Trying to achieve LARGE grain chemically.... how?

[TheFlyingCamera]

I've done Tmax3200 in Dektol, 1:3 for 3 1/2 minutes at 75F. Sharp, but grain the size of baseballs. Try that as a starting point for your project.

 

[cliveh]

I know this is a physical method, as opposed to chemical, but have you thought about using a grain screen in contact with the neg or print?

 

[removed account4]

I know this is a physical method, as opposed to chemical, but have you thought about using a grain screen in contact with the neg or print?

awww comm'on clive !
that is too easy

i was going to suggest he shoot a roll of film of grainy texture,
and sandwich it with his negative when he printed it,
or making an enlargement onto lith film and printing through it as you suggested ( like a combination print )
but it is more fun to try to destroy film

john

 

[cliveh]

awww comm'on clive !
that is too easy

i was going to suggest he shoot a roll of film of grainy texture,
and sandwich it with his negative when he printed it,
or making an enlargement onto lith film and printing through it as you suggested ( like a combination print )
but it is more fun to try to destroy film

john

For some aspects of photographic art (salt print scans of chemical reaction for instance) I totally agree with you. But for others, no.

 

[brian steinberger]

I just read something interesting when researching LPD on the Ethol site. For grainy, but sharp negatives they recommend HP5 at EI 2000 in LPD 1:1 for 1 1/2 minutes. I may give this a try sometime!

 

[gandolfi]

Self portrait by Stine (medium format film):

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Another one - 9x12 cm LF film at 100 iso.....

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[tkamiya]

Very nice and very VERY close to what I want to achieve.
How were THOSE done??

 

[tkamiya]

Lith looks great, but at this point, I am really not wanting to expand my horizon too wide. I bought "stuff" for Sarbatier effect printing and have had no chance to play with them yet. So I guess Dektol it is....

 

[Bill Burk]

tkamiya,

I was looking through LP Clerk's Photography Theory and Practice, and think I have some validation of two ideas...

1. Dektol's the right developer to use:

In section 325 Silver Halide Grains... about the filimentary structure of developed silver grains, "they are roughly similar in shape to the original emulsion grains"... "These filiments grow from the sensitivity specks ... leads to some enlargement of the shape"... and "This enlargement is ... greater the more energetic the developer used"...

2. Expose normally or just slightly overexpose (about 2/3 stop over)... and Underdevelop! Try to get the main subject to fall on or around 0.3 density...

In section 345 Graininess... "On a negative the graininess reaches a maximum for a density of 0.3"

You will need to print on Grade 4 or 5 ... but I am sure that you will get the grain you want!

 

[cliveh]

tkamiya,

I was looking through LP Clerk's Photography Theory and Practice, and think I have some validation of two ideas...

1. Dektol's the right developer to use:

In section 325 Silver Halide Grains... about the filimentary structure of developed silver grains, "they are roughly similar in shape to the original emulsion grains"... "These filiments grow from the sensitivity specks ... leads to some enlargement of the shape"... and "This enlargement is ... greater the more energetic the developer used"...

2. Expose normally or just slightly overexpose (about 2/3 stop over)... and Underdevelop! Try to get the main subject to fall on or around 0.3 density...

In section 345 Graininess... "On a negative the graininess reaches a maximum for a density of 0.3"

You will need to print on Grade 4 or 5 ... but I am sure that you will get the grain you want!

If you want large grain, isn’t under developing a bit counter intuitive?

 

[Bill Burk]

If you want large grain, isn’t under developing a bit counter intuitive?

Maybe. Intuitively, I think I've seen grainy prints from underexposed shots.

Fortunately, this could be easily tested. Sensitometric strips would reveal graininess. So step wedge exposures will "cover" all the exposures needed. Then develop a few strips, each to a different Contrast Index. Make a few prints.

Once the exposure and development is worked out, then it's just a matter of selecting "that" Exposure Index and Negative Density Range which meets tkamiya's new definition of quality.

 

[cliveh]

Maybe. Intuitively, I think I've seen grainy prints from underexposed shots.

Fortunately, this could be easily tested. Sensitometric strips would reveal graininess. So step wedge exposures will "cover" all the exposures needed. Then develop a few strips, each to a different Contrast Index. Make a few prints.

Once the exposure and development is worked out, then it's just a matter of selecting "that" Exposure Index and Negative Density Range which meets tkamiya's new definition of quality.

Bill, my point was not about underexposed shots, but under development.

 

[removed account4]

THIS is where home rolling film, to take a bracket for over development
a bracket for underdevelopment
and a bracket for normal development would come in handy !

nice detective work bill !

maybe the facT that print compensation with a harder grade filter or paper
or developer strength compensates for the underdevelopment boosts the grainy-ness
of the final product ...

T
too bad you don't stick a sheet of paper ( small sheet ! )
in your camera,
rate it for iso 6 or 12 or 24 depending on the paper and kind of light
and then take that paper negative, and put it on a skillet
with a sheet of paper towel, face down, and wax it with parafin or beeswax or ?
to make it translucent-er, and then ... enlarge it ... you might get nice grain ( and paper texture! )
that way as well, and waxing the paper takes about 3 minutes from start to finish ...
( or make a paper contact print internegative of your hopeful print, and contact print the final version )

have fun
john

 

[Bill Burk]

Bill, my point was not about underexposed shots, but under development.

I didn't read the very next paragraph.... That was graininess on a negative.

LP Clerc: On a print... "This graininess value reaches a maximum at that point on the negative characteristic curve where the exposure is ten times that required at the speed point according to the Jones criterion."

But doesn't that still mean we're talking about exposures falling around Zone III?

What I "think" needs to be done is to create a very flat negative which puts all the pictorial tones in a narrow range of densities - all near the density where there is maximum print graininess.

Instead of trying for the thinnest possible neg though, we want the neg to be mostly around 0.3 - so it may help to fog the film.

 

[Bill Burk]

True you don't see much grain in Zone I or VIII on a print. He gave a formula that I don't want to try to figure out... calling it "an objective measure of graininess".

But I get a kick out of his statement that is SO wrong as far as this thread is concerned... "It is always important to maintain the graininess of negatives at as low a value as possible..."

 

[Bill Burk]

Just did a snip test with the leader of a roll to see how fast and how black Dektol 1:4 works. It's too fast, looked like 2 minutes would be a normal time.

So I did a series with Dektol 1:9 and it's hanging up to dry. We'll see soon enough how this turns out.

My first impression is that this isn't going to be grainy enough.

 

[removed account4]

Just did a snip test with the leader of a roll to see how fast and how black Dektol 1:4 works. It's too fast, looked like 2 minutes would be a normal time.

So I did a series with Dektol 1:9 and it's hanging up to dry. We'll see soon enough how this turns out.

My first impression is that this isn't going to be grainy enough.

i guess one person's not grainy enough is another person's " holy crap " ..
i have a feeling there is a whole concert in play here,
lighting, film, chemistry + print ... its beautiful when everything works together

i guess clerc or henry didn't know what 2013 grainy meant !

john

 

[Bill Burk]

i guess one person's not grainy enough is another person's " holy crap " ..
i have a feeling there is a whole concert in play here,
lighting, film, chemistry + print ... its beautiful when everything works together

i guess clerc or henry didn't know what 2013 grainy meant !

john

It is beautiful when it comes together - and I just KNOW that exaggerated grain has been an important style for artists before.

I am sure they worked hard to get that look too. But I wonder if anyone used sensitometry (like the Zone System) to deliberately get the "worst" possible results - or if they used to just get lucky (or maybe they worked from the seat of their pants).

p.s. I have done grainy before... just by enlarging. The eclipse shot has two different textures. It's a macro shot of a projected image, so behind the sun you see the texture of the paper. But at top and bottom where it's out of focus, all you see is pure grain - Panatomic-X in D-76 1:1 blown up 24x.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Alan Johnson]

Grainiest developer I ever tried was Gainer's Metolal:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
But one needs the chems and quite a bit of film to be developed to make it worthwhile.
Both Metolal and PaRodinal have excess sodium hydroxide that swells the emulsion but my impression was that Metolal gave larger grain.
If you just add a lot of sodium hydroxide to Rodinal it's not good, the result was mottling in my test.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Geoffrey Crawley's FX-16 was designed specifically to enhance the grain effect in fast (ISO 400 and above) films while retaining image sharpness.

 

[tkamiya]

Wow, Bill... thank you for trying that. I was going to try it then got side tracked....

 

[Bill Burk]

I haven't printed yet, but the numbers are in... You can go shoot with this information...

I'm going to recommend Dektol 1:9 for 5 minutes (4 - 6 minutes) for a "N" Normal (7 stops) scene.

This should give about 0.45 Contrast Index (0.4 - 0.5 CI).

Approximately good to fit Grade 4 paper on a Diffuse Enlarger (Grade 4 - Grade 3).

I measured EI 80. But I will recommend underexposing by rating the film at EI 125. This will help "Zone V" approach 0.30 density (which is where LP Clerc says you will see the most graininess).

If you rate the film at EI 80 then "Zone V" density is around 0.60 (not bad in itself just not the grainiest).

 

[Bill Burk]

Geoffrey Crawley's FX-16 was designed specifically to enhance the grain effect in fast (ISO 400 and above) films while retaining image sharpness.

Thanks Gerald, I was looking forward to more developer suggestions. I know Dektol isn't going to be the "worst".

 

[tkamiya]

What film did you use, Bill?
EI 80 and 125??
Tri-x???

 

[Bill Burk]

Yes it's fresh Tri-X. But I may have used the wrong calibration.

Compared to TXP-320 in D-76 I have an upwards revision in EI: 125 and 200

(My calibration scale is likely reading low 2/3 stop).

---
Revised Recommendation:
---

I measured EI 125. But I will recommend underexposing by rating the film at EI 200. This will help "Zone V" approach 0.30 density (which is where LP Clerc says you will see the most graininess).

If you rate the film at EI 125 then "Zone V" density is around 0.60 (not bad in itself just not the grainiest).