Kirk Keyes
18-Jun-2004, 11:04
Richard Knoppow wrote in the ViewCamera.com posting recently, "The idea that the stain image masks grain is probably not true although widely believed."
Sandy King wrote in another thread here, "[...] in my opinion he is just dead wrong on this subject. Anyone who has experimented with pyrogallol and pyrocatechin developers in non-staining formulas knows for fact certain that the appearance of grain is much less in staining developers than when these reducers are used in non-staining formulas."
We all know that some of the optical density of a stained negative is from the stain and some of the optical density is from grain. Perhaps this lack of the appearant graininess of stained negatives is not because of some sort of "stain image masking" the grain, but simply that there is less actual grain in a stained negative than a nonstained one. Since there is less grain producing the density, the image is less grainy appearing.
The staining developer may also produce silver grains that are actually smaller, since we don't have to develope the silver grains as much to generate optical density since the stain is silmutaneously producing it. This could produce grains that are actually smaller which would help the illusion that the grain is being "masked".
Nothing magical, just simple optics and chemistry.
Any comments?
Sandy King wrote in another thread here, "[...] in my opinion he is just dead wrong on this subject. Anyone who has experimented with pyrogallol and pyrocatechin developers in non-staining formulas knows for fact certain that the appearance of grain is much less in staining developers than when these reducers are used in non-staining formulas."
We all know that some of the optical density of a stained negative is from the stain and some of the optical density is from grain. Perhaps this lack of the appearant graininess of stained negatives is not because of some sort of "stain image masking" the grain, but simply that there is less actual grain in a stained negative than a nonstained one. Since there is less grain producing the density, the image is less grainy appearing.
The staining developer may also produce silver grains that are actually smaller, since we don't have to develope the silver grains as much to generate optical density since the stain is silmutaneously producing it. This could produce grains that are actually smaller which would help the illusion that the grain is being "masked".
Nothing magical, just simple optics and chemistry.
Any comments?