What's your go-to when you want pronounced grain on BW sheet film?

[StrangleMeRandy]

I like grain, which is partly why my 120 Tri-X gets Rodinal. Tri-X 320 sheets are another beast - still good in Rodinal, albeit with relatively mild grain, as you might expect.

Do you like grain? What's your secret to getting nice and not-too-subtle grain in your sheets, preferably when shooting within a stop of box speed?

[xkaes]

Royal-X Pan -- not to be confused with Kodak Royal Pan.

ASA 1250. Comparable to Kodak 2475 Recording film in grain.

247688

[paulbarden]

Fomapan 400

[Michael R]

Make huge prints I guess.

[Mark Sampson]

Sadly, Royal-X Pan has been discontinued for at least 30 years. Maybe try paper developer- it's more active than a film developer and will likely give you more grain along with its increased contrast.

[Peter De Smidt]

Fomapan 400 + Rodinal, pushed a stop.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'm not into grain, but if I were, I think I'd try temperature-shock reticulation.

[Drew Wiley]

Modern thin emulsion films don't reticulate well, at least without the emulsion lifting clear off. You need another extinct film, Super XX, to do that well. But the look is quite different from pronounced grain per se.

[revdoc]

Most people think that pushing film is the way to go, but that's not a good approach.

The short version: choose the grainiest film you can, overexpose, overdevelop, and print on the highest grade possible.

When I say overexpose, I mean by at least 2 or 3 stops. By all means use a print developer to develop. You want a very dense, preferably flat negative you can print on grade 4 or 5.

Though I'm not sure why you want to do this with sheet film. That seems like doing it the hard way.

[xkaes]

or used a grain texture screen in the enlarger -- extensively discussed in a similar, recent thread.

Another option is to use use smaller format, such as the half-frame Pen F.

[StrangleMeRandy]

Royal-X Pan -- not to be confused with Kodak Royal Pan.

ASA 1250. Comparable to Kodak 2475 Recording film in grain.

247688

If only! I love 2475, the only roll I've been able to shoot did not age well. I will keep my eyes peeled for these but they seem quite rare...


Sadly, Royal-X Pan has been discontinued for at least 30 years. Maybe try paper developer- it's more active than a film developer and will likely give you more grain along with its increased contrast.

I do like the results a guy I know gets with Dektol... I'll have to pick his brain on that!


Fomapan 400


Fomapan 400 + Rodinal, pushed a stop.

Foma seems like a likely solution! I got a box of 200 from Fotoimpex last year, but they sent me 13x18cm rather than 5x7 :( Still gotta get the right holder, but more film would be cheaper, and 400 is of course grainier than 200.


Most people think that pushing film is the way to go, but that's not a good approach.

The short version: choose the grainiest film you can, overexpose, overdevelop, and print on the highest grade possible.

When I say overexpose, I mean by at least 2 or 3 stops. By all means use a print developer to develop. You want a very dense, preferably flat negative you can print on grade 4 or 5.

Though I'm not sure why you want to do this with sheet film. That seems like doing it the hard way.

I haven't really played with significant under/overexposure or over/underdevelopment on my sheet film yet, and I would like to get grain while preserving "normal" tonality.


or used a grain texture screen in the enlarger -- recently discussed on a similar, recent thread.

Another option is to use use smaller format, such as the half-frame Pen F.

I'm not looking to get grain for grain's sake, just to get more grain in my negatives when the situation calls for it. I do prefer to get that right in camera and in development, so I have the negative I want, as opposed to editing to get a similar effect.

Reticulation, drastic pushing/pulling, and smaller formats don't appeal to me in this case - I'm looking to change a specific variable, not several.

I should also note that my current end products for LF are contact cyanotypes and scans.

[jp]

Caffenol seemed to make the grain pronounced when I tried it a decade or so ago with Efke 50 film which should not have grain.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't you have it backwards, Revdoc? If you both drastically overexpose and overdevelop, you end up with an almost unprintably dense negative except perhaps on the very lowest paper grades. In any event, the highlights will be blown completely out. I don't think that is what is in mind.

[interneg]

Don't you have it backwards, Revdoc? If you both drastically overexpose and overdevelop, you end up with an almost unprintably dense negative except perhaps on the very lowest paper grades. In any event, the highlights will be blown completely out. I don't think that is what is in mind.

That's quite a denial of the methodology that Ralph Gibson used for decades, and which actually works to produce intense grain.

It just requires a bit of creatively applied understanding of the practical misuses of sensitometry for aesthetic outcomes.

[revdoc]

Don't you have it backwards, Revdoc? If you both drastically overexpose and overdevelop, you end up with an almost unprintably dense negative except perhaps on the very lowest paper grades. In any event, the highlights will be blown completely out. I don't think that is what is in mind.

It's what others have done (Ralph Gibson, in particular). The results do tend to be hard to print, based on my own experience, but you maximise grain. Using a film with a definite shoulder helps with printing, but you're working against what the materials are designed to do, so you shouldn't expect a smooth ride.

[jnantz]

Don't you have it backwards, Revdoc? If you both drastically overexpose and overdevelop, you end up with an almost unprintably dense negative except perhaps on the very lowest paper grades. In any event, the highlights will be blown completely out. I don't think that is what is in mind.

Hi Drew
bullet proof negative that you can't see through are like a holiday gift. they print beautifully with a 300W bulb on RC paper exposed for about 15 seconds or whatever ... nothing's blown out, full tonality, beautiful grain, no filtration necessary. I say holiday gift because you have no idea what you are printing until it's unwrapped, I mean printed.


Caffenol seemed to make the grain pronounced when I tried it a decade or so ago with Efke 50 film which should not have grain.


Hi Jason - I agree, but ... not always --- it depends on the coffee used, the water content of the carbonate and age of the vit c ...
I don't use recipes with fancy names or salt &c just plain old teaspoons .. sometimes it can be like D76 ..


Sadly, Royal-X Pan has been discontinued for at least 30 years. Maybe try paper developer- it's more active than a film developer and will likely give you more grain along with its increased contrast.

Hi Mark

I've never gotten increased grain with print developer ( I've used GAF Universal, D72, Dektol, Ansco130, Ansco 125 and something called Black Sand). contrast yes, if not dilute enough or processed too fast ... I've been developing in those print developers since around 1993, thousands of rolls and sheets ...

[domaz]

Ilford Delta 3200 in a roll film back. Ok cheating, but it's the best currently on the market for this.

[Mark Sampson]

John, I was speaking speculatively out of ignorance. Thanks for sharing your experience... I got into LF long ago partly because of the lack of grain (and the increased detail and beautiful tonality) found in a LF image. But I have nothing against grain- certainly I've used miles of 35mm Tri-X, and my last 35mm project was shooting musicians in my local bar; that called for TMZ-3200. I really don't know what the OP will do beyond experiment here... would be interesting to see what they think is a good result.

[tundra]

I like grain, which is partly why my 120 Tri-X gets Rodinal. Tri-X 320 sheets are another beast - still good in Rodinal, albeit with relatively mild grain, as you might expect.

Do you like grain? What's your secret to getting nice and not-too-subtle grain in your sheets, preferably when shooting within a stop of box speed?

If you want to really rock 35mm and 120 grain, develop in D-23 1+9, add 0.5g/l of lye (sodium hydroxide) and semistand develop it for an hour ...

Here's 35mm done that way. Scan of silver print:

https://www.tundraware.com/Photography/Gallery/Silver/media/large/20230608-1-12-Tickets.jpg

That was shot on Double-X. I'd imagine the same thing on Tri-X would be even grainier.

Most developers will crank up grain (increased acutance) if you dilute them sufficiently, but you have to make sure the resulting solution has enough alkalinity to do the job fully.

[jnantz]

John, I was speaking speculatively out of ignorance. Thanks for sharing your experience... I got into LF long ago partly because of the lack of grain (and the increased detail and beautiful tonality) found in a LF image. But I have nothing against grain- certainly I've used miles of 35mm Tri-X, and my last 35mm project was shooting musicians in my local bar; that called for TMZ-3200. I really don't know what the OP will do beyond experiment here... would be interesting to see what they think is a good result.
Hi Mark

Yum, TMZ+TX is delicious! That and photos of musicians in a local bar sounds like fun! If the end results were anything like the LF images u make they must be beautiful!

No worries from me ( hope I didn't come off that way ) - you're not alone, most people think golf ball grain with print dev ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ , but using print dev for film is a surprisingly a great situation (fine grain, nice tonality nice contrast ) if u can tailor it to your needs ( and it gives you what you want ). I latched onto it by mistake. Long story short I was broke :) … and I noticed an old red can of GAF was on the windowsill at a place I was renting so I threw caution to the wind, mixed up all 5gallons and followed the vague instructions on the can. Sadly all good things come to an end …and after that hot summer of 93' I could never find it again …. In my desperate search I bought a PDI and researched and was told it was / might be A 130 by a friend: it wasn’t but it worked too :) ... and when glycin got too spendy for me I did it with D72 (like ansco125 they seemed to be kissing cousins) ……. Always feeding the dang monkey on my back:). Eventually I really needed to stay awake and that lead to my caffenol addiction but that’s a different thread lol..
keep having fun :)
John
Ps. I know this is the wrong, thread, wrong format site but have you published the music-work? I’m terrible at that sort of photography , and I am always blown away at people who do it and make it look ez, reminds me what a novice I am :)