What is the grainiest bw film and developer?

[npl]

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.

We agree actually but it was poorly worded on my side. I meant that like you said, it should not be underexposed/overdeveloped

I also happen to rate fomapan 400 at EI 250 in XTOL/XT-3/fomadon excel, EI 125 in rodinal but only tried that once or twice.
Edit : Post in thread 'Fomapan 400 in rodinal 1:50 EI (35mm)' https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fomapan-400-in-rodinal-1-50-ei-35mm.198140/post-2666361

 

[albireo]

We agree actually but it was poorly worded on my side. I meant that like you said, it should not be underexposed/overdeveloped

I also happen to rate fomapan 400 at EI 250 in XTOL/XT-3/fomadon excel, EI 125 in rodinal but only tried that once or twice.
Edit : Post in thread 'Fomapan 400 in rodinal 1:50 EI (35mm)' https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fomapan-400-in-rodinal-1-50-ei-35mm.198140/post-2666361

Great work. Yes it works surprisingly well in Rodinal 1:50, too, I personally rate it at 160 in it, so our experiences broadly match!

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

interesting update- wasn't planning on this one, but FPP's rerolled Ilford MKV in HC110B is also a very grainy option

 

[Pieter12]

HP5+, ISO 160, Rodinal. 120 neg cropped

.

 

[lightray]

Unintentionally reticulated one of my vacation rolls (FPP emulsion x, xtol stock) View attachment 366427
but the aesthetic fits


I can get delta and tmax 3200 pretty easily, but I pretty much just shoot in daylight so I don't want to go over iso 400, and I work at 5am so I don't want to stay up late doing night photography.

also, some other samples-
Lomo Berlin 400 (120)- hc110 B
View attachment 366428

1958 expired Tri-X 120 (got three rolls left, maybe I should try one in Rodinal and Dektol
View attachment 366429
Film Washi F (hc110 a)
View attachment 366430
Paul and Reinhold that sat in my fridge for probably two years, hc110 B
View attachment 366431


Yeah, Freestyle's got Retropan on clearance


I never knew dektol was also called d72

Wow, that grain paints the picture.

 

[cerber0s]

Fomapan 400 in caffenol.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Delta 3200 in Rodinal.

Kodak Recording film would probably be grainer but good luck finding some of that, and even if you found it, I doubt it would make an image at this point.

 

[albireo]

Delta 3200 in Rodinal.

Kodak Recording film would probably be grainer but good luck finding some of that, and even if you found it, I doubt it would make an image at this point.


View attachment 376477

Wow that is beautiful.

 

[albireo]

Fomapan 400 in caffenol.

Fomapan 400 is really not that grainy. That is, unless it's severely underexposed or overdeveloped or negative-scanned improperly. This happens a lot I think, based on what we see on social media: the film is cheap which encourages people to use it to 'experiment' (which often involves exposing it, developing it, and scanning it without a lot of care).

Here's an example in 35mm. Rodinal 1:50, exposed with the internal reflective meter of a Canon Eos 3. 40mm f/2.8 pancake. Exposure compensation set to +1.3 EV (so 'exposed at 160EI'). Negative scan.

1:1 detail from the original negative scan at 5000 dpi

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Foma Retropan 35mm in Rodinal

 

[cerber0s]

Fomapan 400 is really not that grainy. That is, unless it's severely underexposed or overdeveloped or negative-scanned improperly. This happens a lot I think, based on what we see on social media: the film is cheap which encourages people to use it to 'experiment' (which often involves exposing it, developing it, and scanning it without a lot of care).

Here's an example in 35mm. Rodinal 1:50, exposed with the internal reflective meter of a Canon Eos 3. 40mm f/2.8 pancake. Exposure compensation set to +1.3 EV (so 'exposed at 160EI'). Negative scan.

1:1 detail from the original negative scan at 5000 dpi

That looks really nice! I still think Fomapan 400 is pretty grainy when shot at box speed though. Don’t get me wrong, I love the look of it, especially enlarged on paper.

This is Fomapan 400 auto exposed in a Konica C35, semi stand developed in Rodinal 1:100.

 

[albireo]

That looks really nice! I still think Fomapan 400 is pretty grainy when shot at box speed though.

That's because shooting it at box speed it's underexposing it. Foma 400 just about reaches 320 ei at pretty high gamma (~.65 or so) in specialised developers such as Fomadon LQN or Microphen.

Yes it looks great wet printed, even less grainy than when scanned.

 

[albireo]

Foma Retropan 35mm in Rodinal

Love it in medium format. Sadly I've never been able to try it in 35mm. Do you know anyone who still sells it?

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

Love it in medium format. Sadly I've never been able to try it in 35mm. Do you know anyone who still sells it?

Sorry, no.
It seems Retropan isn't being produced anymore in 35mm...
Strange thing is: on the Foma website it's still listed in 35mm...

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

OK, over the summer, I did try a foma 400 and hp5 in 1:25 Rodinal, I just don't know when I'll share some results yet. but... for the sake of comparison, I also did another washi f bracket test, but this time used d76 1:1. this is a trio of uncorrected scans, iso 400-100

 

[koraks]

uncorrected scans, iso 400-100

If this is a 1 stop bracketing series, then the scans are very heavily corrected. Maybe not consciously by you, but they're normalized alright. A neutral scan would have shown the difference in exposure.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

yeah, I figured, but there still are some differences. it is much easier to tell on the negatives though

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Tried HP5 in Rodinal 1:25- you can definitely see the grain when you zoom in on the uncompressed files

(note, I did use a Vivitar PN 2011 [aka a plastic point and shoot])

 

[Pieter12]

How much of a crop/zoom in the examples? I regularly process HP5+ in Rodinal, it never looks that grainy. The grain is crisper, though. I rate it at 160, not box speed. Are these prints or negative scans?

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

How much of a crop/zoom in the examples? I regularly process HP5+ in Rodinal, it never looks that grainy. The grain is crisper, though. I rate it at 160, not box speed. Are these prints or negative scan

these are scans, here's 100% zoom in photoshop, though there is going to be significant detail loss compressing these for upload

 

[Pieter12]

35mm?

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

yeah.

 

[Sanug]

Grainy films are Orwo N74 and N74+, but with good sharpness and good anti halation layer. They are sold as Bergger Pancro and Lomo Kino Berlin. Developed in Adox XT-3, the results are still grainy. I you choose Rodinal instead, the grain will become worse (not tried, I don´t use Rodinal).

Canon 7s, Jupiter-9, Bergger Pancro 400, Adox XT-3 stock. 10 Min.

Rollei 35 T, Lomo Berlin Kino, Adox XT-3 stock, 1+10

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I actually am going to be shooting a 35mm roll of berlin next

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

it'll be a little while before the Berlin's ready, but here's the 1:25 Foma 400 I tried this summer: it's grainy, but not as intense as the hp5 (also, this was shot on my Yunon yn500, easily the worst camera I own)