Up close & personal – Playing with a microscope, ogling grain – Koraks tinkers

[koraks]

In this blog I show a few microscopy images of film grain on Kodak Double X 5222, processed in three different developers: Instant Mytol, Pyrocat HD and Parodinal.

Click here to watch the full blog entry content.

Don't hesitate to comment about this blog entry.

 

[pentaxuser]

Interesting tests It looks to me that these tests show one thing very well, namely why Rodinal give that the clearest "edge effect" to an extent that a lot of shots at normal print sizes will appear to have cleaner and clearer lines giving edges a more distinct look and the print a more eye-catching look

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

Agitation plays a role, too; pyrocat also can give very pronounced edge effects on this film.

Pyrocat HD 1+1+100, agitation every 3 minutes.
I would also be hesitant for other reasons to draw conclusions w.r.t. edge effects on the basis of these (technically poorly executed) microscopy shots.

 

[pentaxuser]

You may be right. I was only judging by what my eyes told me. In terms of grain I was surprised by how little the grain from Rodinal seemed to be different in size compared to Pyrocat or Mytol

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

The funny thing is that the difference are more apparent at normal printing/viewing sizes. Under the microscope, it's all indeed quite similar.

 

[pentaxuser]

The funny thing is that the difference are more apparent at normal printing/viewing sizes. Under the microscope, it's all indeed quite similar.

Makes ones wonder what value there is applying magnification but it is the usual device used to demonstrate differences in grain produced by different developers

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Makes ones wonder what value there is applying magnification but it is the usual device used to demonstrate differences in grain produced by different developers

pentaxuser

There is a significant subjective element to considerations of appearance of grain.
As distinct from more objective measuremenys of grain.
Viewing difference definitely affects those issues of perception.

 

[xkaes]

I'll throw in "subject matter" as well. In a picture of a beach, the grain will be less obvious on the sand than in the sky, for example.

 

[ic-racer]

Very nice. I have been looking for a microscopy. I had one in the 1970s but not sure where it is now.

 

[koraks]

@MattKing and @xkaes bring up valid points!
@ic-racer, I got this microscope from @Doug Richardson who has two more up for sale (unless he sold them). I had always wanted one, so when this came by, I jumped to the occasion! Very happy with it.

 

[Don_ih]

The funny thing is that the difference are more apparent at normal printing/viewing sizes.

You see the space between the grains in a print. There may be a more noticeable difference in the microscope shots if the results are inverted.

This reminds me, I have an older Zeiss microscope I need to clean up...

 

[pentaxuser]

There is a significant subjective element to considerations of appearance of grain.
As distinct from more objective measuremenys of grain.
Viewing difference definitely affects those issues of perception.

I appreciate the above but unless a magnification device enables one to then judge grain and how it affects appearance in the sense of how it appears in a print then doesn't my statement on the practical use of a magnification device when judging grain stand?

I realise that my statements and then my own conclusions from those statements may generate a feeling of ungratefulness on my part but that is not my aim. I have learned something useful from the info supplied

pentaxuser