Wish list: production of a grainy film

Geoffrey Crawley formulated one of the FX series of developers to enhance grain effedts.

Gerald C Koch said:

If you don't like commercial grain masks then there is always the possibility of making your own.

Click to expand...

That's true Gerald. Have you had good luck doing this? I've seen grain negs for sandwiching in the carrier and full print size contact screens, which might be harder to make well.

Follow Johns advice to get a coffee developer. Foma (or Efke which isn't really available now much) in Caffenol-C was nice and grainy for me.

jp498 said:

Follow Johns advice to get a coffee developer. Foma (or Efke which isn't really available now much) in Caffenol-C was nice and grainy for me.

Click to expand...

Now that I think about it, this was the grainiest developer I've made:

40g/L Ascorbic Acid (12g/300ml) (not Ascorbate, amount in Ascorbate is higher)
2g/L Potassium Bromide (0.6g/300ml)
1.67g/L Benzotriazole (0.5g/300ml)

Add sodium carbonate until solution is neutralised.

Add sodium hydroxide until pH is 12

Use undiluted, process was about 6-10min at 24 celsius for most films iirc.

I should also mention its a high contrast developer.

MarkL said:

That's true Gerald. Have you had good luck doing this? I've seen grain negs for sandwiching in the carrier and full print size contact screens, which might be harder to make well.

Click to expand...

Grain masks work best with 35 mm negaqtives. With contact prints from LF negatives it would be hard to see any grain even if you were using a very grainy film. So the oeverall effect strikes me as rather false.

By making your own masks you are not limited to grain, for example you can use wood grain, a closeup of concrete or just about anything with a repetative pattern. I used a 35 mm mask generated from a very uniform sample of concrete and the print worked out very well.

I make a distinction between what I call to myself constructive and destructive grain. (Disclaimer: this is entirely subjective scientific nonsense.)

Constructive grain feels like it's superimposed on the image such that you can sort of look through it and see the all the sharpness, contrast and tonality of the untouched image. Terms like 'stochastic resonance' or 'constructive interference' come to mind (in human speak: it sings). Examples are Neopan 400 (Rodinal), TMY (Xtol) and, to a slightly lesser degree, Tri-x (Rodinal).

Destructive grain seems to keep you from seeing the image, it captures the attention in an ugly way. No matter how you look, the image just doesn't seem to come out. It doesn't shine through, somehow. Examples are Fomapan 400 and Kentmere 400 (Rodinal, Xtol). In 35mm I find Tri-x (Rodinal) also a bit destructive at times. Perhaps HP5+ (Xtol) also.

Mind you, the amount of grain is not important, it's the 'character' (shape, size, density distribution, whatever) that seems to matter to me. Neopan 400 can have a lot of grain in 35mm when developed in Rodinal, yet it still adds to the image. Use FP4+ in the same developer and it destroys everything.

Creating grain is not a huge trick. The hard part is getting out nice (i.e. constructive) grain.

Again, the above is utter nonsense in any objective, scientific sense, and I'm making it worse by throwing scientific terms into the mix. Pseudo science pur sang. But it is how I feel about it- call it a personal issue.

Sander

I remember pushing Agfapan 100 to 1600 - wow (in Atomal FF)!! Grain the size of golf balls, but tight and sharp enough to cut your fingers on.

Athiril said:

Add sodium hydroxide until pH is 12

Click to expand...

Probably best not to stir it with your finger.

FX-16

The Geoffrey Crawley formula Gerald Koch mentioned is FX-16 (Grain texture developer for high speed films).

See http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0097OTfor the 1963 formula reprinted up to about 1987.

It seems to be a modification of FX-2, using metol and glycin as the developing agents. Pinacryptol Yellow was the original preferred restrainer, although Crawley said you could substitute potassium bromide for slightly "fluffier" grain. Whether it makes much difference with modern films (compared to Kodak Royal Pan-X, which must have been what Crawley mainly meant it for), might be worth testing.

I never really used it much and would also like to see a controlled comparison to Rodinal.

-Philip Jackson

polyglot said:

Fomapan 400 or Delta 3200 in Rodinal. As much as you could possibly want, even more if you run the Rodinal hotter (25C).

Click to expand...

This is what I do. And sometimes I use Rodinal 1+10 ! , and agitate like in a cocktail party

darkosaric said:

This is what I do. And sometimes I use Rodinal 1+10 ! , and agitate like in a cocktail party

Click to expand...

The way to go, Darko. Superb grain, great resolution, beautiful tones and a high speed. Who could ask for more?

Chris Lange said:

Delta 3200 developed warm goes nuts, and I love it.

This is full strength D76 for 18 minutes at 24C

View attachment 60511

Click to expand...

"Warm" has nothing to do with it in most normal developers, it's time+temperature. Adjust the time to suit the temperature and results will be so similar as to be indistinguishable. I routinely develop all my black and white at 24C/75F because I use a Jobo CPE2 that will heat, but not cool. In the hottest months of summer sometimes I'm running at 76-77F because of the ambient temperature. I adjust times a bit to suit. Results are fine, no particular grain - and ALL my Delta 3200 is run like this too (albeit in T-Max developer, but it's grainier than D76.)

What you have here is a very long development time for the temperature. Ilford specs give only 13.5 minutes at 24C for D76 at EI 12500.

Not that you aren't getting the grainy results the OP is asking for. But you could just as well get it at 20C with a suitably longer time. Ilford publishes a temperature conversion chart that gives equivalent times at different temperatures (this is what I use when I'm a degree or two too hot in the summer - it's close enough for such small differences.) It only goes to 17:15 at 24C, but the equivalent time at 20C is given as 25:00 minutes. Some extrapolation shows the equivalent to 24C/18 minutes would be about 26:30.

Some older films could reticulate if temperature varied too much and developer was warm and then you went into cool stop or the like, but that's a different thing and very unlikely with modern films.

IIRC reticulation was discussed in a previous thread where it was stated that modern films can be made to reticulate. Itr is just harder to do this accidently.

I feel fairly certain that if you screw around with Rodinal and a couple of films you will find some combination that is near what you seek.

Kodak 5222 Double-X (B&W movie film) is almost too grainy for my tastes, but if grain is what you're looking for then you should be able to get all you want, depending on what developer you use. You have to buy it in 400' rolls and spool it down, but it relatively cheap that way. See other threads here and elsewhere for everything you could ever want to know about Double-X!

Duncan

Roger Cole said:

"Warm" has nothing to do with it in most normal developers, it's time+temperature. Adjust the time to suit the temperature and results will be so similar as to be indistinguishable. I routinely develop all my black and white at 24C/75F because I use a Jobo CPE2 that will heat, but not cool. In the hottest months of summer sometimes I'm running at 76-77F because of the ambient temperature. I adjust times a bit to suit. Results are fine, no particular grain - and ALL my Delta 3200 is run like this too (albeit in T-Max developer, but it's grainier than D76.)

What you have here is a very long development time for the temperature. Ilford specs give only 13.5 minutes at 24C for D76 at EI 12500.

Not that you aren't getting the grainy results the OP is asking for. But you could just as well get it at 20C with a suitably longer time. Ilford publishes a temperature conversion chart that gives equivalent times at different temperatures (this is what I use when I'm a degree or two too hot in the summer - it's close enough for such small differences.) It only goes to 17:15 at 24C, but the equivalent time at 20C is given as 25:00 minutes. Some extrapolation shows the equivalent to 24C/18 minutes would be about 26:30.

Some older films could reticulate if temperature varied too much and developer was warm and then you went into cool stop or the like, but that's a different thing and very unlikely with modern films.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the Ilford times for D3200 have long been regarded as off base, giving thinner than desirable negs, although I do generally develop my film for slightly longer than recommended anyway. I target my negatives for a grade 4 or 5 print, generally, so it doesn't bother me.

I always make sure to warm up the stop and fix a bit if I do this, too, to avoid reticulation. If I do in fact want to reticulate, I keep a container of water in the fridge, then moved to the freezer for an hour or so before developing. I then heat some water up in the microwave or on the stove, and I start developing. Perhaps halfway through development, I'll empty the tank into a beaker, and shock the film with the freezing water, followed by the almost boiling water, and then resume developing. You can do this as many times as you like, and with the fixer and stop, too.

I agree the times for D3200 (and Kodak's times for TMZ too) are too short. I develop both for the times given for one stop more speed, generally shooting at 3200 and developing as listed for 6400. I do it all at 24C too but don't get anything like your grain!

"Over develop D3200 for grain" is certainly a viable way to get grain, but you will get a lot of contrast too which you may or may not want.

frobozz said:

Kodak 5222 Double-X (B&W movie film) is almost too grainy for my tastes, but if grain is what you're looking for then you should be able to get all you want, depending on what developer you use. You have to buy it in 400' rolls and spool it down, but it relatively cheap that way. See other threads here and elsewhere for everything you could ever want to know about Double-X!

Duncan

Click to expand...

If you compare Kodak's published values for the RMS Granularity of Eastman 5222 and Tri-X you will find that 5222 is actually finer grained than Tri-X.

Roger Cole said:

I agree the times for D3200 (and Kodak's times for TMZ too) are too short. I develop both for the times given for one stop more speed, generally shooting at 3200 and developing as listed for 6400. I do it all at 24C too but don't get anything like your grain!

"Over develop D3200 for grain" is certainly a viable way to get grain, but you will get a lot of contrast too which you may or may not want.

Click to expand...

I should add that I agitate at a normal rate (10 seconds once a minute), but I do it very, very vigorously.

To the OP: really the best way to find the results, and grain character you like is to just buy a few rolls and try different developing regimens on each one. Pick the one you like the most and refine it from there.

Gerald C Koch said:

If you compare Kodak's published values for the RMS Granularity of Eastman 5222 and Tri-X you will find that 5222 is actually finer grained than Tri-X.

Click to expand...

As it should be, as it is supposedly lower speed (250 vs 400). I'm just saying that in my tests so far, Double-X seems to be grainy, whatever I'm doing wrong without trying... so I bet if one were to try, one could get some pretty amazing grain out of the stuff. See the restroom assault scene near the beginning of Casino Royale (2006) for an example of extreme Double-X grain. I suspect they pushed the heck out of it, because it got pretty contrasty too.

Duncan

Chris Lange said:

I should add that I agitate at a normal rate (10 seconds once a minute), but I do it very, very vigorously.

To the OP: really the best way to find the results, and grain character you like is to just buy a few rolls and try different developing regimens on each one. Pick the one you like the most and refine it from there.

Click to expand...

Vigorous agitation will make a difference.

Mine are all done in a Jobo, so agitation is continuous but not vigorous.

frobozz said:

Kodak 5222 Double-X (B&W movie film) is almost too grainy for my tastes, but if grain is what you're looking for then you should be able to get all you want, depending on what developer you use.

Click to expand...

I would second that, although as someone else pointed out the spec sheets give it a par with TX, it LOOKS a bit grainyer than TX. Pushing and such could probaly build the effect. It is not that expensive in the 400 foot roll, and keeping up the demand is a good thing.

Interesting quote in an article in the December 2012 American Cinematographer. In an article by Jean Oppenheimer about the short film Swimmer, director Lynne Ramsay and cinematographer Natasha Braier are discussing their choice of film stocks: "We originally had this romantic idea of shooting on black-and-white stock and playing with filters, but the only black-and-white stock we could get, Eastman (Double-X) 5222, was much grainer than I remembered."

So we're not the only ones who feel that way about it

Duncan

I've found that Fomapan 200 in Rodinal 1+50 produces some very grainy negatives, like this one (cropped):