Highest resolution B&W film (+ dev) other than Tech Pan?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by bobatkins, May 17, 2001.

  1. I do quite a bit of lens testing and have recently been using Agfa APX25 - which is now impossible to find. Prior to that I had been using Tech Pan, but it's expensive, slow and a bit tricky to process so I'd like to find a more "conventional" film - plus a little extra speed wouldn't hurt!

    <p>

    Now APX25 is gone, what's the current highest resolution B&W film? I'm guessing Tmax 100 and/or Delta 100 would probably qualify. Kodak has some MTF and resolution data on their web site, but I can't find equivalent info on the Ilford site for Delta 100. From what I hear, Pan F+ has lower resolution than Delta 100 despite being a stop slower, but again I couldn't find any hard data on the Ilford site.
     
  2. None....
    It's a German product called Gigabit film that claims to have 3x
    bigger resolution than than Techpan and a better tonality.
    Just got my order delivered.
    It is rumoured that it is actually a Agfa microfilm, prepared for 35mm
    and 4x5 with a special developer.
    See their site:
    http://www.gigabitfilm.de/
     
  3. We've had quite a few people singing the praises of Gigabit film on
    this BB, but none of them actually seem to have used it! It all seems
    to go quiet once someone's used the stuff, and it would be nice to
    hear about real experience with this 'wonder film'. Better yet, it
    would be nice to see some results from it.<br>Any chance in the near
    future Marc?
     
  4. The following resolutions were given to me by Ilford Germany:

    <p>

    Pan F Plus 150 l/mm
    FP4 Plus 110 l/mm
    HP5 Plus 100 l/mm
    100 Delta Pro 160 l/mm
    Delta 400 Pro 145 l/mm
    Delta 3200 Pro 100 l/mm
    XP2 Super 110 l/mm
    SFX 200 80 l/mm

    <p>

    They apply to a contrast of 1:1000. Under practical conditions, expect
    to find half these values.

    <p>

    Ilford does not give these resolutions in technical documentation as
    they find they are not really useful for practical application.

    <p>

    I, too, cannot say I have tested Gigabitfilm yet, and I certainly
    won't for the time being, as it seems the film still has some
    problems. It is extremely sensitive to residues of surfactants
    (wetting agents) in the tank, and the comments from those who did test
    it are inconclusive. Whereas some say sharpness and tonal rendition
    are great, others state the either the negatives or the prints, or
    both, look real bad. So far, there has been one realistic test in a
    German B&W magazine that compared the film to Tech Pan and other
    high-resolution films, and it was the bottom line of this article that
    Gigabitfilm is far from being the revolution is resolution. To me, the
    examples of resolution test targets shot with Tech Pan and Gigabitfilm
    using the same Leica camera and lens showed no recognizable difference
    in resolution. Gigabitfilm is indeed Agfa Copex material, and all the
    proprietary stuff is in the developer. The film is developed to give
    really soft negatives. That, together with the fact that it's actually
    underexposed (so the author of the article claims) makes for the
    alleged overexposure tolerance.

    <p>

    If it's for resolution testing, you might be happy with a document
    film such as Cachet/Macophot Ort 25.

    <p>

    Regards,
    Thomas Wollstein
    (thomas_wollstein@web.de)
     
  5. Thanks for the info. Gigabit film does seem interesting but unproven
    so far. I haven't found any tech specs on european ISO 25 films and
    they are difficult to get in the US.

    <p>

    Kodak claim 200 lp/mm at 1000:1 contrast for Tmax 100 in D-76, which I
    think is their highest number other than for Tech Pan (320 lp/mm).
     
  6. Three years ago I ran comparison tests on a bunch of film/developer
    combinations, and found the following produced the "sharpest"
    negatives:
    1)Kodak T-Max 100 in Rodinal(1+50), 2)I couldn't tell the difference
    between the next four, so listed them alphabetically: Agfapan
    25/Rodinal, Ilford Delta 100/Rodinal, Ilford Pan F/Ilfosol, Kodak
    Tech Pan/Technidol, all followed closely by 3) Agfapan 100/Rodinal,
    Ilford XP2 super/C-41, Kodak T-Max 400/C-41, and finally: 4)T-Max
    100/T-Max. Nothing else came close to these. More recently, I have
    been developing Tech Pan in Diafine and get the sharpest negatives
    I've ever seen. But it's tricky, and the excess contrast is still a
    problem.
     
  7. There are a few high resolution microfilm available:
    <P> Fuji super HR at 800 lpmm

    <p> Agfa Rapid Copex
    <p> These films are no easy to get, as they are sold in quantity
    of 20 bulk roll box
    <p> People who used the Super HR have high praise for it.
     
  8. Fuji Super HR is very slow, EI 6 only
    <p> Another Fuji film, Fuji HR is faster.
     
  9. I believe on a practical level TMX and Delta 100 are pretty much equivalent. By "practical level" I mean that most likely other factors such as mechanical tolerances, focusing accuracy etc will make a far greater difference in results than any difference in RP between the two films.

    <p>

    I think Delta 100 may have a little higher acutance, but that's just my impression in pictorial usage; I haven't tried to test that in any way.
     
  10. Assuming Delta 100 and/or Tmax 100 are the highest resolution "normal"
    (i.e. easy to find and process) films, what would be the developer in
    which they would yield the best resolution?

    <p>

    The Ilford site suggests Ilfotec HC (which I think is the same as
    Kodak HC-110) for maximum sharpness, while the Kodak site gives
    resolution and MTF data for D-76 (I assume they'd pick whichever
    developer gave the best results). Elsewhere on the Ilford site
    however, they cite Infosol-S, ID11 and Microphen as givening higher
    sharpness than HC. I know sharpness does not equal resolution in a
    technical sense, but I'm still a bit uncertain as to what Ilford are
    saying here.

    <p>

    I note that Ilford don't recommend DD-X and Kodak don't give film
    resolution info for development in Tmax developer, so I assume these
    tabular grain developers don't yield the highest resolution (though
    they may give less grain and better tonal properties?).

    <p>

    Any comments?
     
  11. Kodak kodlith is very good for testing, although it is a bit slow.
    Postive aspect is it is orthochromic, so one can develop by
    inspection and stop development at the point of maximum. This comes
    in a 36 roll, but forgot the name. I had kodlith in a 100 foot roll.
     
  12. Both Microphen and DD-X are P/Q developers, which give a bit more graininess (and a little more speed) than P/Q developers such as D-76 and ID-11. Microphen and DD-X give higher acutance but it's at the expense of fineness of detail.

    <p>

    D-76 and ID-11 are, of course, old standards. I'd simply use either of them at 1:1. If you'd like to see if a lesser amount of sulfite affects the results, dilute them 1:3 and use about 1.5X the 1:1 development time. I think there's sort of a tradeoff between sulfite concentration and contact time in that if you reduce the concentration but have longer contact time results are pretty much the same.

    <p>

    I've read in a few places that Microdol-X 1:3 and Perceptol at a similarly-high dilution will give the highest RP, probably at the expense of acutance and speed, but I haven't messed with either of them in so long I have no idea.
     
  13. The advise given by John Hicks,in my opinion,is good advise. John
    seems tho have tried every film/developer combination going & has been
    kind enough to offer his findings to one & all.
    In another respect you could be chasing the Holy Grail as perfection
    using 35mm will be difficult if not impossible to obtain.
    We 35mm users can never expect to achieve the quality obtainable with
    4x5 or medium format; using 3 backs for expansion & contraction.
    I have found that Delta 100 developed in ID11 to be as good as I can
    achieve; but your results for many reasons; could differ from mine or
    anyone elses. Pick one of the easy to find respected films & try it in
    your choice of developer & try every combination of film speed,
    developer time & dilution that you can before moving to a different
    film or developer.
    Hope this helps, Melvin
     
  14. Oops..an error. D-76 and ID-11 are, of course, metol-hydroquinone (MQ) developers.
     
  15. APX 25 is still available in Australia. Would you like me to get you
    some
     
  16. I have tested two rolls of Agfa Copex Rapid rated at ASA 25 and developed with Shain & Parnter's SPUR Nanonspeed developer. <p>
    Copex + SPUR combination is sharper then Technical Pan, with sharp
    contour of finest detail. <p>
    Agfa Copex Rapid has a resolution of 600 lpmm at 1:1000
     
  17. The Adox CMS 20 II marketed by Fotoimpex is repackaged Agfa Copex Rapid AHU microfilm
     
  18. A film I remember from some years ago seems to be Kodak SO-253, which claims 1500l/mm at 1000:1. It is similar to the emulsion used on glass plates for holography, but in 35mm form. Good enough to store interference patterns from HeNe lasers.
     
  19. The resolution of Agfa Rapid Copex 120 blew me away, astounding. I stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hour. Next time I'll overexpose a half-stop. Freestyle Photo has plenty of Agfa Copex.
     
  20. Marc, to get the finest grain possible from Agfa Copex Rapid, use Spur HRX developer
    http://www.freestylephoto.biz/12039-Spur-HRX-Film-Developer-2x250ml
     
  21. Hello everyone. Seems this thread is one stop short of the forever machine. My personal best film for grain and sharpness, and handling without "special/expensive developer agents", currently is Retro 80s for 35mm and 120. It has an "honest" asa rating of 80 and it's spectrum sensitivity is very good to blue...one does not need an K2 or G filter to get believable sky values. The film is only limited by the quality of the lens. The only cavert is subdued light (deep shadows) for loading/unloading. I use 3ml of 510-Pyro @ 22m for wet printing scaled negs. Agfa Super Solinette 35mm, Pilot metering. Bill
    00dPap-557793784.jpg
     
  22. An example of the blue sky rendering. No filter, same roll as above. Bill
     
  23. Seems the system did not like that bit...so, again. No filter used. Bill
    00dPax-557793984.jpg
     
  24. I'm guessing Tmax 100 and/or Delta 100 would probably qualify.​
    Yes, excellent choices. Also, I found Acros to be quite fine too on the lines of TMX . But I'd like to point out that I have developed them in TMAX & D-76 (1-0,1-1), enlarged these suckers (35mm) and didn't notice any difference. So, take that in consideration as to the value of my opinion.
    Modern films (Acros, TMax, Delta) are so much better than the older films in terms of fine grain and resolution. Meaning, that ISO 25 old fashioned film is probably worse than the TMX, Delta 100 or Acros is terms of resolution - the TMY and Delta 400 might even better, too than the ISO 25. Kodak revamped their films as recently as ...'12?
     

Share This Page