Rodinal grain

Do-Over Decor

A
Do-Over Decor

  • 1
  • 0
  • 18
Oak

A
Oak

  • 1
  • 0
  • 21
High st

A
High st

  • 6
  • 0
  • 61
Flap

D
Flap

  • 0
  • 0
  • 26

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,216
Messages
2,788,017
Members
99,836
Latest member
HakuZLQ
Recent bookmarks
0

aparat

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
1,177
Location
Saint Paul,
Format
35mm
Don Cardwell illustrated the compensating effect:


That's very interesting. I am going to try TMY-2 in Rodinal in the next few days. Do you have access to more of his data and his methodology? I'd love to learn more.

In my experience, even Fomapan 100, which in conventional developers tends to give a bit of an s-shape curve, as in this example:

fomapan100_id68 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

in Rodinal semi-stand, shows highlights expansion:

fomapan100_AdoxRodinal100 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

I also tested Adox Rodinal against Rollei R09 One Shot in a semi-stand development, and they tend to track very closely together, so the current Rodinal variants seem to be similar, in my experience. Of course, there may be differences that other people found. I believe Adox confirmed that their formulation of Rodinal is identical to that of Agfa. Please, correct me if I am wrong on this.
 

Alan Johnson

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
3,286
Maybe this article posted earlier, p129, might provide some clues.
It mentions that constant agitation washes away the bromide that inhibits development ,so more agitation leads to more contrast.
Another explanation seems to be needed for the Fomapan 100/semi-stand result.
Maybe like Mortenson it is developed to finality.
 
Last edited:

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,643
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
Thank you for trying to answer my question! Sorry but I'm having trouble interpreting the quoted part. I do not know what 2-1/4 negative means and what portion of it was cropped. Let me ask this: how big is the negative area (in mm) the uploaded image maps to? Thanks.
2-1/4 refers to 6x6. Here is the crop that was made:

23.jpg
 

aparat

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
1,177
Location
Saint Paul,
Format
35mm
I think that "semi stand" may vary from a process that just reaches ,say, Dmax =1.2 all the way to development to completion, and the curves will vary with it.

I agree that there will be almost infinite variability in terms of people's workflows and the resulting tonalities, so each photographer should really run their own tests to establish a reliable process. Maybe we could start a new thread and explore Rodinal's performance in greater detail? That could be fun.

What I found with Rodinal and films such as, Delta 100, Fomapan 100, and 400TX, is that the overall curve shape persists through a range of dilutions and agitation schemes. For example, here's Delta 100 processed in Rodinal 1+25 (rotary) and 1+100 (semi-stand). Some of the details do vary (e.g., film speed), but the overall shapes are similar across the two curve families.

delta100_Rodinal25 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr

delta100_Rodinal100 by Nick Mazur, on Flickr
 
OP
OP
Steven Lee

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,438
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
@aparat your last two graphs clearly show that a rotary processor is not a good idea for B&W. The compensation effect in the shadows is quite real.
 

Tomro

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2022
Messages
116
Location
Italy
Format
Medium Format
But couldn’t that also be somewhat a result of 1+25 vs 1+100?
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,355
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
Please correct me if I'm wrong. In terms of image the more the white noise (the grain) the less the signal-to-noise ratio and the less the image content data.
Why then Rodinal is so praised if other developers yield better results?
You're not wrong. Some people prefer it for the artistic look , rather than technical advantages of other developers.

Some other considerations are that it doesn't take much concentrate for make a working solution, and the concentrate lasts a long time; so is convienient to keep it for extended periods.

It's similar to why some people prefer Tri-X over T Max or the Delta films, which are arguably better in every technical sense.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,643
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
Please correct me if I'm wrong. In terms of image the more the white noise (the grain) the less the signal-to-noise ratio and the less the image content data.
Why then Rodinal is so praised if other developers yield better results?

The comparison is not valid. The grain is the signal, making the image.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,556
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
The comparison is not valid. The grain is the signal, making the image.

Thank you. I was also going to point that out. There is no loss of data, the grain is the data.

Will also point out that there is no such thing as "better results". Size of grain is an esthetic parameter, not an absolute one.

To answer the question, Rodinal is praised (or prized) by those who use it because it yields a different look than D-76, the same way Pyrocat-HD is praised by those who use it because it yields a different look than Xtol, the same way HC-110, etc., etc. None give better results than the other. Just different.
 

aparat

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
1,177
Location
Saint Paul,
Format
35mm
@aparat your last two graphs clearly show that a rotary processor is not a good idea for B&W. The compensation effect in the shadows is quite real.

Yes, that is one possible interpretation. I've seen this effect not just with Rodinal but also with dilute HC-110 and Pyrocat HD. It certainly warrants further research. To me, personally, film processing is a continuum of possibilities, each coming with its own set of trade-offs (or pros and cons, if you will). It's up to the photographer to manage those trade-offs so that they're pleased with their negatives. At the end of the day, it's great to have a few well-tested options available at one's disposal.
 
OP
OP
Steven Lee

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,438
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
The comparison is not valid. The grain is the signal, making the image.

Absolutely valid comparison. Perfect match, in fact. @Tsubasa you are not wrong. Specific information density (discernible tonal values and resolution per unit of area) is higher with finer grained films, i.e. their signal to noise ratio is higher.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,643
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
Absolutely valid comparison. Perfect match, in fact. @Tsubasa you are not wrong. Specific information density (discernible tonal values and resolution per unit of area) is higher with finer grained films, i.e. their signal to noise ratio is higher.
If the grain is the noise, then a grainless image would be perfect? Without grain there is no image--you need both grain and the empty spaces between to make an image, unlike signal and noise. The size and sharpness of grain give specific qualities to the image in terms of perceived sharpness and smooth tones.
 
OP
OP
Steven Lee

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,438
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
If the grain is the noise, then a grainless image would be perfect? Without grain there is no image--you need both grain and the empty spaces between to make an image, unlike signal and noise.
Grain is not noise. Noise is created by deviations of light values recorded by grain crystals (% of salt converted to to metal) vs actual photon counts. Light sensitivity of each unit of grain is not identical to another. These deltas per unit of area is what noise is. That's exactly the same with digital photo sites not holding identical charges. So the analogy is nearly perfect.

If Kodak could produce salt crystals that were absolutely uniform in shape & size, the SN ratio could be much higher and a clear blue sky would look silky smooth even on film with large grains. The reason grainy films have lower signal to noise ratio is because their larger crystals also have larger sensitivity deviations per unit of area. That's why a clear blue sky looks noisy on Delta 3200.

What you're talking about is, essentially, resolution.
 
Last edited:

reddesert

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
2,430
Location
SAZ
Format
Hybrid
Grain size is related to spatial resolution of the film. Signal to noise is related to film speed as in ISO rating. That's speaking in the terms that someone who does photometry or image analysis would usually use (For example, the signal to noise required to detect a point source against a dark background, as in astrophotography).

Pictorially, things can be different. For pictorial use, we might talk about shadow detail, but would rarely describe it in terms of signal to noise. However, they are clearly related.
 

relistan

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
1,597
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Format
Multi Format
Signal and noise have no relation at all to grain in the context of silver halide films. The only noise is fog: unexposed grains that develop anyway. Everything else is "signal". The size and shape of the resulting grain is dependent on the type of halides, the shape of the grain, and the required speed when formulating the emulsion.

Your developer will not change the actual grain size. That is built into the emulsion when it is produced. No developer, solvent or not, is going to break up the grain into smaller pieces. But size and shape do have to do with the developer and how that either encourages or discourages the growth of filamentary silver. This is quite dependent on the pH at which the developing agent is active, and the type of developing agent. It's not actually clear in later research that there is even a strong relationship between solvency and grain shape or size. There were suggestions for a long time that physical development played a big role and solvency was required to further that. But later research and developer formulations show that even this is not well understood, despite earlier works touting it as fact.

What is clear that p-aminophenol developers have a certain set of characteristics that people either like or don't. Tweaks to concentration, pH, and buffering have an effect on the output, hence the differences between Rodinal and R09. But it's all within a narrow range of results. p-aminophenol is only usefully active in a certain pH range (like all agents, though these ranges differ widely) and only stores well in a certain concentration and thus at a certain pH. Those two facts limit the potential results to a narrow spectrum. Hence the similarity of all of these developers.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,563
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
If one wants to emphasize grain in a print, decrease development and print on higher contrast paper. Here is a good example, this is HP5/Tmax Dev printed on Ilford MG FB, probably around 4.5 filtration.

small 18mm.jpeg
 
Last edited:

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,563
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
One problem with this forum is that images are softened when uploaded, so the grain (and all other details) are lost. This is a screen shot of the upper right corner of the image I just uploaded, compared to the original file. One reason I'm not so keen to upload my work; it gets destroyed in the process.

I suspect the same is happening with Aparat's posts above.

Screen Shot 2023-03-12 at 6.19.31 PM.png
 
Last edited:

aparat

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
1,177
Location
Saint Paul,
Format
35mm
One problem with this forum is that images are softened when uploaded, so the grain (and all other details) are lost. This is a screen shot of the upper right corner of the image I just uploaded, compared to the original file. One reason I'm not so keen to upload my work; it gets destroyed in the process.

I suspect the same is happening with Aparat's posts above.

Thank you for posting this! I meant to point that out earlier, but forgot. I noticed the same thing happening when I link a Flickr image. I first noticed it with some of the great photographs posted by others on the forum. It seems that Flickr uses a really low-resolution jpg file for these embedded images. If anyone wants to look at the original, I make them available on the Flickr page at 3600 dpi, if you click on the image link. Otherwise, judging detail like grain is unreliable, I agree.

I really like the sense of perspective in the photograph you showed. It seems like a combination of a wide angle lens and excellent printing job. The eye is drawn to middle of the frame, right down the white line on the pavement. It's a really cool effect.
 

ic-racer

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
16,563
Location
USA
Format
Multi Format
In the original the grain of the film blends in with the texture of the asphalt. It helps the eye into the image.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom