monobath -- and I was VERY pleased with the results (hence why I bought a bulk roll). I haven't used Tri-X recently (last was 2005 expiry, IIRC), but Double-X seems quite comparable to Fomapan 400 to my eye.

Assuming dichroic fog is silver (as I've understood to be the case), I don't know any reason Farmer's Reducer or similar bleach produce wouldn't remove it -- albeit with some risk, depending on the severity of the stain, of excessive reduction of the image density.

 

[Nokton48]

Pierce Article 2485 pg 1 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Pierce Article 2485 pg 2 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Pierce Article 2485 pg 3 by Nokton48, on Flickr

Pierce Article 2485 pg 4 by Nokton48, on Flickr

A good friend snail mailed me this article on 2485 from Pop Photo. In fifty years of developing film I have never seen image stain like that before. I doubt farmers reducer will kill it. Very unexpected results now know better