Increasing grain for traditional grain films

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

But if that's fairly easily achievable by just developing longer or using another easily available developer, wouldn't it complicate matters to include processing steps? I mean, it would make sense to try the easy options first.
I also don't see how a bleach and redevelop procedure would emphasize grain. If anything, the opposite is more likely. The exception would be a redevelopment that actually adds density, such as chromium intensification.

When you over develop film you get big grain but also dense negatives which is probably not what OP wants. You need something more than over developing. This is where Thornton's bleach monobath method can potentially be helpful. It reduces the highlight density and is a very tolerant process according to Thornton. So, you over develop the film to get big grains overall in the negative and get back printable highlights using the bleach monobath technique. I don't see why asking whether this approach gives both big grains and printable negatives is unreasonable.

The hypothesis here is bleach redevelop will retain the grain structure of the overdeveloped negatives. This is something that the experts of this forum can confirm or reject.

 

[koraks]

The hypothesis here is bleach redevelop will retain the grain structure of the overdeveloped

My hypothesis is that while the grain may initially be large after first development (depending on the degree of development as overexposure is more key to this approach than is overdevelopment), it still ends up small due to only partial redevelopment.

 

[grainyvision]

I've never actually heard of it being done, and it would definitely not be easy with a panchromatic film, but in theory you could use the "lith printing" method, but on film. ie, very dilute lith A + B developer. This causes really chunky grain and weird contrast. The downside of this is that on negative film you'd have a lot of blocked highlights, and it would probably take a number of test runs to figure out a usable time. Alternatively you can also bleach and redevelop the film. If you over expose it slightly and then bleach completely back (in typical ferrocyanide/bromide) and redevelop not quite completely, this should give a very grainy look. The amount of grain in this method though would probably make 35mm completely unusable though

 

[warden]

I have an idea.!

You know those auxiliary rangefinders... get a 135mm finder and put it on the hotshoe and shoot with a 24mm lens.

If you don’t have one let me know. I do and would be happy to donate it to your project.

That's a clever idea, thanks! I'll do some experimenting on my side and keep your generous offer in mind.

 

[John51]

Another extreme would be to compose inside the cameras rangefinder patch.

 

[jtk]

How do you plan to print it?

That point-source idea is fun...won't work with most condensers, did it with an old Durst 609...0mega sold replacement condenser set for that specific purpose.

 

[warden]

How do you plan to print it?

That point-source idea is fun...won't work with most condensers, did it with an old Durst 609...0mega sold replacement condenser set for that specific purpose.

Probably a combination of techniques. Maybe wet print to medium sized paper and then scan + inkjet to the final larger size. That will require experimentation.

I saw a print in the Philly Museum of Art several years back that was enormous, at least four feet across if not more, from a 35mm negative. The grain was present. I'd like to try that presence.

Edit: I found the print, which was five feet across but it makes no mention of film size. I assumed 35mm but I could be wrong:

https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/85893.html?mulR=1737738|5

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ahisa-fukase-review-are-celebrated-photo-book

 

[Rudeofus]

Many people have suggested a very active developer to increase grain, allow me to add another suggestion: use a developer which creates high fog. Add a strong silver solvent like Potassium Thiocyanate or Sodium Thiosulfate until you reach b+f levels near D=2. Grain should become massive, while contrast remains normal if you adjust dev times.

 

[awty]

Probably a combination of techniques. Maybe wet print to medium sized paper and then scan + inkjet to the final larger size. That will require experimentation.

I saw a print in the Philly Museum of Art several years back that was enormous, at least four feet across if not more, from a 35mm negative. The grain was present. I'd like to try that presence.

Edit: I found the print, which was five feet across but it makes no mention of film size. I assumed 35mm but I could be wrong:

https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/85893.html?mulR=1737738|5

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ahisa-fukase-review-are-celebrated-photo-book

To me it looks typical of a dense/fogged 35mm negative. To get the final print may of been a combination as you say.
I love the eyes of the birds.
Think I need to but eyes on my bats.
Release The Bats. by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

 

[Lachlan Young]

Probably a combination of techniques. Maybe wet print to medium sized paper and then scan + inkjet to the final larger size. That will require experimentation.

I saw a print in the Philly Museum of Art several years back that was enormous, at least four feet across if not more, from a 35mm negative. The grain was present. I'd like to try that presence.

Edit: I found the print, which was five feet across but it makes no mention of film size. I assumed 35mm but I could be wrong:

https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/85893.html?mulR=1737738|5

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ahisa-fukase-review-are-celebrated-photo-book

Flattish neg with good shadows, print it on a very hard grade = good, sharp, visible grain. The most reliable technique is overexposure & overdevelopment - as per Ralph Gibson etc. Not difficult, you can use D-76 just fine - and it works with LF just fine too. More to the point, no matter what format you use short of maybe 5x7+ (and even then), grain will be definitely visibly present in a 60" long print!

Would strongly oppose making a small print and scanning the print - it will not improve things unless you really know what you are doing with repro photo techniques. Either get a high end scan and output as you wish, or optically print at the final size you want. Half-assed approaches get half-assed results.

 

[removed account4]

bracket your exposures and development. using a print developer like dektol or ansco 130 &c won't necessarily give you big grain. ive been using print developer to process my film for more than 20 years it really hasn't given me golf ball size grain as people sometimes suggest. has all to do with how you expose and how you develop. good luck!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You could use a very dilute developer with high pH. Think Rodinal on steroids. I was thinking about doing this myself, but tweaking Beutler's. Using hydroxide instead of carbonate.

 

[Lachlan Young]

bracket your exposures and development. using a print developer like dektol or ansco 130 &c won't necessarily give you big grain. ive been using print developer to process my film for more than 20 years it really hasn't given me golf ball size grain as people sometimes suggest. has all to do with how you expose and how you develop. good luck!

Exactly! They're very handy if you need to boost contrast in flat scenes too. They're definitively not solvent developers, but otherwise can be very, very good.

 

[warden]

Would strongly oppose making a small print and scanning the print - it will not improve things unless you really know what you are doing with repro photo techniques. Either get a high end scan and output as you wish, or optically print at the final size you want. Half-assed approaches get half-assed results.

Examples below of my first experiment, which is limited to what I can achieve with basic hobby equipment. The first image is a generic scene showing the entire 35mm negative uncropped. The area we're interested in is hilighted (from ear to chin):

Here is that area at the limit of my Nikon scanner. A 2900dpi scan results in a square that is 85 pixels across:

And the same crop from a scan of a wet print using an Epson V700:

I like that the Epson is showing more information than the scan, and that I'm seeing the building blocks of the image depicted as organic shapes rather than pixels. I think I'm seeing a combination of film grain, paper grain and paper texture, all of which are good. There is nothing in the Nikon scan that I would use.

Your half-assed comment has me thinking - would a whole-assed scan (drum scan or whatever) be able to capture a similar amount of detail as the scan of a wet print that you see here? I don't know what kind of resolution I can expect with a better scan, but by the looks of this I'm guessing 5x of the Nikon, or 15,000dpi or so would be needed? Just a guess.

Scanning a wet print is looking interesting right now.

 

[warden]

To me it looks typical of a dense/fogged 35mm negative. To get the final print may of been a combination as you say.
I love the eyes of the birds.
Think I need to but eyes on my bats.
Release The Bats. by Paul Fitz, on Flickr

That shot is just great Paul and does remind me of Fukase. I like the grain but want 10x that amount of grain if possible, so I can barely identify them as bats. I know that sounds ridiculous but here we are in a ridiculous world.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Your half-assed comment has me thinking - would a whole-assed scan (drum scan or whatever) be able to capture a similar amount of detail as the scan of a wet print that you see here? I don't know what kind of resolution I can expect with a better scan, but by the looks of this I'm guessing 5x of the Nikon, or 15,000dpi or so would be needed? Just a guess.

Scanning a wet print is looking interesting right now.

It should knock the socks off a scanned & blown up wet print. Off 35mm, you'd be wanting 5-6000ppi range. If I have to choose between scanning a print and enlarging it or making a scan from a negative and matching it as closely as possible to a print's tonality, I'll choose scanning the neg every time. That said, with the right enlarging lenses, an optical mural print will still be nicer than the best possible scan/ output.

 

[awty]

That shot is just great Paul and does remind me of Fukase. I like the grain but want 10x that amount of grain if possible, so I can barely identify them as bats. I know that sounds ridiculous but here we are in a ridiculous world.

Oh I like ridiculous.
This is something I was working on, just a close crop of a HP5 35mm neg on a post card sized print. If I maxed out my durst 1000 enlarger and used a 35mm enlarger lens I could print to about 8x10, if I made a larger negative using Ortho film I could make an even bigger print with huge grain. I get too much artifacts when enlarging digitally, which wrecks the grain.


Another effect is to over expose the paper and bleach back some grain.

 

[warden]

Oh I like ridiculous.
This is something I was working on, just a close crop of a HP5 35mm neg on a post card sized print. If I maxed out my durst 1000 enlarger and used a 35mm enlarger lens I could print to about 8x10, if I made a larger negative using Ortho film I could make an even bigger print with huge grain. I get too much artifacts when enlarging digitally, which wrecks the grain.

Now you're talking, I like that print of the child. But, you know, it could use a little more grain.

That old man's head I wet printed was about a 35x enlargement and I want to go at least 50x but I'm so far away from the enlarger lens that the light is too dim to focus well. I'll keep at it until I reach the point of diminishing returns. This is a good exercise for me.

Interestingly I've already settled on a film for this little project, Tri-X. I would have assumed P3200 a better choice, and the grain is larger for sure, but it's less attractive to look at when enlarged so it's out. I'm not complaining since Tri-X is cheaper anyway.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Now you're talking, I like that print of the child. But, you know, it could use a little more grain.

That old man's head I wet printed was about a 35x enlargement and I want to go at least 50x but I'm so far away from the enlarger lens that the light is too dim to focus well. I'll keep at it until I reach the point of diminishing returns. This is a good exercise for me.

Interestingly I've already settled on a film for this little project, Tri-X. I would have assumed P3200 a better choice, and the grain is larger for sure, but it's less attractive to look at when enlarged so it's out. I'm not complaining since Tri-X is cheaper anyway.

See if you can get your hands on a Rodagon-G or similar, the contrast behaviour is optimised for those sort of sizes - literally night and day in focus contrast.

 

[awty]

Now you're talking, I like that print of the child. But, you know, it could use a little more grain.

That old man's head I wet printed was about a 35x enlargement and I want to go at least 50x but I'm so far away from the enlarger lens that the light is too dim to focus well. I'll keep at it until I reach the point of diminishing returns. This is a good exercise for me.

Interestingly I've already settled on a film for this little project, Tri-X. I would have assumed P3200 a better choice, and the grain is larger for sure, but it's less attractive to look at when enlarged so it's out. I'm not complaining since Tri-X is cheaper anyway.

Get a brighter bulb and a faster wide lens. For the best grain, Print Big. I find cold tone paper gets the best results, with the highest contrast filter you can get away with.....also try delta 400 over processed, is good for lifting contrast.

 

[warden]

See if you can get your hands on a Rodagon-G or similar, the contrast behaviour is optimised for those sort of sizes - literally night and day in focus contrast.

Thanks I'll look into it. I'm also looking at 40mm Nikkors but more for the focal length, which should allow larger magnification without requiring projecting from another room of the house. I'm currently using a 50mm Nikkor from 8-12' away from the enlarger which is a pain in the half-ass.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry, I'm late.

Use paper developer.
Use lith developer like Arista Lith AB premium.
Use Foma 400 in Rodinal.

I have done all three. Grain was big.
If you want it as visible as possible - scan.

For me way to get huge grain now is current TMAX 3200. Even at ISO 800 and in TMAX developer it is mostly grain than image Ilford, no, Emulsion like Kentmere 400 gives less grain @3200 than this Kodak Alaris film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Thanks I'll look into it. I'm also looking at 40mm Nikkors but more for the focal length, which should allow larger magnification without requiring projecting from another room of the house. I'm currently using a 50mm Nikkor from 8-12' away from the enlarger which is a pain in the half-ass.

The Nikkor is specified out to 30x, the 50G is out to 50x - I've found that above specified max enlargement that contrast performance can fall off faster than you might expect - another alternative possibly worth exploring is using a good 50mm camera lens for the job - especially at the sizes you are contemplating it might be better corrected for the purposes. Have fun wrestling with the giant roll paper!

 

[warden]

The Nikkor is specified out to 30x, the 50G is out to 50x - I've found that above specified max enlargement that contrast performance can fall off faster than you might expect - another alternative possibly worth exploring is using a good 50mm camera lens for the job - especially at the sizes you are contemplating it might be better corrected for the purposes. Have fun wrestling with the giant roll paper!

That's interesting, thanks. I didn't know enlarger lenses were rated for max enlargements but it makes sense now that I'm trying it. I'll keep researching.

 

[koraks]

Maybe you should explore the route of large format internegatives. It'll require a means to invert it (maybe 2 generations of an interpositive and an internegative, or reversal processing). You'll be less dependent on specific optics - but you'll need a large format enlarger of course.