# Is this reticulation?



## jeremyh1988 (Aug 27, 2015)

I posted this on another forum and was told that it was reticulation but am wanting other opinion since it's a modern film and have read that it's uncommon on modern films. The film is tri-x if it helps.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=945006478880287&l=6cfd9a4c01


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2015)

YES!!! And it's a beautiful example of reticulation. It can be induced by getting the film pretty warm during the washing cycle...I know...I have done it myself that way on a handful of occasions in a darkroom that had a very bad temperature regulating system. I reticulated Tri-X 35mm film by accident when my film washer's wash water temp got away from me and got pretty hot.

As I recall, a suggested way to reticulate film is to soak the film in a relatively "hot" water bath for a few minutes, and then as I recall, dunking it into iced water. Seems like I read that recipe in one of the John Hedgecoe books some 30 odd years ago.


----------



## Dave442 (Aug 27, 2015)

It does have the crackling look so it might be reticulation. Never tried to do this myself. Did you develop the film?


----------



## jeremyh1988 (Aug 27, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> It does have the crackling look so it might be reticulation. Never tried to do this myself. Did you develop the film?



Yes, I develop myself and keep temp pretty consistent but turned hot on for final rinse by mistake and turned my back to pick up and noticed steam and abruptly turned water off.


----------



## Dave442 (Aug 27, 2015)

jeremyh1988 said:


> ...but turned hot on for final rinse by mistake...



At least if you ever want to do it again you now know the process.


----------



## jeremyh1988 (Aug 27, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> jeremyh1988 said:
> 
> 
> > ...but turned hot on for final rinse by mistake...
> ...



After being told that it was reticulation I did some research and found that it was a popular technique at one time, really not sure if I like the way it looks. Although I must admit the pattern is interesting.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2015)

jeremyh1988 said:


> Dave442 said:
> 
> 
> > jeremyh1988 said:
> ...



Yes, at one time it was considered a cool special effects method. I've seen it done on some landscapes, and on some nude studies, and the effect was pretty good on *large prints*. Of course, these days, so many images are viewed SMALL, on computer screens, so it's not that big an image, and the effect is probably minimized.


----------



## jeremyh1988 (Aug 27, 2015)

Derrel said:


> jeremyh1988 said:
> 
> 
> > Dave442 said:
> ...



My only real problem with the effect on these images is that I was planning on printing a few of them


----------



## Derrel (Aug 27, 2015)

Well--that's a good thing! Print them! Call them artistic interpretations.


----------

