Slower Film = Finer Grain?

We always hear read, in every book, that "slower film means finer grain," but,

I wonder to what extent this is true. Before I go any further, let me

acknowledge that grain is hardly the only, or even the most, important aspect

of a film: with B&W, tonality is likely most crucial; with color, it's probably

color rendition. That said, grain is certainly something a photographer

considers, and, as it can be quantified to a meaningful degree, it's an aspect

of their product that manufacturers can boast about. Of course, expectations

change over time, and we grasp that to-day's (2007's) 100-speed print film will

possess far finer grain that of the 1980s. Within to-day, however, will Pan F

Plus (ASA 50) really have finer grain than Ilford Professional 100? The

former's a whole stop slower, but the latter uses tabular grain. Sharpness,

tonality, saturation, etc., also affect how grainy a film will look. So, I've

put the question to you...

Lots of variables,exposure,development,handling, subject. In most cases slower film means less grain, and the new Tabular grain looks finer still. Things that make grain look obvious are over-exposure,plain gray cloudless sky. I shoot almost all my B&W with tri-x ,and even some TMX 3200, and if you look at one of my photos any you are thinking grain, then I have not done my job as a photographer.

Pan-F+ has slightly finer grain than Delta 100.

Yeah, what Neal said. Delta is a color-dye based black and white, and color appears as a sharper grain.

 

Handling / storage will DRAMATICALLY change these aspects in black and white. Keep the film in your glovebox for a few summer days if you want a real high contrast.

Off topic, but...<p>

 

<i>"Delta is a color-dye based black and white"</i><p>

 

Really? I thought XP-2 was Ilford's only color-based B&W emulsion, but I could be wrong. I'm

pretty sure I've developed Delta 100 in Hc-110 about 10 years ago... Please correct me if I'm

mistaken.

Delta 100 is processed in standard B&W chemicals, not C41 chemicals. Delta 100 is Core-shell crystal technology according to <a href=http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=8&t=Consumer+%26+Professional+Films> Ilford </a>.

What's the question again?

 

Keith

"Yeah, what Neal said. Delta is a color-dye based black and white, and color appears as a sharper grain."

 

Handling / storage will DRAMATICALLY change these aspects in black and white. Keep the film in your glovebox for a few summer days if you want a real high contrast."

 

This post contains information that is 100% incorrect...every last sentence.

 

1. Delta is as much of a black and white film as any black and white film is. XP2 and BW400CN are color films without the standard three colors of dye used in standard color film. The silver is still bleached into invisibility.

 

2. Color does not have finer grain...it has NO grain whatsoever, as it is bleached, leaving nothing but dye. Sure, the dye displays the characteristics of the silver to which it was attached, but to say that it has "finer grain" is incorrect.

 

3. Handling/storage will not affect b/w film anywhere near as much as it will affect color film. The poster made it seem as is b/w is more sensitive.

 

4. Storage in your glove box for a few summer days will likely lower contrast IF anything with black and white. It mostly just increases your FBF and slows the film, which will cause underexposure.

 

Keith

Grain, is caused by spacing of the random silver halide crystals within an emulsion. The closer they are spaced, the slower the film and the finer the grain is.

 

 

Films that don't have random grainular distribution, (T-Max/ Delta)appear to have finer grain because of the stacked uniformity of the grain.

Arjun - You need context for your question. How much do you plan to enlarge? Many films may be fine enough for particular uses. And all choices require trade-offs. If you are really worried about grain, then perhaps you should shoot larger formats.

All the truth that is fit to print?

 

Kodak uses the work grain in its technical bulletins when describing the pattern of dye clumps or spots on the surface of its color film. They also use a ?Print Grain Index number? to describe the appearance of grain on their prints.

 

So what is a grain? Is it a three-dimensional object, like a grain of rice, sugar or salt? Who is the final determiner of what a grain is, in science, or more particularly in photography? Should it be black and white enthusiasts? Should it be color film users? Should it be the great unwashed public? Should it be the once-mighty Kodak that used to make some of the best films in the world?

 

Even dye has mass and therefore a three-dimensional shape, albeit very shallow. It would seem for American common useage in black and white film, a grain is a three-dimensional piece of silver, oxidized or not. In color film, it seems as though a grain is a spot of dye. To a cement mason, grain is a piece of sand, but oddly enough, not a piece of Portland cement.

 

So what is grain?

I, too, believe Ilford's Delta 100 Professional is a "standard," albeit T-Grain, black-and-white film. It's not meant to be developed using the C-41 process.

 

Steve, that's the question,: Would a T-Grain film, such as Kodak's T-Max 100, appear to be less grainy than a very slow film (for instance, Efke 25) that uses a more "traditional" emulsion? Of course, everything ? tonality, sharpness ? will all be affected by switching from one film to another (or even from one batch of a film to another batch), but we're really just focusing (ha, ha) on grain here.

 

Robert, this is more a question raised to explore the topic than to be of practical benefit to me. Personally, grain's not my biggest concern in a film, be it B&W or color: I'm more insistent upon sharpness (for each), tonality (for B&W), and color rendition (for color).

 

Thanks, Tom... :-D.

 

Has anyone here used Kodak's now extinct Technical Pan? It's famed for its fine grain (and greater sensitivity to red light); I wonder how it compares with Efke 25. As I said, earlier, then, I wonder how Efke 25 compares with a T-Grain emulsion.

Hello Arjun,

 

England's Practical Photography, October 1999, page 103- 105 showed the results of small cuts from 35mm B&W films. Technical Pan was far and away the finest grained sharpest film in the test. Nothing else was even close. The only other ISO 25 film was Agfapan which came in second. Kodak T-Max Pro was the worst of the eight 100 ISO or less films. That surprised me, but the results were in front of my eyes.

 

Most magazines give/gave their "opinion" of the product. Back then, Practical Photography actually showed the results.

 

Today, Adox Bluefire "Police" film is the sharpest and smallest grained B&W film I know of. See:

 

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/gallery-extreme-Enlargement.htm

 

to see for yourself.

Thanks. Hey, what about Rollei Pan 25? Isn't that supposed to rival Tech Pan's fine grain and high sharpness? I might just pick up a roll of Bluefire Police... too bad B&H doesn't stock it: upward of $6.00 for one 24-exp. roll is a lot to ask.

<i>We always hear read, in every book, that "slower film means finer grain," but, I wonder to what extent this is true.</i>

 

<p>For color negative film, the answer is "not necessarily." Kodak's 400UC (ISO 400) has finer grain than their Gold 100 and Gold 200. I don't really understand the reason for that, since the two Gold films are supposed to be new emulsions. Slower film <i>usually</i> has finer grain than faster film, but there are exceptions.

I have shot 10 120 rolls of it in the past week (half normal, half tweaked) because I was looking for an ultra contrasty film, and it was suggested. I just did all my processing and proofs the other day, and made some 11x14 prints today. Well, as normal, it does not fit the "super contrasty" description, but I can see getting a lot of use out of it. For ultra contrast, I find that Efke 25, 50, and 100, and especially Ilford Pan F are the best, and FP4 is not far behind. I am impressed by it.

 

I am discovering that Rollei Pan 25 is like the Tri-X of low-speed films. It is very low contrast for a low-speed film, which is unusual. It seems able to retain high amounts of detail on both ends of the tone scale. You can easily manipulate it to tweak the contrast. It has great exposure latitude. It seems to respond great to different developers. (I have tried three: HC-110, D-76, and Ilford Multigrade paper developer) It is not finicky like Delta and T-Max, which I find to be relatively unpliable compared to standard b/w films. Underexposed two stops and developed in paper developer, the prints ended up very gritty looking and charcoal-like, like tri-X or Delta 3200, but without the visible grain, and was very sharp. Downrated it gave a beautiful high-toned look with plenty of detail and beautiful minute tonal separations.

 

I have not done the actual testing yet, but I get the feeling that this film is quite a bit faster than box speed.

 

In short, it may not float your boat, but it is definitely worth messing with.

 

Keith

Thank you, Keith; I might go ahead and drop the cash on a roll of Rollei 25 Pan.

Les Sarile...

 

May I thank you for your website. I find it a good source of reference.