Fine Grain Developer

[neleen]

Question on alternative development of B&W film to improve grain and

resolution. How much would it be improved in case of use special

developer (instead of D76 or D11)? Any web resources on this? Maybe

some numbers (not just - yeah it's better). Thanks!

[randall ellis]

I don't really think you could say anything that wasn't d-76 or ID-11 is alternative development, but there are any number of options out there. Grain and resolution can be complex concepts and 'better' is most certaily subjective. I would strongly suggest that if you really want to understand the different developers, as well as things like acutance, grain, apparent sharpness, macro and micro contrast, etc. that you get a copy of the Film Development Cookbook. It will cover the different developers and the results that you can expect from them in detail - certainly more than most people are going to be willing to type in a post.

 

As for online resources, a search on this site alone will result in a few days worth of reading. You might also consider going to the manufacturers web sites and reading the material they provide on their products - I know that both Kodak and Ilford have good information on all of their developers.

 

- Randy

[neleen]

What I'm looking is only resolution improvement.... it is probably good to spend tons of time on reading all mentioned books.... But my questions is simple - how much (in %) improvement I get if I use microfine (for example) developer instead of D76? Shadows, contrast and other things I can improve digitaly later.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Vladimir,

 

Finer grain and higher sharpness are to a considerable extent mutually exclusive: for a given film, finer grain = lower sharpness and higher sharpness = coarser grain.

 

'Resolution' is a cocktail of sharpness and grain, both of which are affected by exposure and development. Less exposure = finer grain and higher sharpness but (alas) a tonality you may not like and ultimately some loss of shadow detail.

 

Finer grain also = lower speed.

 

So your question is asking too much of any one developer...

 

You might care to look at some of the free modules in the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com for more about some of these topics.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[neleen]

Sorry Roger, it does not make sense to me.... especially after reading description on Ilford Perceptol developer http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/pp/Developing_Chemicals/Black_And_White_Film_Developers/Ilford_Perceptol_Powder,_1_litre.html

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Vladimir,

 

Well, there are now two possibilities. You can research the matter further and see who is right, me or the advertiser, or you can try it, preferably with a super-sharp film.I'd recommend Delta 100, which is sharper than Pan F though not so fine grained.

 

The thing is, 'resolution' is (as I said) a cocktail of grain and sharpness (acutance) so you have to decide what balance to go for. I do not think that anyone who understands the subject would argue very much with what I said in the original post.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Vladimir,

 

Sorry, that may have sounded a bit abrupt. It wasn't meant to be. I'm just not sure what to say next.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[klix]

Vladimir - the text that might be confusing is:

 

"...negatives developed in Perceptol are capable of producing sharper and better quality enlargements that those produced using a standard fine grain developer...."

 

What it is saying is that Perceptol is sharper compared to OTHER FINE GRAIN DEVELOPERS...

 

It's really analogous to a scale, where "0" is fine grain and "10" is ultra sharp (albeit w/ grain). Granted, this is over-simplification, since there are many factors, such as exposure, agitation, etc...

 

If we use this scale in your examples, ID-11/D76 may be at 2, while Perceptol may be at 3 -- sharper, but not quite a "10" on the scale.

 

Most of us find a happy medium in that scale -- I, for one, like Delta 100 in XTOL 1+1 or 1+2.

 

KL

[scott_walton2]

Vlad, There are 2 ways of looking at this essentially. Finer grain is one thing but higher resolution is different. I used to think that I wanted ultra fine grain. When I was in the mode of testing heavily, I found that using a developer like Divided D76, gave me extremely fine grain... 50% more than regular D76 1:1! I thought I was in heaven until I started testing a different class of developers know as "solvent type developers" or high acutace developers! When doing a side by side comparison of 11x14 prints, the results were astounding. A simple test for you is to do a "clip" type test. I know that I get finer grain with Divided D76 and Divided D23 but put the shot's next to each other (you would put your D76 developed negs next to the same scene, shot on the same film) with film developed in say, Diafine or Crawley's (which is even higher acutance), you will be astounded.

I felt, in my opinion, that the "finer grain" turned out soft and mushy albeit sharp (which may not make sense at all now.... but it will) but the Diafine and Crawley's FX were very sharp with wonderful edge sharpness to the fine grain that really made a print sign.

I typically shoot 4x5 with preferences to the silver rich films like Ektapan, TXP, Agfapan 100 & 400 and Ilford HP5+ (but not as often because of the difference in Ilfords grain pattern). You will be hard pressed to see the differences I'm talking about with pictures on the web but here is a link to a gallery of mine. The one image was taken with TXP and souped in Diafine...

http://unblinkingeye.com/Photographs/Gallery/SWalton/SWalton5/swalton5.html

The previous image was taken with a med format APX 100 (as I recall) with Diafine also.

[pics]

Its easy to confuse the terms sharpness and resolution because the terms are used in an interchangable way even if they don't necessarily mean the same thing. Resoluion refers to the amount of detail that can be recorded on a piece of film. Think lines per mm and line charts. Resolution goes hand in hand with fine grain so a fine grained film developed in a fine grain developer is the method used to acheive negatives of the highest resolution.

 

On the other hand, acutance and sharpness refers to how well defined this detail is recorded on the piece of film. This generally refers to edge effects and the visual perception of well defined detail. This is where it gets interesting. Although fine grain films developed in undiluted fine grain developers achieve the highest resolution, many people feel that this is not the best way to get prints that actually look sharp. Fine grain developers dissove grain to increase resolution but the detail is not well defined and in all reality the actual image can often look less sharp than one developed for high acutance. It all depends on your goals. Are you more concerned with how many lines your negatives can resolve or are you interested in how sharp the print will actually look. Of course it depends to a degree on the film format and the enlargement size but overall I don't think resolution and fine grain are benchmarks for a good negative and I'm not refering to the "grain as art" philosophy. Check out the Film Developer's Cookbook and Barry Thornton's "Edge of Darkness." Both provide a loads of information on why negatives that make for sharp prints have little to do with negatives that excell in line resolving tests.

[terence_spross1]

Descriptions of developers by the manufacturers do not tell the full story (even though there may be other publications by the same company that do go into extreme detail about the compromises that a specific developer formulation has.) For example the brief description on Kodak developer packages tend to emphasise the positive characteristics of the prodoct but they have published books that tell much more about the tradoffs involved.

 

D76 is a tried and true developer that many photographers use exclusively as it is easy to mix and work with and has a long shelf life.

 

However, in my limited experience, (I've used only a few Kodak emulsions and a few developers - but I've read a lot) I would tend to say that grain size could be reduced by 50% with a change in developer, but tonality and resolution may be unacceptable to you.

 

Perceptol may increase accutance and reduce grain size by 8 to 15% compared to ID11 or D76, but the trade off may be cost and shelf life.

As mentioned before each film may react somewhat different. As mentioned in the Illford spec sheet you give up some effective film speed. Process temperature control may also be more important.

 

If there were a developer that had better all around characteristics it would have replaced D76 a long time ago as the mainstream developer most people use.

[pics]

Also, keep in mind that its not so simple to label a developer as being just a "fine grain" type. Perceptol, D-76 and ID-11 can all produce fine grain and high resolution at stock strength or even 1:1. When used in higher dilutions they lose their fine grain/solvent properties and become high acutance/high definition developers at the cost of a slight increase in grain. Most fine grain developers use sodium sulphite to dissolve grain. At high dilutions, the sodium sulphite is reduced to non workable levels. IMO this is where these developers shine.

[jay_de_fehr]

Vladimir,

 

I think you're getting a lot of misinformed and self contradictory advice because many people confuse the terminology, and others seem to ignore the fact that you intend to print digitally, which allows you to control sharpness to a great extent. Your goals of finer grain and improved resolution are not mutually exclusive, but complimentary. Most commercially available fine grain developers rely on the solvent action of sodium sulfite for their effect, work at a relatively low pH, and sacrifice film speed (about 1 stop +/-), which presents a dilemma; should you use a fast film with a fine grain developer, like Microdol-X, or a slow film in a general purpose developer, like Xtol/D-76? The answer, I think is more a matter of taste than of practicality. For specific numbers, go to Kodak's website and look at the RMS Granularity and resolution figures for various flm/developer combinations. You'll find Tmax 100 the clear winner in both categories, but might be surprised to learn that Tmax 400 is about as grainy as Plus-X, with better resolution.

 

For my work, I use Tmax 400 (TMY) and develop in my own super-fine grain brew that bears no resemblance in either formulation or performance to commercially available fine grain developers. I have no way to quantify the granularity of my film, but for all practical purposes, grain is non-existant, resolution is pushing what even the best 35mm glass can resolve, and my film scans beautifully. I know that doesn't help you, but I do have some experience in the area you're investigating, and thought I'd share my own approach to the problem.

 

For super-fine grain, the most film speed you're likely to get with any available developer will be in the EI 160-200 range, using a 400 speed film like TMY or Delta 400. For still finer grain, you'll have to go to a 100 speed film like Tmax 100/Delta 100, and film speeds in the EI 32-50 range.

 

In the end, these are just numbers, and the fine qualities of any combination you'll have to judge for yourself. Good luck.

 

Jay<div></div>

[bruce_watson1]

Vladimir,

<p>

By now you can tell that your simple question has a very complex and nuanced answer. People have been pursuing this since photography began. There are huge books about the relationship beteen film and developer (Haist's two volume set <i>Moderern Photographic Processing</i> comes to mind).

<p>

An early responder to your question suggested Anschell and Troop's <i>Film Development Cookbook.</i> I second that suggestion. It's a pretty good compliation of what is generally accepted. It's an easy read - you can read it in an evening and gain a decent understanding of what's going on with various developers.

<p>

But basically, solvent developers decrease graininess at the expense of acutance. Acutance developers increase acutance at the expense of graininess. In my experience (which will be different from yours, no question about it) the best "compromise" between graininess and acutance is XTOL at 1:3, in particular for fast films like Tri-X. But that's just an opinion, and everyone has one. You'll have to experiment some to find what works well for your particular needs.

[ivan_dzo]

Vladimir, Roger is totally right in what he says, but Jay is also correct, in that when scanning, sharpness can be recovered. Like you I scan monochrome and find that fine grain is the main thing. Not however using ultrfinegrain solvent developers like perceptol which has poor sharpness. Xtol 1+1 is about right, or I like the pmk/pyroHD type developers. Better than D76 but not by much. You may get on better by trying different dilutions/agitations/temperatures/gammas with D76 before moving on. Generally though, minimal exposure and development with a dilute solvent developer will give you the best resolution when scanning.

[pete_andrews10]

Vladimir: The grain of a film is closely linked to its speed, and any true fine grain developer is going to lose you film speed. So why not just use a slower, more fine-grained film to start with?

 

The only published genuine fine-grain formulae that I know of are all based on Para-phenylenediamine (PPD), or its derivatives. These developers are slow and soft working and will lose at least a stop off the film's speed. You could try using C41 colour developer, since that uses a PPD derived developing agent. It's something that I've been meaning to try for myself, but life's just too short.

 

Commercial fine-grain developers include Promicrol and Perceptol, both of which require an increase in exposure over D-76/ID-11. In my experience and IMHO the decrease in grain size is not that dramatic. In any case, not as dramatic, say, as the difference between a traditional film and a tabular grain film.

[aravind raman]

Nice shot Jay,

<p> I really would love to know the method of scanning!. I'm desperate to scan a few prints, which i have made, but every attempt is futile.

<p>

Thanks in advance,

Aravind

[jay_de_fehr]

Aravind,

 

thank you for the compliment. It's a 35mm film scan, using my cheapie Plustek OpticFilm 7200 scanner with Silverfast. A quick desaturation and levels adjustment and some dust spotting, and that's it. I tried scanning prints with a flatbed scanner, and could never get clean scans, so I went to the film scanner, which only works with 35mm film, but the scans are much better. Good luck.

 

Jay

[pics]

Aravind,

 

Scanning prints was very frustrating to me as well and my first attempts were horrible but I've developed a method that works reasonably well (for me) although it's obviously impossible to make a scan that portrays all of the fine qualities of the darkroom print itself. Elaborate scanners aren't necessary. I use a Canon 8400f ($130) Set the resolution to 75 dpi (anymore resolution makes uploading slower and it won't look any better on a monitor) The original scan is about 1200 pixels high by however wide (ratio dependent) From there I resize the image to about 400-420 pixels high and sharpen to correct the tendency for scanners to soften the image. Scanning also increses contrast with my setup so I usually turn the contrast down a few clicks. I also scan in full color because it beter renders the tonality of the actual print, especially if you use toners. Other than this, I find I don't really have to do much altering of the image and the scans are a reasonably good representation of the print itself. Like anything else it just takes a little practice.

[kirk_teetzel]

I've found that Perceptol at 1+3 gives me a very fine grain and a sharper image. Probably because the development times are longer than 1+0, which seems to reduce the grain even more, but gives a less "sharp", smoother appearance. Plus, at 1+3 it seems to let me keep my rated film speed instead of reducing it.

 

All grain was even less noticeable when, on my EPSON 3170, scanned as a 24bit Positive transparency and adjusted in Photoshop.