How to achieve big sharp grain with normal tonality?

[Alan Johnson]

Great information, Donald, Alan... Thanks...
I guess going the Beutler route could give me big sharp grain, and, possibly, Neofin developers can be shipped internationally...
Which of the Neofin developers, diluted, is known for the sharpest biggest grain?

That would be Neofin Blue, also known as Neofin Blau. However if they ship to you Beutler is notably less expensive and gives very similar results.
http://stores.photoformulary.com/formulary-buetler/
If PF are closed you would need to make it up yourself however:
http://thegoldenageofsilver.blogspot.com/2015/06/simple-alchemy-supplemental-beutlers.html#:~:text=Willi Beutler published the formula,the market at the time.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/photographers-formulary.176863/#post-2303666

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Great!
Thank you!!!

 

[Lachlan Young]

True. Dilute as far as you're comfortable, too. At 1+2 there's less solvent effect (the sulfite is only 33 g/L instead of 100 g/L in stock), so the grain will be softened less.

Less of a difference than you'd expect - little need to go below 1+1. Rodinal at 1+25 does fine too. It's all a lot less difficult than everyone seems to want to make it out to be.

 

[NB23]

ILFOSOL-3

 

[radiant]

So, in summary:
- Fomapan 400, overexpose (200-250 normal so maybe 100-200 ISO ?)
- Xtol 1+3, develop longer (10%? 20%? 30%?)
- Print at grade 5

What about higher developer temperature?

 

[Pixophrenic]

LFA Mason "Photographic Processing Chemistry" p 120:
"Graininess is also often worse at high pH values,due partly to the rapid development of the coarse grains and partly due to the greater spread of the silver filaments into the much softer gelatin"
Approximate pH, D-76 ~ 8.5, Beutler ~11.5

To put it into more practical terms, D-76 needs to be diluted 1:1 and 2 g/L of sodium carbonate (anhyd) added into it, to convert it into an active developer with pH~10. This is in fact going into the direction of producing a Beutler-like developer, but easier to do than mixing the latter from from scratch.
However, different films are expected to react in a different way visually, since the grain we see is actually holes in intersecting filaments. In that regard, Foma has a special film in their palette, called Retro 320. This film has a limited amount of silver halide and relatively large grain. Besides, looking at the characteristic curves, one can see that there is a limitation to the maximum density. Maybe printing such a film on higher contrast paper is what the OP is looking for?

 

[Colin Corneau]

Look up a photographer named Michael Siiril¨a (sorry I don't know how to type the umlaut above the a) on Instagram.

He has a pretty unique workflow with film where he basically pulls film, overdevelops in Rodinal and then prints at a high filter contrast (think 4 or 5).

The negatives are very dense. About 2-3x normal density and take longer to print, BUT...he has normal tonal range with a very pronounced grain structure and normal tonality...which you say you want. The idea is to have a dense, compressed negative...the high grade enhances grain and starting off with a dense negative makes it happen without a "Xerox" look.

I think starting with Foma 400 film or maybe Kentmere, as a starting point for a pretty grainy film, would be a good start.

 

[Lachlan Young]

He has a pretty unique workflow with film where he basically pulls film, overdevelops in Rodinal and then prints at a high filter contrast (think 4 or 5).

It's not unique in the slightest. It's what Ralph Gibson used for most of his career - and documented in a chapter in the Lustrum Press 'Darkroom' book - and yet there's still a vast mountain of silly guesses all over the internet and other publications about Gibson's techniques... And the film isn't pulled, it's overexposed. Pulling means overexposure & reduced processing to reduce contrast.

 

[radiant]

Look up a photographer named Michael Siiril¨a (sorry I don't know how to type the umlaut above the a) on Instagram.

He has a pretty unique workflow with film where he basically pulls film, overdevelops in Rodinal and then prints at a high filter contrast (think 4 or 5).

The negatives are very dense. About 2-3x normal density and take longer to print, BUT...he has normal tonal range with a very pronounced grain structure and normal tonality...which you say you want. The idea is to have a dense, compressed negative...the high grade enhances grain and starting off with a dense negative makes it happen without a "Xerox" look.

I think starting with Foma 400 film or maybe Kentmere, as a starting point for a pretty grainy film, would be a good start.

Mikael Siirilä is his name. https://www.instagram.com/mikaelsiirila/ and https://www.mikaelsiirila.fi/about/

Some of his dense negatives: and

He seems to use Tri-X and Rodinal based on his tags. I remember he describing his methods somewhere but I cannot find it anymore..

 

[Colin Corneau]

It's not unique in the slightest. It's what Ralph Gibson used for most of his career - and documented in a chapter in the Lustrum Press 'Darkroom' book - and yet there's still a vast mountain of silly guesses all over the internet and other publications about Gibson's techniques... And the film isn't pulled, it's overexposed. Pulling means overexposure & reduced processing to reduce contrast.

Thanks for the pedantry, but he does pull his film. Regardless of this meaningless (to the OP's question) point, pulling film will reduce contrast and allow for using high contrast filters in printing, more easily.

A question was asked, I offered an answer. Sort of how it's supposed to work.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Mikael Siirilä is his name. https://www.instagram.com/mikaelsiirila/ and https://www.mikaelsiirila.fi/about/

Some of his dense negatives: and

He seems to use Tri-X and Rodinal based on his tags. I remember he describing his methods somewhere but I cannot find it anymore..

Thanks for that...his work immediately sprung to mind because it seems a relatively straightforward answer to what the OP wants to achieve.

I also appreciate Mikael's work as being fairly unique - he's got a vision and consistently expresses it. His work is interesting and almost painterly...always nice to see.

 

[NB23]

Pedantry?

We’re in a serious film forum so exactitude is appreciated. Such as 20 celsius is not “around 24 degrees give or take a little” but it is indeed exactly 20c.

over-exposing and over-developing is far from “pulling” as a photographic process.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thanks for the pedantry, but he does pull his film. Regardless of this meaningless (to the OP's question) point, pulling film will reduce contrast and allow for using high contrast filters in printing, more easily.

It's not as simple as that - while you are compressing the information in the negative & re-expanding via a harder paper, it's rather different in how it's contained & expressed by the emulsion than in 'pulling' film. 'Pulling' has been largely historically defined to effectively imply flattening the film curve by reduced processing time (or other means) & boosting exposure to compensate, while what's going on here is that the film curve is being steepened & the exposure pushed up the scale till it effectively starts to compress the highlights in the shoulder (which then need a harder grade of paper to compensate for). It's pretty obvious what's going on if you've used the process that Gibson outlines in 'Darkroom' a few times. A lot of Michael Kenna's images appear to effectively start from the same overexposure + generous processing approach too. Rate your film at its pre-1960 rating & process to a G-bar of 0.7 or gamma of 0.75 ( as older documentation often recommends for cold cathode heads) and you might be surprised at how quickly things fall into place. You will however want the most powerful bulb that will fit your enlarger...

 

[Mikael Siirilä]

Thanks Colin for the mention. As Lachlan noted, I have read my Darkroom and very aware of Gibson's methods. I have a vintage print of The Priest from 1975 on my wall, edition 1/25 no less.

Just to add some detail, I shoot Tri-X @ 200 and develop with fresh 1:25 R09 Rodinal for 8.5 minutes at 20C (or compensated) with 2-axis robotic agitation every 30s after the initial minute (for even and consistent development). I print mostly at grades 4.5-5. For added details, the LED light source in my V35 may not quite reach grade 5 and V35 is not a condenser enlarger. The result would look like a print of slightly lesser grade with a 1C-type harsh condenser-enlarger.

Here are a couple of snaps showing image structure (thick negative + grade 5). As you can see the grain is very sandy but key information is not lost. The prints are 24x30cm.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w0dhk62oadl93ji/AABgq068fYacvWhkNb3Nzc0ua?dl=0

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you Colin, and thanks a lot too, Mikael, for coming here and showing the grain you get, and the tone...
I find your system very beautiful from the point of view of grain and tone... Congratulations!
That's indeed close to what I used to get from TMZ at box speed in TMaxDev: high sharpness and big sharp grain with great tone for overcast or soft light, and that's what I'm interested in getting from ISO 400 film now I can't order ISO 3200 nor Rodinal: I used Rodinal for many years, maybe 20 years... I live in South America, and none of them are allowed in air flights anymore, a few years ago...
Thank you very much. Wonderful system!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

To put it into more practical terms, D-76 needs to be diluted 1:1 and 2 g/L of sodium carbonate (anhyd) added into it, to convert it into an active developer with pH~10. This is in fact going into the direction of producing a Beutler-like developer, but easier to do than mixing the latter from from scratch.
However, different films are expected to react in a different way visually, since the grain we see is actually holes in intersecting filaments. In that regard, Foma has a special film in their palette, called Retro 320. This film has a limited amount of silver halide and relatively large grain. Besides, looking at the characteristic curves, one can see that there is a limitation to the maximum density. Maybe printing such a film on higher contrast paper is what the OP is looking for?

Hello Pixo,
I have D-76 all the time, for sunny scenes, though I use Microphen and FX-39 more often... It looks like the 2g/l sodium carbonate may help my grain grow sharp as you say, possibly mixed with a mild push with tri-x in soft light... That way grain might grow free of solvency beyond my usual 1+1.5 (soft tone in overcast at box) and 1+2.5 (soft contrast in sun at box+2) dilutions for D-76, which give me sharp grain, but small...
I guess Tri-X at 800 with that recipe could be it !!!
Great idea, thank you!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thanks Colin for the mention. As Lachlan noted, I have read my Darkroom and very aware of Gibson's methods. I have a vintage print of The Priest from 1975 on my wall, edition 1/25 no less.

Just to add some detail, I shoot Tri-X @ 200 and develop with fresh 1:25 R09 Rodinal for 8.5 minutes at 20C (or compensated) with 2-axis robotic agitation every 30s after the initial minute (for even and consistent development). I print mostly at grades 4.5-5. For added details, the LED light source in my V35 may not quite reach grade 5 and V35 is not a condenser enlarger. The result would look like a print of slightly lesser grade with a 1C-type harsh condenser-enlarger.

Here are a couple of snaps showing image structure (thick negative + grade 5). As you can see the grain is very sandy but key information is not lost. The prints are 24x30cm.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/w0dhk62oadl93ji/AABgq068fYacvWhkNb3Nzc0ua?dl=0

Those results are in line with what I would expect - if you're using the Heiland source on your V35, it maxes out around the same as an Ilford MG500 at around grade 4.25-4.5, which is what I used for experimenting with the overexposed/ overprocessed technique (except I used Delta 400 and ID-11 1+1). I'll need to do some further testing with my IIa now that I've got it set up & see what the Leitz condenser source & the Focotar glass does. Ilford Art 300 & some bleach/ sulfide/ gold toning is pretty spectacular with those sort of negs.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Is it possible to do the same (add a chemical, raise ph...) to Microphen, to make its grain grow more, retaining its speed enhancement properties? D-76 gives me a stop less speed, so that would be useful just for tripod work...
Thanks everyone... Very helpful and rich answers!

 

[Lachlan Young]

Is it possible to do the same (add a chemical, raise ph...) to Microphen, to make its grain grow more

Extend the development at 1+1 & overexpose your neg - it's a technique, and not as developer dependent as people want to believe. I'd be inclined to start with the EI 800 times (for a 400 speed film) & rate at 200 or rate at 100 & use the 400 times. Ilford's definition of box speed dev time is usually for a G-Bar of 0.62 (usually works out to about a 0.65 gamma), and 1-stop push is usually a G-Bar of 0.7 (something in the 0.75 gamma range) - that should get you in the area you want to be in.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Extend the development at 1+1 & overexpose your neg - it's a technique, and not as developer dependent as people want to believe. I'd be inclined to start with the EI 800 times (for a 400 speed film) & rate at 200 or rate at 100 & use the 400 times. Ilford's definition of box speed dev time is usually for a G-Bar of 0.62 (usually works out to about a 0.65 gamma), and 1-stop push is usually a G-Bar of 0.7 (something in the 0.75 gamma range) - that should get you in the area you want to be in.

Thank you, Lachlan, but for that type of speed I would use D-76 instead of Microphen: good for tripod work.
As I said previously, I'm interested in what to add to Microphen for grain growth, as it's already sharp enough (its grain) when used 1+1 and even stock... BUT, I want it with all its speed, at 800-1000 for overcast, not at box speed nor at lower speeds... Thanks again.

 

[Lachlan Young]

BUT, I want it with all its speed, at 800-1000 for overcast, not at box speed nor at lower speeds

So you're looking for a more standard expansion type of development, rather than the (somewhat) extended techniques discussed above? The main thing that brings up the grain is printing on the hardest grade of paper you can get away with, then adjusting the rest of your process to fit the tonality you want. Underexposure & pushing won't give as intense a grain effect as overexposure & extended development.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So you're looking for a more standard expansion type of development, rather than the (somewhat) extended techniques discussed above? The main thing that brings up the grain is printing on the hardest grade of paper you can get away with, then adjusting the rest of your process to fit the tonality you want. Underexposure & pushing won't give as intense a grain effect as overexposure & extended development.

Apart from assuming things unnecessarily, you don't have the answer to what I'm asking...
No problem...
I disagree with your opinions... In my world what makes a difference is not printing, but what I get on my negative... Any appropriate printing procedure, ends up producing a better print if I got on my negative more of what I want.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I want to clarify I understood many posts ago the idea of making a flat overexposed negative for high contrast printing... That's simple and I know what it produces on paper and I'm not interested: I want to get bigger grain on my negative, and I have got that grain in the past in two ways, using Rodinal, or using TMZ in TMaxDev, and as I am unable (laws) to order Rodinal or high ISO film, I'm looking for a way to increase grain on ISO 400 negative film: adding a chemical to one of my three developers seems the easiest way to do it... That's where we are... Sodium Carbonate was a good idea -it seems- for raising the ph of D-76 and that way allowing for more grain growth and sharpness... As I said, good for lowish speed, D-76, and tripod work...
In the other hand, for fast speed and handheld work, in my case Microphen, what to add?
That's where this discussion is at, thanks...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If I remember well, lowering the amount of sulfite in D-76 for less solvency effect brings the problem of reduced shelf life...
This makes me consider the best option for adding a chemical to an already mixed developer could be adding it just before its use: I mean adding the chemical only to the stock volume we are about to use for mixing -with water- the one shot dilution... Has someone done this?

 

[NB23]

Just because it seems to have been totally ignored, ILFOSOL-3 will give you what you want. Big, sharp grain.