Tune for maximum grain

[Steve Ricoh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ideas and tips please.

Rodinal 1:25, 1:50 or 1:100 semi stand?

Hot development at +30C works - I’ve seen the results and I’ve posted in another thread (here in the Film Forum).

Not really interested in using paper developer.

Any tried and tested remedies would be appropriated, and sample images if at all possible.

Thanks from a grain lover!

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Pyrogallol]

I don’t think raising the temperature does anything other than shortening the development time for any given density of the negative?

Years ago I used print developer to get extra grain, in Tri X.

Maybe Ilford PQ Universal?

Edited July 15, 2021 by Pyrogallol

[Doug A]

Based on some amazing images a friend gets from 8 x 11 Minox negatives I think I would try using a shorter focal length lens, using Delta 3200 film, developing in Rodinal (1+49) and cropping the image down to half frame or smaller. 

[250swb]

Just don't stop agitating, normal dilution, factor in a bit less time, and go for it.

[Steve Ricoh]

13 hours ago, 250swb said:

Just don't stop agitating, normal dilution, factor in a bit less time, and go for it.

Are we talking specifically about Rodinal, and if so what dilution? 
What time adjustment would you suggest for constant agitation ... 10% ? 
Ta

[Pyrogallol]

If you overdevelop a bit that will just add more grain.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I don't have my notes at the moment but I recall 1:100 with Rodinal (but 1:50 worked as well if you want denser negs) and 30% less time. But it's one of those 'how long is this piece of string questions'. You could look at it the other way and use the Ralph Gibson method of over exposing and then using a 1:25 dilution with a 10% reduction in the recommended time but only agitate three times in the 6 minutes (or whatever it is), basically you are using the exposure to create the grain and the chemicals less so.

Edited July 16, 2021 by 250swb

[Pyrogallol]

I would have thought Rodinal at 1:25 would give more grain than 1:50 or 100. I thought the more dilute mixture was to provide smoother negatives?

[250swb]

I wanted a lower contrast neg but still accentuate the grain, of course now I've said that it occurs to me what sort of neg do you want, one for the darkroom or a lower contrast one for scanning?

[Steve Ricoh]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

I wanted a lower contrast neg but still accentuate the grain, of course now I've said that it occurs to me what sort of neg do you want, one for the darkroom or a lower contrast one for scanning?

For scanning.

I read something sometime back about the appearance of grain not being the clumps of silver but the gaps in between. Maybe this is the reason for your question about scanning or darkroom work?

[250swb]

For scanning you ideally need normal or a lower contrast negative so the scanner can cope with its limited dynamic range, although if you scan with a camera it has a much higher DR so a denser neg is OK. 

[oldwino]

Warm (27 C) rodinal 1:25 is quite lovely - snappy contrast and sharp. Quick, too, like doing C-41.  At least with the Delta films I’ve been shooting lately. If you want grain (GRAIN), try using a half frame camera, like an Olympus Pen FT. 

[Steve Ricoh]

On 7/18/2021 at 9:39 PM, oldwino said:

Warm (27 C) rodinal 1:25 is quite lovely - snappy contrast and sharp. Quick, too, like doing C-41.  At least with the Delta films I’ve been shooting lately. If you want grain (GRAIN), try using a half frame camera, like an Olympus Pen FT. 

Thanks, does the concentration and temp suggested pull the grain, making the activated silver grains clump?

I do have the Oly Pen FT, plus a couple of nice lenses, 40/1.4 and 70/2, but it gets neglected.

[jankap]

On 7/15/2021 at 10:18 PM, Doug A said:

Based on some amazing images a friend gets from 8 x 11 Minox negatives I think I would try using a shorter focal length lens, using Delta 3200 film, developing in Rodinal (1+49) and cropping the image down to half frame or smaller. 

Sample picture taken with the Minox , please.

Edited July 20, 2021 by jankap

[Doug A]

2 hours ago, jankap said:

Sample picture taken with the Minox , please.

The Minox pictures I referred to are of my friend's children. I do not have his permission to share them. A flickr search will turn up many examples. The good ones show that film resolution is not the be-all and end-all of effective photographs. 

[oldwino]

4 hours ago, Steve Ricoh said:

Thanks, does the concentration and temp suggested pull the grain, making the activated silver grains clump?

I do have the Oly Pen FT, plus a couple of nice lenses, 40/1.4 and 70/2, but it gets neglected.

Hard to say if the grain is "clumped", with certainty. It does certainly make a sharper looking negative when compared with Xtol (my usual developer). It shows more apparent grain than Xtol, too, but this could be scanning artifacts - the way a scanner registers grain is very different from an enlarger print. Scanners seem to accentuate edges, and the grain-edges are more pronounced with Rodinal. 

At any rate, it's a nice look, to my eyes, and also certainly a look you can't achieve with a digital capture and photoshop wizardry. 

That Oly Pen 40/1.4 is one of my favorite lenses. The 25 is no slouch either. 

[giannis]

1 hour ago, oldwino said:

It does certainly make a sharper looking negative when compared with Xtol

That's normal, non-solvent surface (=accutance) developers produce sharper grain.

The good news is though, XTol (also my preferred developer) has an "accutance mode": dilute at 1+3. This minimises the solvent action of the sulfites in the formula as their concentration drops, and increases accutance. That dilution will lead to longer dev times (~15' or so, roughly, depending on temp). You can combine that with reduced agitation (say a couple inversions every 3'), to create some edge effects on the grain crystals (think of it as a grain-level unsharp mask), further enhancing sharpness perception. Personally, I find that Xtol in this "accutance mode" and with reduced agitation is not lacking at all compared to traditional "accutance developers". If anything, it yields better results cause on top of matching the accutance of those other devs, it still maintains the smaller grain and higher resolution advantage.

Just to emphasise this point, how sharp XTol 1+3 is, I'm attaching a frame devved as such, on a particularly grainy film (because it's easier to see the sharpness/accutance effect with larger grain, in small web resolutions), Foma Retropan Soft 320.

 

Also OP, if you want grain here's your list in order of importance:

1. Format. The smaller the format, the bigger the grain.

2. Film. Delta 3200 has the biggest grain, along with Foma Retropan 320. Other than those, traditional cubic grained films have more grain than T-grain ones (i.e. ISO400 T-grain ≈ ISO100 cubic grain).

3. Developer choice. The less solvents (ideally none) in the developer, the better. Rodinal works fine for that. I know you said you don't want paper devs, but Dektol has been a classic for a long time for the look you're after.

4. Development regime. The higher the temp, the longer the dev time, the stronger the agitation = the bigger the grain. Mix and match any of the above for desired strength of effect. But keep in mind the above also affect contrast, and density so you might want to shorten the dev times a bit if you choose say stronger agitation and higher temps.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited July 20, 2021 by giannis
typos, content

[giannis]

 

Edited July 20, 2021 by giannis
duplicate post, please delete

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[oldwino]

@giannisthanks for that info. I’m definitely going to try out the 1+3 xtol. 
I’ve been using Xtol replenished, which seems to give about the same times and look as Xtol 1+1, but he contrast in my last few rolls is starting to wane, possibly due to a slow but steady build up of undesirable by-products. I’ve been using the same working solution since November 2017! 
When I mix up my next “replenishment” batch, I’ll be sure to use it on a roll or two at 1+3. 
Is the film speed affected at this dilution? One thing I like about Xtol vs Rodinal is I can exposure pretty much at box speed. 

[giannis]

19 minutes ago, oldwino said:

I’ve been using Xtol replenished

Ah nice, Xtol replenished is great and very economical - just 80ml/roll replenishment if I remember correctly. Plus it acts as its own replenisher! 

On that note, in the 1+3 dilution just keep in mind to not go under 80ml/roll of stock XTol in your tank, I think that's the minimum. So in a small, say 295ml Paterson tank, you fill it with 320ml (80ml XTol + 240ml water). It fits easily, and if you wanna play safe or have heavy exposures, you could use 100ml Xtol + 300ml water.

19 minutes ago, oldwino said:

the contrast in my last few rolls is starting to wane, possibly due to a slow but steady build up of undesirable by-products. I’ve been using the same working solution since November 2017! 

Damn, that's a long time! And to think people complain about the short shelf life of XTol. 😜  Well you know your darkroom best, yeah it could be byproducts, especially if there are periods where you don't run enough films through the solutions weekly. In those cases it's recommended to replenish regardless, to keep the solution going (don't remember by how much, I think the equivalent of 3 films or so, i.e. 240ml, for a 2.5L solution but I'm not sure). 

19 minutes ago, oldwino said:

Is the film speed affected at this dilution?

Nah it isn't. Especially compared to replenished, you might even get a (theoretical, in practice irrelevant 😅) bump! Box speed is attained easily at 1+3. In fact, due to the longer dev times, if you combine with reduced agitation (with corresponding slight increase in times, as usual), you can get compensating effects, i.e. slightly more shadow detail. With normal agitation, I think Xtol is at its fastest at 1+1, closely followed by stock, 1+3 and replenished. All that is academic of course, in practice they all give virtually the same speed and you won't notice a difference unless you use a densitometer.

Edited July 20, 2021 by giannis
typos