Making Smaller Grains Visible - Inspired by Sistine Chapel Restorations

As you know Sistine Chapel been restorated by smart vatican people.

If you find pre and post restoration pictures , there was a layer out of fungus and microorganisms on paintings. Well michelangelo used a water based gesso base and heavy metal pigments again in paints and it would not be possible to to grow fungus on heavy metal anti fungus coating as we see at yacht paints.

But the trick to suspend the pigment in water homogenous , you have to add animal glue in to water.
Within 500 years , animal glue broken off and heavy pigments slowly broken off and replaced by fungus.

It is the secret of the dirt which looks like a detailed painting including line , ornament and grade details.

I mean all the lost painting had had been replaced with black and white living picture on them.

When you clean the fungus and when you reach to lost pigment base , you have faces clean like a pig ass. All the information been lost.


I thought how can I find such a detail in the film , it is ultra small , unconnected , less grouped silver particles !
Now the big question , how can we transform the ultra small detail of ultra small grains in to visible and usable information ?

Do we have to find a new developer or do we have to connect bigger pigment grains to the small grains and make them visible ?
Everyone is talking about these ultra small grains but nobody does not speak about making them use !

Umut

Michael R 1974 said:

Try a Lippmann emulsion or a micro-grain film like CMS-20 etc.

Click to expand...

Why ? I dont want to get micro grain , I want to make micro grain usable , visible at every film. I wish you can understand the difference but ..

micro grain / grain : micro contrast / contrast ?

jnanian said:

micro grain / grain : micro contrast / contrast ?

Click to expand...

I want unvisible , ultra small but still part of the photograph , visible.

I think micro grain is securing more than we think but not to attention that , is not good.

Lets talk about the numbers , how much of the photograph made with micro grain where we scan , we cant see them , when we print lens doesnt resolve them ?

Lets see what we know about ultra small grain and lets invent starting from there .

Any ideas ?

I've no ideas but it makes me think of fractals or holography
and it seems of use if you want to enlarge to infintismal amounts
where every square nanometer has information on it ..

jnanian said:

I've no ideas but it makes me think of fractals or holography
and it seems of use if you want to enlarge to infintismal amounts
where every square nanometer has information on it ..

Click to expand...

Can anyone confirm what is the minimum size of intelligent grain size.

If you are right john , there must be 2500 times more information in film if everything in nanometer size is intelligent compared to 1/400 mm resolution of distagon.

May be Photo Engineer can help or Ian Grant .

How 450 lp mm information spread in intelligent micro grains and what are their count per square centimeters or milimeters , their sizes , and compared to lens resolution?

no disrespect intended

but what is the point of designing a system like this
for massive enlargement? for ultra sharpness ?
i have seen mosaic photographs made of millions of other photographs and
while it was nice as a gimmick i don't really see what the point is ..
other than to look at under extreme magnification and say
" hey look, that's the sistine chapel and next to it is the shipwreck of a us civil war submarine"
while there might be useful purpose for inventing a system to create information in every nanometer
of space, it really doesn't seem very useful for "normal everyday" use.

jnanian said:

no disrespect intended

but what is the point of designing a system like this
for massive enlargement? for ultra sharpness ?
i have seen mosaic photographs made of millions of other photographs and
while it was nice as a gimmick i don't really see what the point is ..
other than to look at under extreme magnification and say
" hey look, that's the sistine chapel and next to it is the shipwreck of a us civil war submarine"
while there might be useful purpose for inventing a system to create information in every nanometer
of space, it really doesn't seem very useful for "normal everyday" use.

Click to expand...

Yes John , this is an mind exercise , well I doubt every nanometer is intelligent , after the discussion and making my mind clearer , I think not every silver grain might not be intelligent. I think lots of nanometer size grain is a byproduct of larger brothers. They attacked by developer and diassambled and here they are.

But it would be interesting to increase the information usable.

I think there must be a research somewhere .

sounds like searching for a grain of sand in the desert !
good luck with that, and for figuring out a viable use for it.

https://www.google.com/search?clien...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#rls=en&q=mosaic+facebook+image
fessbook and others have already done similar things via modern means ... but it is more of a gimmick than use..

This is off topic a bit but...The chapel was painted using fresco. The pigment is bonded to the substrate lime so no paint comes off unless the lime stucco it self (similar to plaster) comes off. Fresco pigment is almost like water color. It soaks in and can't be rubbed off like oil or acrylic.

trythis said:

This is off topic a bit but...The chapel was painted using fresco. The pigment is bonded to the substrate lime so no paint comes off unless the lime stucco it self (similar to plaster) comes off. Fresco pigment is almost like water color. It soaks in and can't be rubbed off like oil or acrylic.

Click to expand...

I read 30 scientific papers costs you 1000 dollars and a book. Think about what I wrote. Its worldwide accepted fact.

Umut

I have painted using the traditional slaked lime fresco technique. Its just water, pigment and lime stucco. No binders are used because the chemical bond of the lime and pigment is permanent. The Last Supper was painted in Fresco mixed with other experimental materials and that is why it is crumbling.

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:

Can anyone confirm what is the minimum size of intelligent grain size.

Click to expand...

Film "grain" is microscopic and not visible to the human eye. It isn't meant to be. When film is developed the "grains" migrate through the emulsion into "grain clumps" of hundreds and thousands of "grains". It is the "grain clumps" which form the visible image and we mistakenly call "grain clumps" "grain".

If you made the "grain" you can't see visible then you change the visible image into something which wasn't what the camera saw.
And furthermore the unexposed "grain" is removed in the fixing process so that all which is left is very small through large "grain clumps" which form the image.

Your question is fundamentally flawed by your lack of understanding of the photographic process.

And what is not seen in the negative forms dark/black in the print so your incorrect assumption that what can't be seen could be seen would change dark to light so again you are wrong.

RobC said:

Has someone replaced the B on your keyboard with a G and do you qualify?

It is clear that you have precisely zero undertanding of the photographic process and what grain is.

Film "grain" is microscopic and not visible to the human eye. It isn't meant to be. When film is developed the "grains" migrate through the emulsion into "grain clumps" of hundreds and thousands of "grains". It is the "grain clumps" which form the visible image and we mistakenly call "grain clumps" "grain".

If you made the "grain" you can't see visible then you change the visible image into something which wasn't what the camera saw.
And furthermore the unexposed "grain" is removed in the fixing process so that all which is left is very small through large "grain clumps" which form the image.

Your question is fundamentally flawed by your lack of understanding of the photographic process.

And what is not seen in the negative forms dark/black in the print so your incorrect assumption that what can't be seen could be seen would change dark to light so again you are wrong.

Click to expand...

If there was a "like" button on here, this when I would click it.