PaulJohn Posted March 9, 2018 Share #21 Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Compare with Delta 400. Grain is finer: Delta 400 in Rodinal 1+25 by Paul Nadin, on Flickr Edited March 9, 2018 by PaulJohn Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 9, 2018 Posted March 9, 2018 Hi PaulJohn, Take a look here Grain on Tri X - Shot on M7/ 35mm Summarit 2.4 Advice please. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
PaulJohn Posted March 9, 2018 Share #22 Posted March 9, 2018 Not sure what happened to that last pic. Try again: Delta 400 in Rodinal 1+25 by Paul Nadin, on Flickr Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nowhereman Posted March 10, 2018 Share #23 Posted March 10, 2018 As others have said, the grain in the sky in the OP looks fine and not "heavy" at all. Look at these classic Ralph Gibson pictures in this NY Times article: Gibson used to overexpose Tri-X and overdevelop it in Rodinal, so that the shadows would go black. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Nowhereman Instagram Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedeye Posted March 10, 2018 Share #24 Posted March 10, 2018 If your other photos on this role are this dirty/dusty, I would take the negatives back to the developer/scanner and demand that they clean the negative and re-scan. Although, what's weird here, is that the dust is black, which would be logical for a scan from a slide. Dust on a negative scans as white. Anyone here have an idea how this could be? I'm curious. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 10, 2018 Share #25 Posted March 10, 2018 (edited) As others have said, the grain in the sky in the OP looks fine and not "heavy" at all. Look at these classic Ralph Gibson pictures in this NY Times article: Gibson used to overexpose Tri-X and overdevelop it in Rodinal, so that the shadows would go black. _______________ Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine Nowhereman Instagram Respectfully, I believe he exposed normally and printed down or under-exposed and printed to higher contrast. A trivial point, certainly. Gibson knew what he was doing and did it well. I regret selling his first editions. I do not understand his color work, but that is my shortcoming. Thank you for bringing up his work. Edited March 10, 2018 by pico Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nowhereman Posted March 11, 2018 Share #26 Posted March 11, 2018 (edited) If that's what you believe, then you don't believe what Gibson himself writes about his own work method of that time in the Ralph Gibson chapter of his Darkroom: No.1 book published by his Lustrum Press, which presents the methods of 13 photographers. He writes, "Having learned from the lithographic process I now go directly to contrasty subject matter and expose for the narrow contrast ratio I desire. I overexpose and overdevelop and, in the process, pick up grain and contrast." Edited March 11, 2018 by Nowhereman Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
otto.f Posted March 11, 2018 Share #27 Posted March 11, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Although the grain seems normal given what pico said, I do think that jpeg-scans from the drugstore often exaggerate the grain. I don’t think you’ll necessarly get this grain-impression that much if you’d print it wet. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.