fine grain film

[howard b. schwartz]

since technical pan is being discontinued, can someone recommend an

alternative film? any ilford films close or as good?

[john_cook1]

Technical Pan was unique. But I have had excellent results with Delta 100. In addition to being virtually grainless, it has a more useful ISO speed, is considerably more panchromatic than Tech Pan and is dramatically sharper than the chromogenic films.

 

Ilford's website has excellent technical pdf files which will guide you in selecting a developer, dilution and time to achieve the exact look you want, from high (sharp) accutance to fine (mushy) grain.

[Troll]

According to my tests (done 4 years ago), there's nothing even close in terms of fine grain, but next best are Agfapan 25/Rodinal, Ilford PanF Plus/Ilfosol, Ilford Xp2+/C-41, and Kodak T-Max 400CN/C-41. The sharpest film is TMax100 developed in 1+50 Rodinal, followed by TechPan/Technidal, Agfapan25/Rodinal, Ilford Delta 100/Rodinal, and Ilford PanF Plus/Ilfosol. I did not test using PMK, and suspect that might be even sharper with conventional films.

[david_goldfarb]

Tech Pan had a unique look--issues of grain aside. You might check out what's popular among the Minox crowd these days--they always seem to be on the leading edge in terms of maximizing results from a small piece of film. Gigabit film or some other version of high-contrast microfilm stock (Agfa Copex) processed in low contrast developer like POTA or SPUR is probably the closest thing. Also you might look at Bluefire Police film, which I think is discussed at www.frugalphotographer.com. T-Max 100 is a very fine grained film, but the tonality is completely different. Efke 25 also has a different look.

 

My solution: there are always bigger cameras.

[francois_gauthier]

Films under 100 ISO are getting rarer at the expense of the perfectionnist photographer. I like Ilford PanF+ (50 ISO) in 35mm. But you won't find anything like Technical Pan.

[User_502260]

This issue has been discussed in other threads. Technical Pan is still available so if you buy a 150' roll and bulk load, you will have 27 36 exp. rolls. That should keep you busy for a while.

 

For fine grain without as much fuss I would recommend Ilford Pan F Plus. It can be paired with a number of different developers and has more lattitude in exposure and processing than most of the other fine grain films. Some developers to try would be Paterson FX-39, Edwal FG-7 (1:15 with water) and Rodinal. Rodinal will not give the finest grain even with a slow film like Pan F Plus but will give very high sharpness. MACOPHOT's UP25 Plus is an extremely fine grain film. I have developed it in D-23 but D-76 should work as well. EFKE KB25 is a very nice film but it is not nearly as fine grained as UP25 Plus. The Agfa APX 25 film was discontinued a while ago.

 

If you don't need the extra speed, PAN F Plus would be my first choice because it is easier to use. If you do need more speed then you might try Fuji's very fine grain ACROS 100 speed film. I develop it in Fuji's Microfine develoepr but that is hard to get outside of Japan. It can be used successfully with other developers and there are many threads on this topic. Some photographers feel that the nominal speed of 100 is too high with some developers.

 

Kodak's TMX and Ilford's 100 Delta (Delta 100?) films also have very fine grain for their speed but can be tricky to work with. There have probably been more threads on developing TMX than on any other subject. If you experiment enough you should be able to come up with a workable solution for developing these films.

 

Gigabitfim has become an expensive proposition. In the US it is sold for US$15 per roll with a small bottle of developer. The question isn't really whether this film/developer combination is good. It is. The question is whether it is worth 3-5 times the cost of other alternatives.

 

Let me conclude by again saying that Technical Pan is still available. If you use the 35mm size and buy 2 150' rolls that will give you 54 36 exp rolls or 1,944 exposures. That ought to hold you for a little while.

 

Jeff Adler

[david_goldfarb]

Regarding the cost of Gigabit--has anyone worked on a homebrew solution? Microfilm is usually fairly cheap stuff in bulk, and I can't believe the developer would be that costly to make from bulk chemicals, and there are a few formulas for fine grain and pictorial contrast from high-contrast copy film out there in publically accessible sources.

[jim_shanesy]

The answers to your questions are "no" and "no". There's nothing like else like Technical Pan, just as there was no substitute for Super XX Pan or Kodak's Pro Line of color negative films, or Azo. At least we still have Azo, for a while anyway.

[robert_davis2]

The Kodak website shows a range of microfilm films. Of course they don't give any info on them.

 

KODAK IMAGELINK HQ Microfilm 1461, 2461

 

I don't know if anybody knows anything about either of those but if you're unwilling to move up in format they might work.

[jay_de_fehr]

TMX is nearly as fine grained as TP, and the only film that comes close in that category, but as others have noted, TP is unique in many ways apart from its grainlessness. If TP's fine grain is the biggest reason you use it, you might be very happy with TMX and its extra two stops of speed.

[alexis_neel]

The thought that TMX is close to TP is absurd. It isn't close. Fine yes but not like TP.

There are ways to take lith film, namely LPD and Kodalith, if both are still available in the format you want to shoot, and develop them continuous tone negs. I don't remember the process (its been a while since I did it) but you should be able to research it a bit and find out the formulas, it will just take some time and work. It will be slower than TP was, but has no grain what-so-ever.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

[jay_de_fehr]

"The thought that TMX is close to TP is absurd"

 

According to Kodak, it's not absurd at all. TMX in D-76 has a RMS rating of 8, and TP has the same rating in HC110 Dilution D. TP in Technidol is rated at 5, but no figures are given for TMX in microfine developers. I think it's safe to assume that TMX in a microfine developer like Microdol-X would land somewhere between TMX in D-76 (8) and TP in Technidol (5). Compared to other films in the TMX speed class, like PX 125, which is rated at 10 in D-76, or fast films like TX, which is rated at 17, the grain differences between TP and TMX don't seem absurd, but academic. Both films are effectively grainless in normal use, and TMX represents a far more practical replacement for TP than the lith films recommended above, despite the claim that they have "no grain whatsoever", which is truly absurd.

[conrad_hoffman]

Don't forget blue sensitive Fine Grain Release Positive. It's paper speed, but can be developed for pictorial contrast and has near zero grain. Pretty sure you can still get it.

[david_goldfarb]

TMX might have grain that approaches TP, but it looks completely different. TP is a much sharper looking film and the spectral sensitivity tends toward red, while TMX is much more linear in that regard, kind of like digital or B&W video.

[jay_de_fehr]

The spectral sensitivity curves of TMX and TP both show sensitivity to about 700nm. There is a lot of mythology surrounding both of these films. The two films are different, to be sure, but not in the ways that many suppose. Characteristics like graininess, spectral sensitivity, and acutance are measurable, and therefore easily compared. Subjective, emotional responses to them are not measurable, and most often, not very reliable. I've used both of these films over a period of years, and have found them to be very reliable and predictable. I've read many, many complaints about both of these films that do not parallel my own experiences with them, and I've also read a lot of simple misinformation. Wether or not the complaints and misinformation are related is impossible to say, but I have my suspicions.

[david_goldfarb]

Here's Kodak's recommendation for TP:<P>

 

<i> Technical Pan Film has reasonably uniform spectral sensitivity at all visible wavelengths out to 690 nanometres (nm). Because of this extended red sensitivity, red areas and flesh tones may appear lighter than they would with conventional black-and-white films. This is often an advantage. For example, it helps conceal some skin blemishes and often adds a pleasing luminous quality to skin tones. (This effect is less evident in portraits made in the shade outdoors, because there is less red light present.)<P>

 

To approximate the response of conventional panchromatic films more closely, make exposures through a color-compensating filter such as a KODAK Color Compensating Filter CC40C or CC50C (cyan). With this filter, no exposure compensation is necessary; however, there may be a slight loss in sharpness. </i><P>

 

Indeed, if you look at the curves, you'll see that <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/p255/f002_0194ac.gif">Tech Pan</a> has it's last peak on the top curve (diffuse density=0.3) around 690nm, and for <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0547ac.gif">TMX</a> there is a precipitous drop around 640nm. 50nm is a short distance indeed, but it's enough to give the film a different look.

[alexis_neel]

I am speaking from years of practicle experience, not what Kodak says. If you prefer to believe everything Kodak says, that is fine for you. However, I prefer to refer to decades of personal experience. Having enlarged both films to large format prints, I can assure you TMX is by far different in every aspect, especially grain, than TP.

In a class I took 25 years ago at Brooks Institute, taught by a former CIA photo tech, he gave a formula for lith film that produced grainless, continuous tone images. The example he showed was a 35mm negative shot on lith film. When developed, all one could see on the negative was a dark half on top, a light half on bottom, and a dot in the middle that was about the size of the diamater of a paper clip.

When enlarged to 16x20, and cropped tremendously, that little dot turned out to be the head of a soldier, complete with a 5 o'clock shadow, sticking his head out of a tank, with his head filling 2/3 of the vertical dimension (making it about 11" high) of the print. One could count how many wiskers he had and there was little, if any, grain.

 

The formula he gave us was available at the time, as I am sure it still is.

 

But you can take what I say how you wish. I know there is a difference, and that there are alternatives.

 

Alexis

 

www.alexisneel.com

[silent1]

<i>The Kodak website shows a range of microfilm films. Of course they don't give any info on them.<p>

 

KODAK IMAGELINK HQ Microfilm 1461, 2461<p>

 

I don't know if anybody knows anything about either of those but if you're unwilling to move up in format they might work.</i><p>

 

I have recent experience with Imagelink HQ. Aside from the stiff base of the 1461 that makes it very difficult to hand load in Minolta 16 cassettes, I found it was too slow for my needs. Exposed at EI 25, it would probably be quite nice, however; I did note that frame that were overexposed relative to the EI 50 showed much nicer tonality.<p>

 

I didn't use anything mysterious to develop the stuff -- I did some in HC-110 Dilution G, and some in Caffenol LC (like regular Caffenol, but made with half as much coffee). If you're willing/able to shoot at EI 25, it would probably be a nice substitute for Tech Pan, and if you want to experiment with diluting Bath A of Diafine, you might be able to get an EI of 64, 80, or possibly even 100. I haven't used any since getting some Agfa Copex Rapid, which is on a much thinner base and thus is easier to roll up to fit in the supply side of a cassette; it's also a full stop faster than common high res microfilms. The Kodak equivalent would be Imagelink FS, but I don't think the Imagelink line is sold in 35 mm.

[lawrence1]

I am also looking for a replacement. Perhaps a return to 8x10(?).

 

I have been using TP in 120 and to say that TP is only academically different than T-Max is to indicate to me that proper understanding of TP is lacking.

 

The developer of choice is TD-3 from Photographer's Formulary. Nothing else came close. Trying TP in an ordinary but diluted devloper did indeed produce inferior results. TD-3 is very tricky, especially concerning agitation.

 

This weekend, I pulled out film shot about 1966, Panatomic-X, and scanned the images. It is to cry over! I also have some 8x10 images from the same period, one image scanned on a Tango drum. The closeness between the 8x10 and the 120 is amazing.

 

OTOH, I shot some Ilford Delta about a week ago, and if I limit the print size to 8x8", it's acceptable. Other than that, forget it!

 

I can only say that if you equate T-Max 100 to TP, you must have something wrong with the TP processing. You haven't understood and obtained all it can offer. How about 20x20 prints that appear to be contact prints? T-Max would fold relative to TP at that enlargement.