How to achieve big sharp grain with normal tonality?

[Bill Burk]

@Juan Valdenebro I thought I would add to this thread.


For blatantly apparent grain, a general plan:
Deliberately fog your film. Then expose to rise above fog and develop to relatively low contrast so that you will have to print on high contrast paper.

I think it might have the same effect as using expired, badly age-fogged film, like this…

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

For blatantly apparent grain, a general plan:
Deliberately fog your film.

Is this something like a pre-flash that is used by some for speed boost?

 

[radiant]

I cannot recall if it has been written here before but Delta 3200 is is the answer.

See what Steve Onions says: https://tube.connect.cafe/aOS5M2ydjhI?t=264

 

[Donald Qualls]

Is this something like a pre-flash that is used by some for speed boost?

Almost. Pre-flash for speed enhancement (or for contrast control in printing) is kept low enough not to produce density above base+fog on its own; it's typically about one stop below Zone 1 exposure. @Bill Burk is proposing deliberately fogging well above that level. To simulate, say, forty years of age fog, you'd probably want to pre-expose at around Zone II level; you'd then need to expose your image about two to three stops below your usual film speed to lift it out of the base + (intentional) fog. I'd go against his suggestion, in part; I'd go ahead and develop to higher than normal contrast; this in itself tends to accentuate grain. The resulting negative may be a little challenging to print well (as would be the case with decades-old film), but ought to give all the grain you're going to get from a given film.

Combine this with starting with a known grainy film (Fomapan 400, for instance, or as suggested above Delta 3200 or T-Max P3200) and you're well on the road for a "sixty grit" look.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I understand how to preflash single sheets, but how would one flash a roll of 135 or 120?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I understand how to preflash single sheets, but how would one flash a roll of 135 or 120?

Like making a double exposure, with a preflash diffuser over the lens. Point the camera at open sky or a large white or gray surface of even tone also works. Meter off the surface to get your exposure. Recock shutter without advancing for the actual image.

Additionally, this lets you intersperse preflashed frames with ones that don't get this treatment (though they'll all still get the same development, obviously).

Yep, this is of limited utility for street or action shooting. Those are places to just use 3200 film in the smallest format you can, and push to 12500 (a neutral density will prevent all your images being at f/32 and 1/1000 -- and won't affect focusing on a rangefinder).

 

[Sirius Glass]

Makes sense. I should have been able to figure that out.

 

[radiant]

Combine this with starting with a known grainy film (Fomapan 400..

Fomapan 400 isn't that grainy anymore. Pretty much similar grain with HP5+.

I've used paper developer on HP5+ and sure I found the grain and normal tonality. But suddenly in between the grainy frames I had very normal looking photo with normal grain. Sometimes I just don't understand film.

 

[koraks]

Fomapan 400 isn't that grainy anymore. Pretty much similar grain with HP5+.

Uhm. No.

 

[Bill Burk]

Is this something like a pre-flash that is used by some for speed boost?

Donald Qualls answered yes same thing, but… we’re trying to “ruin” the film.

The only reason not to develop to higher contrast (in the plan to wreck things) is that grain is most apparent around 0.3 negative density, and maybe a flat negative would hover around that. But sure develop longer. With the very old Super-XX the overall fog was “chasing” the image. Halation made things “worse” and helps emphasize grain where highlights spill into shadow.

 

[radiant]

Uhm. No.

I've tried to find Foma 400 grain here:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/my-fomapan-400-is-broken.184658/

Also Adrian wrote:

"In terms of grain, Foma lists it as a granularity of 17.5, so it’s got grain, but given that it’s a traditional grained film, it’s pretty pleasant. 400TX has a listed granularity of 17, so it’s about the same grain size as 400TX."

https://adrianbacon.com/simple-photography-services/simple-film-lab/films/foma-fomapan-400/

400TX vs HP5 https://adrianbacon.com/2017/12/17/kodak-tri-x-vs-ilford-hp5-film/

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Donald Qualls answered yes same thing, but… we’re trying to “ruin” the film.

The only reason not to develop to higher contrast (in the plan to wreck things) is that grain is most apparent around 0.3 negative density, and maybe a flat negative would hover around that. But sure develop longer. With the very old Super-XX the overall fog was “chasing” the image. Halation made things “worse” and helps emphasize grain where highlights spill into shadow.

Interesting and easy to implement idea. Thanks Bill and Donald.

 

[radiant]

is that grain is most apparent around 0.3 negative density,

0.3 Over b+f? But isn't that very deep shadow?

 

[Bill Burk]

0.3 Over b+f? But isn't that very deep shadow?

Can’t find all the links now but here are a few. I had read in LP Clerc that 0.3 negative density (maybe or not above base plus fog) is where the graininess appears

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/experiment-dektol-as-film-developer.112461/#post-1486816

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...fill-in-the-blanks.122934/page-3#post-1627035

 

[radiant]

Can’t find all the links now but here are a few. I had read in LP Clerc that 0.3 negative density (maybe or not above base plus fog) is where the graininess appears

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/experiment-dektol-as-film-developer.112461/#post-1486816

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...fill-in-the-blanks.122934/page-3#post-1627035

Making the negative really thin and low contrast will make the grain more dominant for sure. Thin negatives need to printed at high grade which boosts the grain. Thin negatives probably have the grain clumps more separate, making those more visible?

I think it depends what kind of grain one wants; very overall smushy or delicate "sparkling". See Mikael Siiriläs work and you find different kind use of grain: https://www.mikaelsiirila.fi/shop/ - he overexposes & overdevelopes.

In Mikaels way I think he is lowering the contrast with lower EI (getting away from toe) and by overdeveloping he increases the grain overall? Overdeveloping of course increases contrast but maybe that is the balance he has found.

 

[JNP]

Extremes like Dektol tend to ruin tonality...

What dilution are you using? 1:10 &10 minutes will give the effect you want. You will have to fine tune your exposure and agitation for your requirements. Dektol these days might be rough. It is gross looking these days. If you can get hydroquinone metol washing soda ( or dry out baking soda ) potassium bromide and sodium sulfite make your own D72.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you can get hydroquinone metol washing soda ( or dry out baking soda ) potassium bromide and sodium sulfite make your own D72.

Baking soda doesn't "dry out" to become washing soda, it drives off carbon dioxide. If you're in the US, Arm and Hammer Washing Soda is sold in the laundry section of most supermarkets; it's already the monohydrate most formulae expect, and the little trace of perfume doesn't seem to have any photographic effect.

 

[JNP]

Baking soda doesn't "dry out" to become washing soda, it drives off carbon dioxide. If you're in the US, Arm and Hammer Washing Soda is sold in the laundry section of most supermarkets; it's already the monohydrate most formulae expect, and the little trace of perfume doesn't seem to have any photographic effect.

True, yes, but in layman's terms if you heat baking soda in an oven under low heat it converts to washing soda. The OP / @Juan Valdenebro (or anyone else) can also use Baking Soda in some recipes that are not too finicky, in the abundance of Caffenol rest stops in the Blogosphere there is a conversion factor. I have done both, actually all three, and the developers and other concoctions perform well.