How to get big grain

[radiant]

Now that’s grain.

Me likey likey.

 

[NB23]

Not foma 400. There is grain but normal, even in rodinal 1:25.

Tmz is excellent. Even when rated at iso 100 and pulled development it will have big grain.

no, agitation has no effect on grain.

 

[Huss]

Kentmere 400 in Cinestill DF96 Monobath, 75 degrees for 4 minutes. No tricks needed.

 

[markjwyatt]

Kodak P3200 @3200 (HC110), plus a little under-exposed.


taquitos by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Huss]

TMAX 3200, rated at 3200, pushed w DF96 Monobath.

 

[markjwyatt]

wow. monobath = grain!

 

[Huss]

Arista 200 rated at 400, DF96 Monobath

 

[Huss]

wow. monobath = grain!

When you push film, yes. If the film is shot at its correctly rated speed and dev as normal, grain is 'normal'.

 

[Huss]

HP5 @ 1600, Monobath

 

[otto.f]

wow. monobath = grain!

Has little to do with monobath, these examples are quite typical for Kodak TMZ 3200. In fact, shooting TMZ at 3200, is always underexposing, if you want it cleaner, ~1200 Asa is the max.

 

[radiant]

Are these prints or scans? Please remember that scanning typically translates grain to digital noise and bumping up the contrast post with computer also makes the noise very prominent.

 

[albireo]

Are these prints or scans? Please remember that scanning typically translates grain to digital noise

Can you clearly detail your evidence for the above? Can you describe which scanning equipment you're using and ideally provide an example? Ideally, could you provide a white paper (peer reviewed IEEE paper would be great) describing your 'scanning typically translates grain to digital noise' statement?

For reference, a well exposed, well developed and well scanned negative (ALL of this must happen) will not provide significantly more grain than expected. Unless, as Huss shows up here, abundant grain is a creative requirement, in which case pushing will give you that (underexposure = enhanced grain in the shadows + overdevelopment = enhanced grain in the highlights).

As a mirror suggestion - what is your darkroom setup? One alternative hypothesis is you might be unable to observe clearly defined grain in your darkroom workflow because of a poorly aligned enlarger, defective grain focuser or other issues, which is leading you to the above blanket assumptions that other people's scanned grain is the result of the hybrid workflow and not of exposure/development decisions.

 

[radiant]

Can you clearly detail your evidence for the above? Can you describe which scanning equipment you're using and ideally provide an example? Ideally, could you provide a white paper (peer reviewed IEEE paper would be great) describing your 'scanning typically translates grain to digital noise' statement?

Here is an real life example (Epson V600 vs darkroom print): https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-scanning-120-film.186669/page-3#post-2465655

 

[albireo]

Here is an real life example (Epson V600 vs darkroom print): https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...-scanning-120-film.186669/page-3#post-2465655

This is a flatbed scan. You will need a dedicated film scanner or a DSRL scanning setup, both able to focus on the grain by design, to make statements on what scanning can and cannot do wrt grain.

 

[Don_ih]

Underexpose, slight overdevelopment, make copy negatives.

 

[NB23]

Scanning always adds grain. But then it becomes a digital file, therefore reducing grain (or making it bigger) is a matter of a simple click.

 

[Pat Erson]

The King of Grain is Ralph Gibson, look him up if you haven't heard of him. And his recipe is Tri-X rated from 100 to 400 (so normal or over exposing), Rodinal mixed 1:25 at 68F for 11 minutes with 10 seconds agitation every one and a half minutes, and if it makes a difference he rolled the tank on it's side. Taken from 'Darkroom' by Lustrum Press. He got pretty normal exposure times for his negs (minus dodging and burning of course), and went on to print them on Brovira grade 4 and 5 so making the grain pop by avoiding those annoying mid tones.

That was a long time ago indeed. During a mid-00's conversation with a friend R.G. told him he switched to Kodak 3200 stock cos modern 400 films were too slick.

"He got pretty normal exposure times for his negs"
I read somewhere that in the 70's his normal eposure times were one two 3 minutes, which would be the result of greatly overdeveloped negs.

 

[Pat Erson]

KING OF GRAIN :

Bergger Panchro 400!

Try it in D-76 you'll be stunned!

 

[NB23]

I think it’s no secret that TMZ and Delta 3200 are the ticket.

TMZ has much sharper grain. D3200 bigger grain.
Ilfosol-3 being the sharpest developer out there (more so than Rodinal), it would be the developer of choice for prominent grain.

 

[Huss]

I scan with a digicam, and it does not add any grain. The results I attached above have grain because of the film and development process used. Below is an example I recently posted in the DF96 thread shot on Acros II at box speed, developed normally in DF96. No grain.



With normal developers you push process by adding time. With monobath developers you push process by increasing the temperature as monobaths develop and fix at the same time. That is what increases the grain size.

 

[NB23]

I scan with a digicam, and it does not add any grain. The results I attached above have grain because of the film and development process used. Below is an example I recently posted in the DF96 thread shot on Acros II at box speed, developed normally in DF96. No grain.



With normal developers you push process by adding time. With monobath developers you push process by increasing the temperature as monobaths develop and fix at the same time. That is what increases the grain size.

How do you know that it doesn’t add any grain? So far, all my darkroom prints consistently show less grain than any print from a DSLR scan.

 

[Huss]

How do you know that it doesn’t add any grain? So far, all my darkroom prints consistently show less grain than any print from a DSLR scan.

Cuz I look at it and don't see any.

 

[Huss]

Looping back to the original question, the simple answer to getting grain is to use a fast film and push it.

 

[NB23]

Looping back to the original question, the simple answer to getting grain is to use a fast film and push it.

This is the thing; I’m not sure that pushing is a requirement. I know that there is a theory on this that I’ve never cared to read, actually, but my pulled TMZ all the way down to iso100 got me Big grain, I can even say bigger than tmz rated at 3200 which is believed to be a 1000 iso film.

 

[radiant]

This is a flatbed scan. You will need a dedicated film scanner or a DSRL scanning setup, both able to focus on the grain by design, to make statements on what scanning can and cannot do wrt grain.

Please feel free to show an example.

I think Epson V600 represent very generic / normal digitizing equipment - which isn't even close resolving the grain.

Here is digitized version (Fuji XT-3, 50mm enlarger lens). It is getting there but no grain separation.

@Huss can you describe your setup how you digitized those previous examples?

And it is also important to realize that if you see grain in 1200 pixel wide digital image, it cannot be grain. If it would be, I would be enormous on film + paper print. That isn't just possible. What we see is digital artefact. Yes the density of the digital artefact is determined by grain density.

I still argue that most of the time what we see descibred as "grain" in scanned / digitized negative is actually mostly noise. Grain is so small that you need over 5000 pixel wide image to even really see it. Here is the full frame 1024 pixels wide to give the scale how small things we are talking here:

So please provide an example (print + digitalization) which both show the same grain. I would like to know how it is done.