I had a fellow teacher that shot color at high ASA values then developed it hot and scanned it to convert to B/W. Grain was very apparently.
What is the grainiest bw film and developer?
-
A
- Thread starter TheGreatGasMaskMan
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB Olympus MotorDrive 2 with Control Pack and Charger
- Started by nbagno
-
Want to Buy WTB - Canon 110ED
- Started by cptrios
-
Sold NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
-
For Sale Multiple Signed Photographic Books
- Started by tallenpatterson
Forum statistics
Here is one with regular old HP5+ and Adox Rodinal normal development (that is enough for full dynamic range on a normal scan). However - lighting was late afternoon and soft coming through trees in the alley, so contrast was increased selectively in areas, something like localizing a contrast 4 or 5 paper. The increasing of contrast in the execution of the final print, whether digital or wet process, will articulate grain, in my experience. (I have no idea what that thing is, an industrial area of Richmond, VA.
Edit - also, processing is at 73 degrees F, all solutions and wash tightly controlled within a degree.
Edit - also, processing is at 73 degrees F, all solutions and wash tightly controlled within a degree.
Barry Thornton's "Edge of Darkness", Chapter Eight "Stoeckler and Colour Blindness" suggest that a Pyro developer with Soduim Sulphite (to remove the stain) and developed at a high temperature would give massive grain.
Hopefully I am interpreting correctly what he wrote, but have a read for yourself; it may be the ticket for your grain-filled images...
Hopefully I am interpreting correctly what he wrote, but have a read for yourself; it may be the ticket for your grain-filled images...
What a wonderful effect—looks absolutely beautiful with that subject!
I've not read page 2 of the comments, but so far no one has mentioned the champion of course grain: Kodak Royal X Pan.
There's a surprising amount for sale on eBay here in the states. It ain't cheap, man, many times what it sold for sixty years ago.
And then, of course, any paper or non-solvent developer.
There's a surprising amount for sale on eBay here in the states. It ain't cheap, man, many times what it sold for sixty years ago.
kodak royal X pan for sale | eBay
Get the best deals for kodak royal X pan at eBay.com. We have a great online selection at the lowest prices with Fast & Free shipping on many items!
www.ebay.com
And then, of course, any paper or non-solvent developer.
Thanks, Ben. Also, here it is without any of the adjustment layers, just the raw scan. This is the grain as is.
OP
OP
Test one has been completed:
Film Washi F. (also served as a secondary test as I did a bracket test to see how the film would perform from iso 400-100)
here's some raw, uncorrected scans, Rodinal 1:25.
^400
^200
^100
Test No. 2 with my 1958 expired Tri X has been shot and developed, it just hasn't been scanned, I still want to do a test with Lomo Berlin. I may consider trying Delta and Tmax 3200 if I can get the opportunity to do some night shooting.
Film Washi F. (also served as a secondary test as I did a bracket test to see how the film would perform from iso 400-100)
here's some raw, uncorrected scans, Rodinal 1:25.
^400
^200
Test No. 2 with my 1958 expired Tri X has been shot and developed, it just hasn't been scanned, I still want to do a test with Lomo Berlin. I may consider trying Delta and Tmax 3200 if I can get the opportunity to do some night shooting.
I tried Washi F at 100 in 510-pyro and it was nowhere near as grainy as your Rodinal example:
T-Max 3200 when shot at the recommended 3200 has to my eye the hardest grain of any non-expired film. Delta 3200 is lower contrast and more subtle.
Just for fun, here is Svema 125 expired in 1992, bought from Ukraine on eBay last year, shot @100. The actual film speed now is around 6. The photo is of some grass waving in the wind, but you can barely see this over the character of the expired film.
And here is a tree.
A much less grainy image could be derived by shooting at 6 ISO, though you could probably still see those odd flecks in the emulsion.
T-Max 3200 when shot at the recommended 3200 has to my eye the hardest grain of any non-expired film. Delta 3200 is lower contrast and more subtle.
Just for fun, here is Svema 125 expired in 1992, bought from Ukraine on eBay last year, shot @100. The actual film speed now is around 6. The photo is of some grass waving in the wind, but you can barely see this over the character of the expired film.
And here is a tree.
A much less grainy image could be derived by shooting at 6 ISO, though you could probably still see those odd flecks in the emulsion.
I see more contrast at higher ISO — which is expected — not more grain.
Moreover, as others more expert in this matter than me will surely point out, scanning is not the best way to evaluate and judge grain.
OP
OP
yeah, good point; though I really don't have any access to any darkroom equipment right now.
yeah, somewhere down the line I want to try this film with other developers to see if I can see any differences.
The Agfa technical booklet I have for film development suggests that Ilford Delta 3200 is rated at ISO 1250 and developed in Rodinal 1+25 for 11 minutes at 68 degrees Fahrenheit.
Agitation is continuous for the first minute and then once every 30 seconds.
Whether that would give the OP the desired effect, I don't know. Tmax 3200 is another option.
Agitation is continuous for the first minute and then once every 30 seconds.
Whether that would give the OP the desired effect, I don't know. Tmax 3200 is another option.
Enlarging a small portion of the negative and making a large print will help to emphasise the grain even more.
I hope you get some good combo recommendations, but also keep in mind that there are processing parameters that can increase grain. For example, working with higher developer dilutions and compensating with longer development times will increase the grain. The massive development chart will give some dilutions and development times for experimentation.
OP
OP
Yeah, my agitation tends to be more aggressive, though I prefer higher contrast BW images.
But I will say, I'm almost certain Washi F is really Foma's Xray film, and that said Xray film is also Foma's Ortho film- hence the 400 iso and lack of anti halation. So here's one from my Foma Ortho test roll- developed in Xtol stock
Another vote for Fomapan 400, and for pushing HP5 to 800 or 1600. These options will be contrasty as well - I usually like contrast with my grain.
If you want a lower-contrast film with pronounced grain, Fomapan 200 is a curious beast which retains a lot of detail but has pronounced grain at the same time.
If you want a lower-contrast film with pronounced grain, Fomapan 200 is a curious beast which retains a lot of detail but has pronounced grain at the same time.
That would do it.
OP
OP
I actually pushed a few hp5 rolls to 1600 back in my Community College days- though I only did 8x10 prints so the grain wasn't super noticeable. maybe I will check out Foma 200 somewhere down the line with a couple different developers.
This is not my experience at all with Fomapan 200 and 400.
Fomapan 400 is surprisingly fine grained, provided it's not underexposed, or overdeveloped, or both (results often seen online often are). In sulphite based developers, eg D23 or D76, or in Foma's own Excel, or in LQN, it's a beautiful medium grained film.
Fomapan 200 is extremely fine grained. In my workflow, it has comparable grain to Foma 100, which is approximately 1 stop slower. Fomapan 200 has comparable grain to Kentmere 100 or Fp4+. This again is developer-dependent.
Contrast is decided mostly during development. Both films can be rendered as contrasty as we like by tweaking development time.
Here's Fomapan 200 in 35mm, both examples in Fomadon Excel stock for gamma= .58, both examples exposed incident with a Sekonic meter, EI 125 the first and EI160 the second, exactly as per manufacturer's leaflet.
Fomapan 200 is a pretty fine grained film in most developers I've tested it with - that includes Adox Rodinal 1:50. It would have to be twisted pretty dramatically during exposure and development to be featured in a 'grainiest film+developer combo' discussion IME.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Test two has been scanned- here are some raw scans of the 58 expired Tri X in Rodinal:
(I think the light leak happened because I had to redo the backing paper tape, also, all the cybertrucks were fenced off)
(I think the light leak happened because I had to redo the backing paper tape, also, all the cybertrucks were fenced off)
If you want coarse grain, take a look at Bergger Pancro 400. It is a low contrast film with some base fog. Even in XT-3 1+1 it was grainy. Try with Rodinal 1+50 to get even more grain.
I'm also surprised to see so much mentions of fomapan 400. In my experience it's not a grainy film, HP5+ is way grainier ! I scanned and printed both stocks at comparable sizes in similar developers, 35mm.
BUT foma 400 has to be treated like the ~ISO 200 film it is, not underexposed nor overdeveloped like albireo said.
For grain I'd use ilford delta 3200 and rodinal, or HC-110 at a very high dilution, or caffenol (no solvent in there), around 25°c. As a second choice, HP5+.
BUT foma 400 has to be treated like the ~ISO 200 film it is, not underexposed nor overdeveloped like albireo said.
For grain I'd use ilford delta 3200 and rodinal, or HC-110 at a very high dilution, or caffenol (no solvent in there), around 25°c. As a second choice, HP5+.
I never said it should be underexposed or overdeveloped. Quite the opposite. Reread my post.
As for the "has to be treated like a 200 iso", I've found It depends on the developer chosen and, of course, on the meter used, and on our metering habits. The official developer-specific curves published by the manufacturer are excellent and pretty accurate IME.
As stated, I routinely get 250EI with XT-3/Xtol 1:1 and am often very, very happy with 320EI with Fomadon LQN (an excellent match with Fomapan 400, more people should try it).
Of course it might just be a matter of personal preference.
Last edited:
Ilford XP-2 (c41 b+w) images look like they've been printed on rough-grit sandpaper..
Really? I am surprised. I remember XP-2 in C-41 to be very fine grained.
Last edited:
Can you show us examples? XP 2 Plus being a C41 film should be fine grained due to the dyes that remain after processing
When you said "(c41 b+w)" did you mean when processed in a b&w developer instead of C41 ?
Thanks
pentaxuser
-
- Sirius Glass
- Deleted
| 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:  |