Overexpose + underdevelop = less grain...and?

[aste]

I've read in a number of places-- books, online, etc --about using a slower ASA for small format film, while reducing development time. This procedure results in a flatter negative that is supposed to print with correct local contrast on grade 3 instead, instead of grade 2. The advantage, as I understand it, is that the procedure results in a thinner negative, and a thinner negative has less/smaller grain.

I've been using this process for a while now and it does result in less apparent grain in the negative. However, I've found that higher paper grades give more apparent grain. So, while it is exceedingly difficult to find the grain in my PanF+ negative through the grain focuser, the resulting grade 3 print doesn't appear to have any less grain than when I was shooting at box speed and printing on grade 2.

Not that grain is all that apparent with PanF+ in the first place, but in the larger scheme of things, what's the point? Am I missing something important here?

 

[wclark5179]

I expose film at what the ASA the film is rated at, not over nor under.

 

[Rick A]

I shoot box speed and adjust my dev time to suit my preferences.

 

[ic-racer]

Rob Peter to pay Paul. In fact a good recipe for accentuated grain is to underdevelop and print on #5. So, you really can't win.
To really get less apparent grain you can try a dissolving developer like Microdol-x ,but you will decrease sharpness also.

 

[removed account4]

i don't think there is a point aste
people love to suggest there is a magic bullet
special films, special developers, special developing times .... special everything ..
nothing is farther from the truth ...
there is no magic bullet
just what people like to do ...

i see no point in trying to get rid of grain,
it is what makes photography photography.

have fun ( THAT is the magic bullet! )

john

 

[Pinholemaster]

Stop worrying about grain. Development controls contrast. If you under develop you'll have a flatter negative. Overexposure and underexposure will flatten your negatives curve as well. It is best to set the ISO on your meter to that number which gives you the best negative. Most of the time it will be the manufacturer's rated speed, but with some developers that number can vary. Testing is the only way to determine what works for you.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what film speed or development time you use as long as the image has content worthy of appealing to an audience. You can have the most technically perfect image, with minimal grain, and bore the pants off your viewer.

 

[aste]

I can understand the point, as it originated for the silver screen, where 35mm was enlarged to huge sizes, but that was for projection. I imagine if they had to print the film on #3 paper, they might not have bothered with the extra effort.

Anyway, fun always sounds good

 

[aste]

It is best to set the ISO on your meter to that number which gives you the best negative. Most of the time it will be the manufacturer's rated speed, but with some developers that number can vary. Testing is the only way to determine what works for you.

Makes sense.

 

[gainer]

The old rule was "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." The definition of ASA film speed was different from the ISO method. In those days, the shadow "speed" was 10 times the average speed. I could set my meter for a film speed of 500 for Plus-x, which according to the box was ASA 50, as long as I used the meter to measure light in the darkest part of the scene where I wanted to see detail.

 

[marcmarc]

I've always read that the manufactures rated iso on films were very optimistic. These numbers are arrived at through careful and controlled testing which of course may not be favorable to everyones shooting style. For example I shoot a lot of street photography and outdoor portraits without flash. Unless I want peoples eyes to be covered in shadows from their eye socket (which I don't) I have to give the film extra exposure. Under developing this film just keeps the highlights from going off the chart in terms of buildup of density during development. I've found that a flatter negative is easier to print because it seems (to me anyway) that it's easier to add contrast to a scene at the printing stage then it is to reduce contrast with a dense negative.

 

[gainer]

This example is a photo of Alicia De Larochs, pianist, discussing a point of interpretaion with Russell Stanger, conductor of the Norfolk Symphony (Which has since become the Virginia Symphony) during a rehearsal in 1967. I took it from my position as principal oboist during a break in the dress rehearsal on Tri-X, 1/60 @ 2.8.

 

[gainer]

Her name (may she rest in peace) was De Larocha.

 

[ooze]

Not that grain is all that apparent with PanF+ in the first place, but in the larger scheme of things, what's the point? Am I missing something important here?

IMO you don't miss anything. You've already answered your question.

What other people say is really what works for *them*. Do what works for you.

 

[aste]

Some good points made and taken. Thank you all for taking the time to reply.

 

[aste]

Gainer, where have I seen that photo before? Is it published?


*I found it

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Rule of thumb, reduce developer time 20% from standard if you use 1/2 speed. This is suprisingly close with any film and you still print on same grade.

If you need still finer grain, a bigger neg is

 

[gainer]

Gainer, where have I seen that photo before? Is it published?


*I found it

Yes, I had posted it before. I made a print for her and presented it to her the next day at the concert, and she autographed my copy. She was a gracious lady with very small hands for such a gifted pianist. The Hispanic combination of fire and love showed in her playing.

 

[Sparky]

to summarize - a few of these things were earlier hinted at:
The box speed is usually optimistic but won't get you great shadow detail. So cutting it in half will do. Film manufacturers traditionally overrated speed to make their film seem faster - as a lot of the population would go for a comparatively higher speed. That's why all manufacturers offered a 125 and a 400 for example.

Development time should be set according to what works for you. But normal to normal minus one (20 percent less) is usually pretty functional. It really depends on your setup. And especially the the (constrast) of what you're shooting. That's why the zone system was developed (to make use of the useable density available 'on the curve' and also to be able to standardize on one grade of paper - no longer terribly important in a MG world).

 

[clayne]

It's for curve control - not grain control. The goal is to compress a wide range of light into a narrower medium: the film. Then while printing make use of contrast and local controls to take advantage of a fuller range of information on the neg. If your neg is high in contrast you typically have less breathing room when it comes to the print and in some cases it can be a real pain in the ass.

 

[Anscojohn]

The old rule was "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights." The definition of ASA film speed was different from the ISO method. In those days, the shadow "speed" was 10 times the average speed. I could set my meter for a film speed of 500 for Plus-x, which according to the box was ASA 50, as long as I used the meter to measure light in the darkest part of the scene where I wanted to see detail.

*******
Man, Gadge, we are dating outselves. Pre- "The Great ASA Shift". And didn't plus-x start out at ASA 32?

 

[2F/2F]

One does not need to change the EI of ones film to over or under expose it. In fact, I would say that one should not do so, in most cases. IMHO, rerating as a method of across-the-board exposure compensation can (and usually does, with beginners) introduce the incorrect thinking that one is actually changing the speed of his or her film. It is important to understand that the only thing one does when rerating ones film is to change the exposure.

IME, overexposure causes grain to get more coarse with normal (or over) development. However, even when something is overexposed, if you use simple underdevelopment (same as normal dilution, but reduced time) in processing, the increased grain seems to be counteracted, or at least reduced. I can get totally grain-free 16x20s from 4x5 Tri-X 320 when I have underdeveloped it. Not so with normal, or especially over, development.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

If you are after a certain look (or even if you are not) there is simply NO SUBSTITUTE for doing your own testing.

That includes determining your own ISO, dilution, development time, temp - and if silver prints are your end then MAKING PRINTS as part of those tests are crucial.

Shawn

 

[gainer]

*******
Man, Gadge, we are dating outselves. Pre- "The Great ASA Shift". And didn't plus-x start out at ASA 32?

There are various stages of aging. Young people often try to look older. Then comes a stage when one tries to look younger than one's years. Finally, one begins to boast about being my age, 82. You can't hide it. Might as well brag.

I think you are thinking of Panatomic X. OTOH, I seem to remember Panatomic X as ASA 16. Or was that Kodachrome?

 

[MattKing]

Actually, if you remember it as ASA, you are at least into the second of Mr. Gainer's above-noted 3 stages .

 

[gainer]

I remember see-sawing a roll of 127 Verichrome (not yet Verichrome Pan) under the light of a red safelight in the MQ all purpose developer that one could buy in a kit at most drugstores. My darkroom was a large walk-in closet in our home in Webster Groves, MO. That was about 70 years ago. No enlarger, but 1 and 5/8 by 2 and 1/4 was exciting enough.