less and less silver on newer films...

what exactly does that mean practically?

 

thankss

It's the song of the paranoid who thinks they keep using less and less silver to save money.

In theory films that have less silver have less micro contrast (less tonal range), but more macro contrast (highlights blow out easier). Using less silver also tends to make overall (macro) contrast more sensitive to variations in processing (time, temperature, agitation, etc.), thus more careful processing is required to achieve consistency.

 

On the plus side, the grain is usually finer or less noticeable, and the resolution �may be� higher with films that have less silver. Kodak T-Max and Ilford Delta films are good examples of films that have less silver (partly because of the shape of the silver grains) but finer grain and higher resolution than other films of the same speed.

 

The actual effect of these differences may be subtle when comparing a new film with a previous version of that particular film (Old Tri-X vs. New Tri-X). The difference is quite pronounced when comparing newer films with the older thick emulsion films (Kodak Supper-XX, Verichrome Pan, etc.).

 

For the companies that make film, the use of less silver lowers manufacturing costs. According to one manufacturer, we should be happy about this because it makes it more likely they can stay in the business of making B&W materials.

I choose not to be thankful that the big manufacturers have reduced the silver content. So I buy Efke, Foma and Forte films in the hope that they will stay in business for a long time.