which one has better grain size

[swatch]

which one has better grain size of below ( in final wet print )

1) ISO 100 film expose as EI 200 ( push )
2) ISO 400 film expose as EI 200 ( pull )

Thx
Vincent

 

[Pherdinand]

haha. that's a good one.

 

[Pherdinand]

Yeah. but WHICH iso100 against WHICH iso400? And in what developer..?

 

[Calzone]

Yeah. but WHICH iso100 against WHICH iso400? And in what developer..?

Acros 100 ISO 5+5 in Diafine with minimized aggitation (2 gentile aggitations per minute) has almost no grain.

Tri-X 800 ISO 3+3 in Diafine with same gentle aggition as above has almost no grain like Acros above. You need to A-B the films on a light table and use an 8x loupe to see that the Tri-X grain is slightly bigger.

Perhaps comparing apples to oranges because I use a 2X yellow filter with Tri-X so the effective film speed set on my ISO dial is 400 due to filter factor. Understand that with Acros I use no filter so the comparison is really what 400 ISO film can give me almost as fine grain as a 100 speed film. Know that Acros in Diafine processed as above displays almost no grain, and that Diafine is a two part compensating developer. My use of filters with Tri-X is to avoid thin negatives, and understand that I'm making negatives for specifically wet printing that likely might be too dense for scanning.

Cal

 

[Pherdinand]

yeah Diafine is nice for this, and in general there's no agitation needed for Diafine development... but you have no flexibility (you can't push/pull/change contrast)

 

[Highway 61]

It's fun when April 1st comes on July 13th.

 

[swatch]

Below films are available in city I live

Ilford Pan 100 ( smooth ... but I need one stop faster shutter )
Tri-X 400 ( grainy even at EI 200 )

Will try Ilford Pan 100 to expose it at EI 200 ... for developer ... well I need recommendation. Aim to have no grain or at least better than Tri-X at EI 200

Thx
Vincent

 

[philipus]

Acros 100 ISO 5+5 in Diafine with minimized aggitation (2 gentile aggitations per minute) has almost no grain.

Tri-X 800 ISO 3+3 in Diafine with same gentle aggition as above has almost no grain like Acros above.

Cal, will adding time like this really make a difference in Diafine? I'm just asking, being curious, as I have yet to develop my first roll in it.

br
Philip

 

[starless]

Depends what "better" means.

 

[Calzone]

Cal, will adding time like this really make a difference in Diafine? I'm just asking, being curious, as I have yet to develop my first roll in it.

br
Philip

Philip,

Above is what I do to make negatives for wet printing. My friends who scan need less dense negatives, and they shoot at slightly higher ISO's and use the same times and aggitation I use for negatives for wet printing for small grain and tonality.

The only time I extend times is using 7+4 for shooting Tri-X at 1250 ISO. I like this 7+4 over "Diafine-Times-Two," and it is less work with nicer results. Extending the time (development) increases grain to the point that it becomes pronounced. Interesting to note that because Diafine is a compensating developer that I still get mid-tones even though I'm pushing Tri-X to 1250 ISO.

Understand that my minimimizing aggitation is really means underdevelopment to get the fine grain; I'm overexposing for added shadow detail; my underaggitating limits contrast to retain the mids; and because Diafine has a profound compensating effect the highlights kinda only developed till the Part "A" is exhausted like in stand development.

The results are detailed fine grain negatives with a long tonal scale with lots of midrange that more or less can be just straight printed. My approach is to make negatives like someone who shoots large format for contact printing even though I'm shooting small and medium format. My negatives are optimized for straight printing on a single grade 2 contrast paper (fiber) on an enlarger that has a condenser and at exhibition sizes meaning trying to print big as possible.

BTW the difference between 3 aggitations per minute and 2 aggitations per minute is kinda big as far as grain and tonality, but understand that the results are still fine grained and not so broad a midrange with the added inversion. If you want the smallest grain and the broadest midrange use the 2 inversions. If you want more shadow detail and a tiny bit more contrast with less midrange use 3 inversions. I would not increase time, but you can advance or decrease development by your aggitation method.

Short development times are your friend if you like high IQ/fine grain.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Depends what "better" means.

Agreed. Grain can be pretty BTW.

Cal

 

[swatch]

Hi Cal

What does Acros 100 ISO 5+5 Diafine means?

The developer I have is HC110

Thx
Vincent

 

[Roger Hicks]

Slow film, pushed, will always give finer grain for a given grain technology: Delta 100 is very much finer grained than FP4 but has a different tonality. Less agitation gives finer grain but also lower speed. Same for shorter dev times. These are not just my opinions: Ilford agrees.

True ISO of Delta 100 in Ilford DD-X is well above 100 but (of course) grain is bigger than with finer-grain devs.

Most compensating/2 bath devs are not especially fine grain and if they are genuinely compensating (any aren't) they tend to compress the mid tones.

But don't worry. Most people see only what they want to see anyway.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ronw]

Hi Cal

What does Acros 100 ISO 5+5 Diafine means?

The developer I have is HC110

Thx
Vincent

I believe that refers to shooting Acros 100 in Diafine 5 min in developer A and 5 min in developer B. In Diafine, the side of the box gives recommended EI ratings for selected films and recommends Acros be exposed at EI 320.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . I don't know where people come up with agitation=grain. It just isn't so.. . .

Dear Ned,

More development = bigger grain.

More agitation = more development (and fractionally more speed for a given contrast).

More speed = more grain.

Of course you could reduce the development time to compensate for the increased agitation. This would reduce grain size again...

This ain't just my opinion, or internet tattle: it's a distillation of conversations held with quite a lot of people who know what they are talking about, including film manufacturers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[swatch]

This is a great forum and I would like to thank you for members's input

grain size ... it is still more fine to push ISO 100 to EI 200 than to pull ISO 400 to EI 200. Contrast do increase accordingly.

Examples are using Ilford Pan 100 EI 200 and developer is HC 110 B dilution 7-1/2 minutes
000286320030 by YEEKWONG LO, 於 Flickr


000286330036 by YEEKWONG LO, 於 Flickr

000286330030 by YEEKWONG LO, 於 Flickr

000286330017 by YEEKWONG LO, 於 Flickr

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...( in final wet print )

Vincent, those looks like negs scans, not wet prints scans.
You need to turn off over sharpening it makes it looks crappy.

Contrast is adjustable on negs scans, wet prints and scans of wet prints if you do 400 @200.
100 @200 for me gives something I don't like on scans. But I'd raver wet print.

Don't worry about grain on wet prints. Do not over-process scans as you did.

Do print and scan.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[Ranchu]

They look good to me. Nice shots!

🙂

 

[swatch]

Hi Ko.Fe

Agree the contrast is too high during scan ... making overall look less pleasing

A lab do the scan for my self-develop roll of film ... will do wet print by renting a darkroom to check out the image quality as print is final product I am after

Thx
Vincent

 

[Ko.Fe.]

... will do wet print by renting a darkroom to check out the image quality as print is final product I am after

Thx
Vincent

My respect to Vincent!