What is the grainiest bw film and developer?

[RezaLoghme]

Yes, that has me puzzled too. Never had grain issues or more grain than normal with XP2. I rated it mostly at ISO 200 unless light fell to much and then would move my ASA/ISO dial to 400-800. Of course RezaLoghme uses 35mm and lab development I believe. Still, I wouldn't think grain should be an issue with either.

I also used it with my Hasselblad 500 way back then. Indeed, as 35mm film you can see the difference quite clearly,

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Wouldn't a condenser enlarger make a grainier PRINT than a cold light or color head? It will make the same negative contrasty-er which could emphasize grain in the mid and high tones.

Not if you develop it about 20% less, which is customary for condenser enlarging.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

I can add xp2 to the Rodinal and fx 39 test list. but... consider this 80s expired xp1 I shot spring/summer 2024 and had processed in c41- this is very fine grained for expired film of this vintage:

 

[Sanug]

No surprise, as XP1 had been advertised by Ilford to be "beating the grain".

 

[John Wiegerink]

No surprise, as XP1 had been advertised by Ilford to be "beating the grain".

Yes, developed in C41 developer there is no grain, just dyes. Even done in Xtol or D76 you won't be seeing a lot of grain. I wonder why Ilford stopped making or sell there XP 1 / 2 developing kits for this film? I still have a developing kit in its box in my basement as a keepsake.

 

[MMfoto]

FX-1 + Tri-X in my experience. Looks great too.

 

[albireo]

I'm experimenting with fresh TriX (in 120) developed in D76 1+1.

I had heard TriX is extremely grainy but I'm surprised at how beautiful and well contained the grain is. I wonder if modern iterations of TriX have been revised resulting in more contained grain.

Gorgeous combo by the way - I can see why it's considered a classic.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

got several rolls ahead of it, but I did try an assumed 20 years expired Tri-X in 1:25 Rodinal, and lets just say, that's got some good grain; and it convinced me to add fresh TX to the test list.
Also got an 06 expired TX to try as the inaugural roll for FX 39

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if modern iterations of TriX have been revised resulting in more contained grain.

It sometimes seems that there are whole threads of posts where people complain about just that!
Modern Tri-X is less grainy then, as an example, the mid 1970s Tri-X that I used for most of these:

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Major reason I wasn't originally considering trying Tri-X...

 

[MMfoto]

Major reason I wasn't originally considering trying Tri-X...

Modern Tri-X can be fine grained or as grainy as you like. It's very flexible. I'm sure there are grainier films in general, but Tri-X grain is really pleasing. Most of the grainier films I've used have had sort of lumpy, less attractive grain.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

here's where my calculations are at for Rodinal- based on differences from established film dev. times, info from this forum, and comparing dev times from other films, here's what I've established:
push times: +1 multiply dev time by 1.4, +2 double dev time, +3 multiply dev time by 3.3, +4 multiply dev time by 4.7.

for lower dilution times, this video proved to be an incredible source:

\
So based on this, and differences in times from other films, here's how I calculated the lower dilution times:
1:12- 1:25 time multiplied by .58
1:6- 1:25 time multiplied by .3
1:3- 1:25 time multiplied by .2
1:1- 1:25 time multiplied by .1
(stock time taken from the video- haven't decided if I want to go that far or not)

did similar calculations for fx 39 dilutions, but I'll share that when I get there

(green times are ones taken from the massive dev chart).

also- looking into Dektol/ d72 films most (even Kodak films) don't have listed dev. times. so unless you guys can point me to some resources to find dilution and dev times I don't know if I'lll try it.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

here's the full list of D72 and Dektol times

accurate, or not?

 

[koraks]

for lower dilution times, this video proved to be an incredible source:

I've only had a brief look at the video, but what I take from it is exactly what I'd expect: times don't scale very well if you hug the edges of the process envelope. Here he had been doing clip tests with minimal amounts of undilute rodinal and found that the results were totally different when he scaled up to a full roll and 300ml. In a similar vein, I expect you'll run into trouble if you try to extrapolate a time you based on the difference between 1+50 and 1+25 to extremes like 1+1. Times get so short that the dynamics of wetting the emulsion and diffusion of the developer into it as well as prolonged development by droplets of developer clinging onto the film after dumping it become major factors. Uneven development is one clear risk, but I expect the gamma/contrast will also not scale as expected.

Not saying it can't be done or you won't get an image. Just that it's not a very solid way of determining a development time suitable for normal photography. For sake of the experiment, of course, this can be a lot of fun, also if you try to make sense of the actual result you get. It can be interesting for sure.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

yeah. I don't have any scientific means of checking my results, but so far, 1:12, 1:6, and 1:3 have all worked (I'll post them eventually). but I am prepared that uneven development could be a factor, especially if I try this with 120 film. and yeah, the tray development didn't really help me determining full scale times. I'm also not doing this in (mostly) one go- I am taking my time and checking my math and making changes as needed to my calculations.
I'm expecting 1:1 to work, but I'm predicting 1:3 is going to be the upper limit for reliability.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Here it is, the first low dilution test-
Ilford HP5, Petri 7s.
Rodinal 1:12, 3.5 min, 68ºf.

with lower dilutions, and more films to come.

 

[MMfoto]

A moment of silence for Neopan 1600.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

one other thought that's been on my mind-
would Tmax dev. have comparably high grain to Rodinal?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

A moment of silence for Neopan 1600.

According to my tests, its ISO is around 650.

 

[MMfoto]

According to my tests, its ISO is around 650.

That sounds right. I shot it around 800 or so.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

That sounds right. I shot it around 800 or so.

About 1 stop faster than Tr-X Pan.

 

[MattKing]

About 1 stop faster than Tr-X Pan.

But likely more well behaved if used with a higher EI and pushed processed.

 

[MMfoto]

But likely more well behaved if used with a higher EI and pushed processed.

I am not so sure. TRI-X is incredibly flexible. In my humble experience, pushing Neopan 1600 is all about achieving a look. But I recall it has a much more transparent base and can easily look harsh with deep shadows. But if you run TRI-X through something like Acufine or Diafine you can get fairly "normal" looking and easy to print contrast with a soft shoulder at 1600+ depending on lighting. But for maximum high ISO flexibility it's TMX3200 all day long.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

But likely more well behaved if used with a higher EI and pushed processed.

Huh? Don't understand.

 

[MattKing]

The rated higher than actual ISO films are designed to build contrast more slowly. For that reason, when you under-expose them (in relation to their ISO speed) and then over-develop/push process them to take best advantage of the exposure you have, the mid-tone and highlight rendition tends to suffer less than with "normal" films, like Tri-X.
Tri-X is designed to build full mid-tone and highlight contrast when exposed and developed normally. If you under-expose and then over-develop it, the highlights tend to be worse.
Of course both types of film loose shadow detail when under-exposed, whether or not the development is increased.