Increasing grain for traditional grain films

[Samuel Dilworth]

I recently came across a project called Flight of the Wild Duck by Mark Lanning (via Alec Soth’s newsletter).

https://marklanningjr.com/flight-of-the-wild-duck/

The artist hints at his methods in this interview:

https://www.cumulusphoto.com/mark-lanning

“By the time I decided I needed to try photographing my negatives under a microscope I was able to reach out to the Biology Department, and a contact there let me take the microscope I’m using for as long as needed.”

“I started with this idea of enlarging to the grain structure but had no idea how to do it. I wanted to photograph ducks in flight but not end up with photographs for Fin & Feather. The distance and the enlargement was meant to speak to the distance of time and the breakdown of reconstructing meaning. Along the way I learned about the limitations of enlarging lenses and the optics that were keeping me from getting what I wanted. I had to experiment with focal length, distance, ISO, and which developer I used to get me to the next step. Nothing is designed for this, so you have to research a dozen avenues to understand why the thing isn’t happening. When it came to the photomicroscopy, I had to find books from the pre-digital era to explain the optics, projections, and lighting setups. All that work became the manifestation of the search, and initially I thought it was going toward one defined end, but as I continue to make tweaks and find new ways to photograph, enlarge, and print these images I’m more inclined to include images from along the process because each result does have its own relevant quality. I’m as obsessed with finding the perfect, crisp grain as I am with ducks, and I’m letting that ride in parallel with the search for stories and sources.”

After all that work, maybe Lanning wants to keep the details to himself. But maybe not. Worth dropping him a note, perhaps.

 

[jtk]

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.

If you're open to "camera scanning" simplest and optically best thing (because no loss via enlarger optics/paper) would be to photograph the negative with a good macro lens and Invert in PS, post process that however you like, then inkjet print just as you would with any other digital file. Better if your original negative has been developed with straight Rodinal or some other developer that doesn't have sodium sulfite (which desolves grain).

 

[warden]

I recently came across a project called Flight of the Wild Duck by Mark Lanning (via Alec Soth’s newsletter).

https://marklanningjr.com/flight-of-the-wild-duck/

The artist hints at his methods in this interview:

https://www.cumulusphoto.com/mark-lanning

“By the time I decided I needed to try photographing my negatives under a microscope I was able to reach out to the Biology Department, and a contact there let me take the microscope I’m using for as long as needed.”

“I started with this idea of enlarging to the grain structure but had no idea how to do it. I wanted to photograph ducks in flight but not end up with photographs for Fin & Feather. The distance and the enlargement was meant to speak to the distance of time and the breakdown of reconstructing meaning. Along the way I learned about the limitations of enlarging lenses and the optics that were keeping me from getting what I wanted. I had to experiment with focal length, distance, ISO, and which developer I used to get me to the next step. Nothing is designed for this, so you have to research a dozen avenues to understand why the thing isn’t happening. When it came to the photomicroscopy, I had to find books from the pre-digital era to explain the optics, projections, and lighting setups. All that work became the manifestation of the search, and initially I thought it was going toward one defined end, but as I continue to make tweaks and find new ways to photograph, enlarge, and print these images I’m more inclined to include images from along the process because each result does have its own relevant quality. I’m as obsessed with finding the perfect, crisp grain as I am with ducks, and I’m letting that ride in parallel with the search for stories and sources.”

After all that work, maybe Lanning wants to keep the details to himself. But maybe not. Worth dropping him a note, perhaps.

Thanks Samuel, it does seem that Lanning and I are on a similar tack. I like that he's sharing the in-process images too - some smooth, others harsh, etc. I'll read the article. Thanks!

Cumulus Photo looks interesting too btw, so I'll take a closer look at their other articles as well.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you're open to "camera scanning" simplest and optically best thing (because no loss via enlarger optics/paper) would be to photograph the negative with a good macro lens and Invert in PS, post process that however you like, then inkjet print just as you would with any other digital file. Better if your original negative has been developed with straight Rodinal or some other developer that doesn't have sodium sulfite (which desolves grain).

I've worked with plenty of well exposed, yet fairly flat negs & yes, scanning is one approach to the style, but it's a whole lot less difficult to do in the darkroom than most people think. Rodinal isn't necessarily great a choice as you might think: it doesn't really seem to interact with contemporary emulsions as well as more solvent developers can - they seem to access the higher iodide content of modern films much better, boosting sharpness at a grain level. Rodinal just makes bigger grain, not sharper grain. Overall, I've not really found a significant reason to use Rodinal over ID-11/ D-76 other than life expectancy of the stock solution.