Gast
Hello,
I’m looking for a way to make the most of the film grain in 400 ISO films. The prints may be retouched later. Do you have any ideas?
Hence my questions:
Which films are particularly suitable? Kodak Tri-X? Plus-X? HP-5?
What do you think about underexposure of the film by 2–3 stops and then pushing it during development?
Which developers (or combinations) are suitable for this?
Many thanks for your suggestions
Best regards
Holger
huehnerhose
Hello!
Well, I had that as a goal once too, and I went a bit overboard. I developed a Delta 3200 in Rodinal 1+50. I had an underexposure of about 1/3 stop, so I was actually pushing it. Because of the Rodinal and the high-speed film, the grain comes out really clearly – is that somehow no longer attractive?
I’ll send you a sample image; it’s a 12x18 print.
Rock – Delta example
Otherwise, the idea of pushing is, in my opinion, spot on. That way you get the grain out quite well. I managed to get it just right with a Fuji Neopan
400
(which was actually a 1600, not a 400)
in Ilfosol:
It's Raining – Neopan example
Just don’t use a fine-grain developer, but I reckon you’ve already worked that out.
Regards
Sebastian
Addendum: It just occurred to me that when I went into the shop wanting a ‘royal’ print, they advised against the Delta and recommended a Neopan 1600. The picture I said was taken with the 400 was actually the 1600! Reason for not using the Delta: Flat crystals look ‘strange’ when enlarged to a large scale. The Delta image looks very angular; the grains look more like sand on the negative stage. With the Neopan, it’s somehow ‘more harmonious’ – ‘softer’.
Gast
Hi Holger
The Kodak TriX 320 ASA has a lovely grain. The exposure is 250 ASA in Rodinal 1:25 for 6 minutes and 15 seconds.
The HP5+ also has a lovely grain, but I prefer the Kodak. I wouldn’t expose the TriX at more than about 800 ASA.
What’s wrong with a Kodak 3200 or Delta 3200? That’s where you really get grain! And with the Kodak, it’s a very nice grain too.
@ Sebastian: I always thought Rodinal was a fine-grain developer!
Good light
Andreas
Gast
@andreas
[I always thought Rodinal was a fine-grain developer!]
There aren’t many certainties in this world, but this is one: that’s not Rodinal.
@holger
Don’t forget the printing. I’ve achieved the best grain definition here using a point light source. That is, a Lumiled Royal Blue 5-watt in a Durst 138. It has screened an approx. 18x24mm image from a PlusX in Neofin Blaue as if using a grain screen.
Regards
Martin
RomanJRohleder
Andreas,
>What’s wrong with a Kodak 3200 or Delta 3200? That’s got some real grain!
Yep.
>And the Kodak’s got a lovely grain too.
I don’t know; ages ago I stocked up on 40 rolls of TMZp3200 for next to nothing and finally got to grips with it using a light meter last week – A49 1+1 is rubbish (dies after 20 minutes and doesn’t get past a CI of 0.52 or 0.53 > unsuitable for printing, at best for scanning); at EI800, it comes out in FX39 and HC110 with very prominent grain.
The grain looks like a fog, like a mask in front of the actual image; like a net stretched over the paper, homogeneous areas appear torn.
>good light
>
>Andreas
Roman
SimonWeber
I quite like the grain. Here’s my example of HP5+ pushed to 1600 ISO, developed in Ilford ID-11 (very similar to Kodak D-76).
HP51600ID11
I haven’t tried this with Rodinal yet.
But I generally thought that Delta films don’t respond particularly well to Rodinal. (?)
Regards
Simon
Roman
Roman,
I have to disagree with you completely on this one – TMax P3200 at ISO 3200, in A49 1+1 (20°C, about 23–25 mins) is a dream combination, I’ve really tried out almost every ‘fast’ film and developer there is, and nothing comes even close to this combination (OK, perhaps XTOL, with the usual drawbacks – think: no 1-litre packs, ‘sudden death’, or Kodak TMax development – but it’s absolutely dear). _For this speed range_, good shadow detail, very nice, crisp grain (which just looks like TMax grain does...), both when scanning and when printing.
Perhaps your TMZ was already overexposed (it is a bit more sensitive in that respect...)?
Regarding the original question: I wouldn’t push a 400 here – that does result in coarser grain (due to overdevelopment), but also very hard negatives, which then have to be printed softly – and printing with soft gradients simply results in a more washed-out, softer grain; instead: it’s better to achieve normal exposure but overdevelop (preferably in Rodinal – that’s how he does it – with TriX – Ralph Gibson does the same, and crisp, coarse grain is, after all, his ‘trademark’...); this then produces negatives with normal gradient but higher density (= longer exposure time required), which can then be printed harder, which is precisely the prerequisite for truly crisp, sharply defined grain.
Roman (el otro)
RomanJRohleder
Roman,
>I have to disagree with you completely on that point
I knew that already, and I wrote it with that in mind. ;-)
> - TMax P3200 at ISO 3200, in A49 1+1 (20°C, about 23–25 mins) is a >dream combination, I’ve really tried out almost every ‘fast’ film and >developer there is to the full, and nothing comes >even close to this combination
I know you’re happy with it, so I gave it a go too – I tried it out in Prague, amongst other places, and was rewarded with flat shadows and grainy results. The negatives are incredibly thin; they can be scanned to a usable standard, but there’s nothing more to be done with them in the darkroom.
A49 will remain in the chemical cabinet for the future; for emergencies, but not for regular use.
In December, I spontaneously ran another sensitometric series with a 0.5l residue of Impex-sponsored A49 from Steinkimmen – I’d be happy to dig out the curves – the result was that between 20 and 25 minutes – at 20°C, 30s through, then tilted 3 times every 30s –
practically nothing happened anymore; the curves were almost identical; there was simply no significant development taking place and the gamma achieved is barely sufficient for my condenser, let alone for soft-focus colour mixing systems.
Edit:
Here are the curves, fresh off the press; I still need to look up the gamma values. It’s odd that the 25-minute curve suddenly drops off and falls below the 20-minute curve in density. Any attempts at an explanation are welcome.
http://rjr.blafh.de/sensitometry/TMZp3200.gif
The combination works for you – I’ve seen results from your site using it, though I don’t know how much effort you put into the printing process – but definitely not for me, I’m afraid.
>Perhaps your TMZ was already contaminated (it is a bit more sensitive in that respect...)?
Erm, sure, it’s old, has a base fog in the region of 0.5 log D... but you’ve used this very batch before; I did give you 10 of them, didn’t I? ;-)
Cheers, Roman
SamuliSchielke
Hello Holger,
If you intend to make lith prints from the negatives later on anyway, there’s no need to alter the grain through the film development process, as the blacks in lith prints are grainy by nature and the paper grain in lith prints has little to do with the film grain. In a lith print, film grain primarily affects the highlights. Personally, I prefer grainy shadows and finely defined highlights, though that is, of course, a matter of taste. Depending on the paper and developer mixture, the granularity can range from subtle to extremely coarse. Neutral-tone papers are generally more granular (but also more difficult to print) than warm-tone papers. The granularity can also be influenced by the ratio of A and B solutions.
Examples here:
http://www.fotoimpex.de/forum/index.php?ac...y&cmd=si&img=75
http://www.fotoimpex.de/forum/index.php?ac...y&cmd=si&img=74
http://www.fotoimpex.de/forum/index.php?ac...y&cmd=si&img=73
Samuli
Gast
@ Andreas, Roman. Choosing the 3200 is an obvious choice, but it isn’t always practical without considerable effort (e.g. if you want to achieve a shallow depth of field in a given lighting situation, or when using a flash due to flash sync, etc.)
I think I’ll give the Tri-X 320 a go.
@Roman. Do you have any idea how much the film should or can be overdeveloped in Rodinal?
Best regards and many thanks to everyone for the feedback.
Holger
Roman
Hello!
Sorry, I can’t give you any specific times – I’d suggest extending the original time by 30–50% – that should give you a significantly larger grain size without the negatives becoming unprintable.
Roman
GerdK
Hi Holger,
I’ve successfully used the old APX400 (with exposure as 27 DIN/400 ASA) and developed it in Rodinal. It has a lovely grain. I’m not sure where you’d be able to get hold of the old APX400 now, though.
Here’s an example:
http://www.fotoimpex.de/forum/index.php?ac...y&cmd=si&img=76
Bye, Gerd
Roman
Gerd,
Wow, that’s brilliant! The APX400 was the first thing that sprang to mind – but there’s only a few residues left now. Fortepan is absolutely top-notch too (whatever the speed – the 200 is already better than most other 400s).
Gast
Hello,
Yes, Fortepan 400 is good :) – best used with a paper developer (dilute it again to a ratio of 1:2 – 1:3), perform processing for 5 minutes and expose it to a high density of around 23–24 DIN; even a contact print won’t be grain-free then.
Oleksander
Gast
Hello Roman and Alexander,
I gave the Fomapan Action 400 a go in 35mm (emulsion 002215 3; 11/2005) using Rodinal 1+25. I was really disappointed. There was a lot of space between the subjects and everything was somehow out of focus. So I won’t be using that film again.
But tastes differ. If you like this film, please do write to say what kind of subject it works best for and, if possible, provide an example image.
Curious, Gerd
Roman
Hi Gerd,
We were talking about FORTEpan (the one from Hungary), not FOMApan from the Czech Republic – they’re completely different films!
I don’t think the Fomapan is bad at all, though not particularly brilliant either – provided you ensure correct exposure, and with Rodinal you won’t get more than ISO 160 out of it; even with developers that make good use of its speed, it barely goes above 250–320 – but then it becomes quite brilliant and I personally quite like it for portraits, for example.
Technologically, the Fortepan 200 is probably 30 years behind the Fomapan (the Foma is from the same generation as APX and similar films, whilst the Forte is more akin to old Kodak films from the middle of the last century), and is (since the disappearance of APX400) now definitely the finest film in its sensitivity class. Even in 18x18cm prints from a 6x6cm medium-format negative taken with the 200 Fortepan, the grain is already very distinct.
In that respect, it would be a recommendation if you want particularly coarse grain; otherwise, due to its low speed and rigid base, it would be neither my first, second, third nor fourth choice... :)
Roman
GerdK
Hi Roman,
That was the crux of the matter. Quote:
> Provided you ensure correct exposure, and with Rodinal you won’t get more than ISO 160 out of it; even with
> developers that make good use of the film’s speed, it barely goes above 250–320 – but then it becomes
> of fine grain, which I personally quite like for portraits, for example.
Stupidly, I believed the 27 DIN printed on the package. It’s normal for a DIN or two to be missing, but for it to be this extreme is a bit cheeky.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
Bye, Gerd
RomanJRohleder
Gerd,
>Stupidly, I believed the 27 DINs printed on it. It’s normal for one >DIN to be missing, but for it to be this blatant is a bit cheeky.
No, it isn’t. It’s just a problem of standardisation and the discrepancy between laboratory conditions and the environment. Physics and chemistry, you know.
If you don’t want to get to grips with the material, you can’t expect anything more than run-of-the-mill results.
>Bye Gerd
Roman
GerdK
If you don’t want to get to grips with the material, you can’t expect the result to be anything more than run-of-the-mill.
Roman
[right][post="5864"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
Hello Roman,
That is certainly true. But it is also true that the manufacturer is there for the customer, and not the other way round. The manufacturer wants money, and the customer expects a product in return that meets their expectations. Well, it does not meet my expectations that a film (Fomapan Action 400), at the printed speed, is significantly grainier than films from competitors.
If a tried-and-tested, frequently used standard developer such as Rodinal results in 60% lower speed – and I believe your figures – this should be printed on the data sheet or the packaging; otherwise, it is misleading for the customer. I take photographs of actual scenes, not just light sources of the sort used for DIN calibration.
Conclusion: I need to be able to rely on the manufacturer and achieve an average result using their specifications. If I want more – that is, an excellent result – I have to test it myself; I agree with you on that. Any manufacturer whose specifications result in a below-average result for me is, as far as I’m concerned, finished.
Wishing you a lovely day,
Gerd
PhilippReichmuth
Hello Gerd,
Well, it doesn’t quite meet my expectations, as a film (Fomapan Action 400) is significantly grainier at the printed speed than films from competitors.
I suppose it also depends on the comparison examples. In that case, the Foma is already in a different segment to the HP5, including in terms of price, and probably in comparison with flat-crystal films anyway.
If a tried-and-tested, frequently used standard developer like Rodinal results in 60% lower speed – and I believe your figures – that should be printed on the data sheet or the packaging; otherwise, it’s misleading for customers.
Hmm, do other manufacturers do that? For example, when I used to use Delta 3200, I was always puzzled by images with underexposure at first.
Foma films are apparently generally a bit less sensitive than stated, but they turn out nicely. If you need speed, Foma used to have an 800 (what actually became of that?) and, if in doubt, you’re probably better off with HP5.
Apart from that, if the price is a concern, there are alternative developers to Rodinal :) I myself now use quite a lot of ADX A+B and am relatively happy with it, at least when I don’t need that last bit of speed (and Foma 400 is rated at 250 ASA according to the data sheet :D).
