looking for a "grainy" film

[photophil]

If you're after maximum grain, why shoot 645 instead of 135?

... because I aim for fine grain and high resolution most of time (landscape and such). I also have a 135 system (Pentax) but I like working with the 645 better.

PHILIP

 

[brian steinberger]

Philip, sounds to me like you're not going for super-grainy based on your comment above about resolution. I shoot a 645 rangefinder and used to enjoy Neopan 400 in Rodinal greatly for what I considered a grainy look. Now that Neopan is no longer available I'm getting along nicely with Tri-x in Rodinal 1:25. Gives a grainy look for me, yet not too grainy. I think I understand the look you're going for. I would stick with Tri-x or HP5 and develop in Rodinal 1:25. HP5 is grainier than Tri-x in my experience, but I prefer the tonality of Tri-x.

 

[stradibarrius]

Here are a couple of shots showing 645 format and Rodinal with different films.
The first shot Gluing the bassbar is Delta 400 shot @ 400 in rodinal 1+50, 18 min
the second shot Red Shoes is Neopan 400 @ 400 in Rodinal 1+50 , 11 min
and the third Little Girl playing fiddle is Tri-X 320 at 400 in Rodinal 1+50, for ?
What your minds eyes sees for "Grainy" only you know.
Also lighting conditions will have an effect on grain.

Hope this helps a bit

 

[photophil]

thanks ... these images help a lot

I think I will try both HP5 and TriX and see what I get

PHILIP

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Also, to boost grain with a film like Tri-X or HP5 in Rodinal, develop in a more concentrated dilution - instead of 1:50 or 1:25, try 1:10.

 

[Aurum]

SFX 200, is available in 120, and can be quite grainy, even in lowish grain developers like Ilfosol 3 or D76/ID11.
Haven't tried it with something like Rodinal, but I suspect that would dial up the grain all the way up to 11

 

[fschifano]

I'll tell you, if you decide to go with Rodinal, you might not be too happy with HP5+. IMO, that's a pretty ugly combination and Tri-X looks better in that developer. Of course you should try it and see for yourself, but I've never been happy with HP5+ and Rodinal.

 

[Maris]

The grain in the positive is a map of the spaces between the grains in the negative.

Any dense negative projected onto contrasty photographic paper will deliver a photograph with a conspicuous widely spaced grain structure. Starting with a coarse grained film and giving it generous exposure and strong development prior to significant enlargement always works.

 

[Venchka]

120 Delta 3200. Rodinal 1:50. Continuous agitation. You get grain.

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backroads/Richmond/No+603.jpg.html

http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/venchka/backroads/Richmond/Cypress+Doors.jpg.html

 

[Gaga]

I personally like the grain from TRI-X. Hp5 seems too smooth for my liking.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Here's a print from 120 format 645 Delta 3200, processed in Ilfotec DD-X. It isn't very grainy at all. Rodinal would give you a bit more grain, but not that much more.

I would strongly recommend shooting 35mm anyway as that gives you more choice. The grain from Delta 3200 in 35mm is fantastic, and I agree that the grain from Ilford SFX in Rodinal is stunning.
Foma 400 is another good candidate, a film I've used a lot. It's strange, because with fine grain developers like Edwal 12 or Xtol, I get next to no grain in an 8x10. You have to get really close to see it. But in Rodinal it really blossoms and you get this gorgeous sharp grain that looks wonderful in a print.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'd like to add that if you do the wide angle shot and enlarge a small portion of the negative, you will eventually run into a situation where you hit the limits of your enlarging lens. This usually happens at about 16x enlargement and larger, unless you have an APO lens.
If you use 1/4 of a 35mm negative and make an 8x10 print from it, you will be hitting the limit of most enlarging lenses. After that grain starts to look really weird. So keep that in mind.
If you have an APO lens that will be less of a problem.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Just wanted to echo what Thomas said. I always found overly-enlarging negatives did give grain but took away a lot of edge sharpness and overall impression of sharpness.

I recently did a project where I pushed HP5+ (120) to EI-1000 and developed in Rodinal. I wanted a gritty, rough look and it was pleasing that way...that's personal taste, I guess.

I'd try TX or one of the Foma films pushed to about 800 in Rodinal as a starting suggestion. Once you start in on it, it's a lot easier to narrow it down until you arrive where your eye wants you to be.

 

[R gould]

Personally I would go for Fomapan 400, in rodial 1/50 you get lovely grain, but in spite of what people here say I expose at 320, I get lovely negatives, develop in rodinal 1/50 for around 11 minutes, I use Fotospeed FD10 these days and get 400 from fomapan no problem, 17 minutes at 1/9, and at 12x16 you will get grain, nice, but for real nice grain try the fomapan 35mm, in rodanil grain is big, in FD10 nice, very similer to the OLD tri x,

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This is what Delta 3200 looks like in Rodinal 1+25 (shot at 1600). It's a neg scan, and my scanner can't fully resolve grain, so it will look grainier than a print would. But it gives you some idea of what to expect from the film. This is almost a full frame with very little cropping.

- Thomas

 

[2F/2F]

Hi,

The first thing to do is avoid flat-grained/t-grained films, with one exception. Stay away from T-Max, Acros, and Delta, except for Delta 3200. (T-Max 3200 is only made in 35mm size.)

Then, I'd avoid Tri-X. Kodak has improved it so much that you have to really work it over to get grain out of it.

I would try HP5 or Delta 3200 overexposed several stops and developed in a highly diluted developer. Try Rodinal or HC-110 anywhere from 1:63 to 1:100. am unfamiliar with Foma 400, but it sounds like that is a good choice too based on the above posts.

Efke 100 can also get quite grainy if mistreated similarly, even though it is not as fast. The problem is that overexposing with this particular film causes a pretty noticeable change of tonality in the higher tones. Sometimes this can look good and other times it can look bad.

 

[hpulley]

I love Delta 3200 120 in HC-110 but I use high dilution 1+15. Beautiful grain.