Fat Grain

Discuss all aspects of B&W Film.

Moderator: Black & White Moderators

Post Reply
berk3
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:24 pm

Fat Grain

Post by berk3 »

I am looking for film + developer combination to produce fat grain (or graininess as Steve would say). I do not care for the grain in T-Grain film, so there is no other fast film left. I am wondering if there is any 'classic' style B&W film that would get me close. Is there any possibility for using a lith type developer (I don't want excessive contrast, just pronounced grain for gritty expressiveness.
SPPhoto
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:46 am
Location: Danvers, MA USA

Fat Grain

Post by SPPhoto »

I would check out Freestyle. They have a large selection of B&W films. www.freestylephoto.biz
Stephen Prunier Photography
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

SPPhoto is correct about Freestyle in this respect: Eric Joseph, the marketing director (and a fine photographer), probably knows more about what is and is not available in the way of film than anyone I know except for perhaps Mirko Boeddecker of Fotoimpex in Germanty, mirko.boeddecker@fotoimpex.de. If there is an old-style emulsion still being made either Eric or Mirko will know.

That said, I am going to give my opinion on T-Grain film. I don't mean to start controversy or hard feelings so take this as my opinion. You may disagree and say so on this site but let's be civil.

T-grain is a crappy film in every way a film can be. It's good for one thing and one thing only, high contrast scenes where there is little or no mid-tones. Be clear: you can photograph low contrast scenes with lots of midtones but what you won't get is the all-so important micro contrast that makes the mid-tones dimensional. If you look at every ad placed by Eastman for T-grain films they are either all made in low-light (i.e., late in the day when the shadows are deep and the highlights are softening towards sunset) or in a controlled studio situation with a maximum of a 5-stop spread (5 Zones).

Next, the grain is so fine that the film has no character, no unique signature.

Finally, as if that weren't enough, Eastman has applied T-grain technology to the modern Tri-X emulsion, making it worthless as well - in my opinion.

The above is not to say that T-grain, crystal grain, flat grain, new technology films, whatever you want to call it, can't be good. But when you go to the extreme that Kodak has gone to (in order to shave a few pennies off the cost of manufacture while increasing the price of the film to maximize profits) you have an inferior product. In order to capture micro contrast the grain has to either have some depth or a fair amount of cubic crystals included in the mix. Try Ilford Delta.

I'm going to end this here just for now and give others a chance to respond. When I have time I will address the issue of how to create graininess in a world of homogenized film.
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
User avatar
JB Harlin
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 7:22 pm

Fat Grain

Post by JB Harlin »

Thanks for that Steve. . . guess it isn't just me then. I tried the T-Grain film when it first came out and did not like the way it looked. I really did not go any further with it but from what I remember, my first impression agrees with what you say. I knew there was something about it, but did not investigate any further. I knew from the first try, that it wasn't for me. Now I better understand why. I used Tri-X film for years but did not move to the new Tri-X, so I have no experience there.



Again, thanks Steve for the detailed explanation. I do not want to diminish anyone else's use of the T-Grain films. I know there are many fine photographers that swear by the stuff, but it just isn't for me. Just goes to show that one size does not fit all. . .
SPPhoto
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:46 am
Location: Danvers, MA USA

Fat Grain

Post by SPPhoto »

I was under the impression that T-grain films were TMax, Across, and Delta. Am I wrong to think this? I currently use several B&W Films, but no T-grain. Not because I didn't wan't too, but, because I stocked up on Freestyle EDU, and some Ilford as I learn to use my RZ 6x7. After 40 years of 35mm and mostly color, I'm actually trying to learn how to do it the right way now! :)



I've also read that a lot of users of TMax scan their negatives, and having done so myself, I can say that it does scan easier than the traditional B&W films I use. But I don't scan negatives anymore.
Stephen Prunier Photography
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

Kodak pioneered flat-grain film and gave it their proprietary name T-grain. However, just like Jell-O and Kleenex, T-grain is loosely used to refer to all flat-grain film, including Delta and Acros.



Taken to an extreme, as Kodak has done with T-grain, the silver crystals are literally flat, like flat paving stones, with their surface parallel to the surface of the film. Traditional silver crystals are shaped more like salt grains. Micro-contrast is enhanced when the silver has dimension and the light (at a microscopic level) wraps around the grain and slowly feathers off.



Ilford and Acros flat-grains have retained some of the roundness that allows micro-contrast to form. I am not certain, but I have heard that Ilford has retained a fair amount of traditional silver crystals in the mix, which may be why the Delta film performs, in my opinion, better than Acros.



As far as scanning, couldn't say. :-)
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

I promised to address the issue of creating graininess in film. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of good news for you. If you want to skip the explanation jump to the bottom two paragraphs.



When everyone was using large format (before the advent of 35mm and 120) nobody cared about graininess. Even motion picture film, which 35mm was based upon, didn't care about graininess. This is because when the film is moving across the screen at 24 fps any evidence of grain is lost - you only see it if you stop the film. (Sharpness, though connected to grain and graininess, is not the same thing.)



Grain is the physical size of the individual silver halide in the film. This size cannot be altered or manipulated through development. Graininess is created by the of clumping of individual silver halide particles and can be controlled by:



1. The choice of film (fine, medium, or coarse grain)

2. Agitation

3. Temperature of the developer

4. Consistency of temperature between developer and fixer

5. Choice of developer



With the introduction of small format film (anything smaller than 4x5”) graininess became an issue. Kodak, Ilford, Defender, Konica, Agfa, et al worked to create finer grain in their film, and compound fine grain developers, Microdol-X, etc. to minimize graininess.



As long as traditional silver halide grain was being used, film could be manipulated for fine or coarse grain effects. With the introduction of flat-grain films it has become nearly impossible to create coarse graininess and still maintain a long range tonal scale. The problem is made worse because manufacturers such as Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa, each vying for a large share of the extremely lucrative machine processing market, loaded their films with hardener to keep them from scratching. That scratch proofing also prevents grain from clumping during development.



Developers such as Diafine and Acufine are capable of coarse grain effects, but they aren’t known for their lustrous mid-tones or shadow detail.



Because paper has grain you can create graininess during printing, but even this is restricted due to the same overuse of hardener in the paper for machine development. You can also use screens placed over the paper during printing. This will create the appearance of graininess. The only problem is that the graininess is too uniform for some taste. If anyone wants to know how to make a grain screen let me know and I'll try to dig up one of my old formulas.



The best coarse grain effect I have found in recent years is Ilford Delta 3200 developed in Ilford DD-X 1+4. The film can be exposed at lower EI’s and underdeveloped, or exposed at EI 2400 and developed for 18 minutes at 75F with agitation at one-minute intervals, as I use it for night photography (see page 55 of the Darkroom Cookbook 4th ed.).



If you go this route, I recommend you try other film developers to find results that suit your taste.
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
SPPhoto
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2016 5:46 am
Location: Danvers, MA USA

Fat Grain

Post by SPPhoto »

Thanks Steve, and I hear you on the scanning :(



P.S. I'm enjoying my copy of your latest book.
Stephen Prunier Photography
andynguyen
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 8:45 pm

Fat Grain

Post by andynguyen »

out of everything i've tried (surely not enough), the one that gave me grains so big & rough they hit your eyes was CatPTEA + soda. I arrived at this out of mistake, actually.



so it's CatPTEA as part A, soda (200gr mono in 1L of water, with 2gr of KBr just to curb fog) as part B. mix 1 + 10 + 100. dev time is in the 6-7 min range. contrast is high you lose some midtone. I (now) think you could cut the Part B a lil to get better tones. The grains should not change.
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

The problem is to achieve graininess while maintaining image sharpness. This is what I feel the Ilford + DDX combination does.
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
michael r
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 6:25 am

Fat Grain

Post by michael r »

Ouch.



Steve, I was hoping you had "mellowed" a little on the T-Max thing :), but I have to disagree with many of your statements on this issue, both on a factual and anecdotal basis.



For example, the T-Max films have two layers of crystals - the fast layer (tabular) and slow layer (cubic or "traditional").
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

Thank you, Michael for keeping me honest :-). You are correct, there is no film made that is 100% tabular. A 100% flat grain film would not produce an acceptable image. However, the percentage of flat grain in T-max far outweighs the advantage of the minimal cubic crystals in the slow layer. This is why I prefer Delta, it has a better balance of flat to cubic - if I'm not mistaken, and you can correct me on this, Delta has a higher percentage of cubic to flat, whereas T-max is the other way around.



In any event, there are many fine photographers who swear by T-max. The only thing that matters in photography is that you're able to achieve results that are pleasing to you. However, many photographers have trouble with T-max when they attempt to reproduce a long tonal scale, 7 or more stops. The reasons I cite are part, if not most, of the cause.



Again, if I'm mistaken, please correct me.
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

And another thing ...



When Bill Troop and I wrote the Film Developing Cookbook one of our goals, among many, was to find a way to develop T-max film that would overcome its limitations. We never did find a developer that worked to my satisfaction. The closest we came was using pyro formulas, such as John Wimberley's WD2H+ (which has been misprinted in both the 3rd and 4th editions - completely my fault). Even then I did not care for the quality of the mid-tones when compared to earlier films.



In my opinion, the best developer to use for T-max is Kodak Xtol, painstakingly formulated by Silvia Zawadzki and Dick Dickerson at Kodak. Better yet, use Ilford FP4 or HP5 film and forget about flat-grain film. I see no advantage whatsoever in any flat-grain film over cubic grain, not even cost.



John Sexton once remarked (probably more than once), that we speak with our pocketbooks. He was referring to the fact that he did not have any RC paper in his darkroom. In the greatly reduced film market if we don't purchase flat-grain films (Delta, T-max, and Acros) then perhaps Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji will put their efforts into cubic grain film.



It could happen.
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
markbau
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 9:47 pm

Fat Grain

Post by markbau »

Thanks Steve for the great explanation of TMax, I tried it when it first hit the market and although I couldn't put my finger on it, I just didn't like how it printed, I know this isn't a technical description but I always found the mid tones did not have the separation I like. I went back to Tri X and FP 4. When I discovered PMK I was hooked particularly when I also started using Verichrome Pan which was my standard combo until Verichrome was discontinued. After reading your posts on TMax I can now for say, it wasn't just me that didn't like it.
User avatar
sanchell
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Fat Grain

Post by sanchell »

Verichrome Pan was my favorite film as well, and in my opinion, the last great b/w film made by Eastman. The grain was moderate but depending on the choice of developer you could create extremely sharp-edged images or you could enhance the grain effect of graininess. It had a long scale tonal range with great separation in the midtones. It responded really well to ABC pyro, which I continued to use for many years.



You will note that it was 100% cubic and was discontinued when flat grain appeared in Plus-X (which was later discontinued).
Do it in the Dark,



Steve Anchell
Post Reply