Can i improve resolution of pan-f?

[ray_cutting]

<p>I have attached to pics, one is full image on 35mm Ilford pan-f +, the other, 100% crop of a 3200dpi scan from Epson v750.<br>

My question is can i improve the resolution/sharpness/detail with another developer/process, i developed this in xtol 1:2 10mins, agitation 5sec every 30secs, 68degrees.<br>

Camera leica m6,135 elmar f16 1/60 sun lit.<br>

Or is this about the limit i can expect out of pan-f, im wondering if i should move on to something like rollei pan 25 or rollei atp1.1.<br>

My goal is to acheive the best closeup detail in an image such as this, im looking for film developer combo for these technical type pictures.<br>

If you think i should continue perfecting pan-f....<br>

should i dilute more?<br>

agitate less or more?</p>

<div></div>

[ray_cutting]

<p>croped image</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm not seeing any problems with resolution in your sample photos that could be significantly improved by any darkroom techniques. If you switch to an acutance developer you'll exchange one problem for another, especially when scanning the negatives: details may appear "sharper" but grain will be exaggerated in large areas of same/similar tones such as the chromed parts of the camera and lens.<br>

<br />I do see a couple of factors that you might consider:</p>

<ul>

<li>You specified this photo was taken with a 35mm camera and lens stopped down to f/16. You're probably at the diffraction limit. Try f/8 or f/11. If you need more depth of field you'll need to accept the unavoidable compromise of more diffraction in exchange for deeper DOF.</li>

<li>Try a dedicated film scanner. If buying one seems uneconomical try contacting a lab or other photographer that does have either a dedicated film scanner or drum scanner and scan some of your negatives to compare results.</li>

</ul>

<p>Regarding scanning, I can see fairly typical artifacts from scanning using a combination flatbed/film scanner in the chromed areas on your detail shot. It tends to produce a mottled look where there should be almost seamless tonal gradation. It's often most noticeable in middle grays.<br>

And since you're scanning for digital output rather than enlarging conventionally you'll need to try techniques specific to the digital process, including sharpening techniques. To get results from my own film scans that are comparable to my enlargements I often need to combine various sharpening techniques along with working in layers to preserve sharp detail where necessary while minimizing problems with exaggerated grain in others.<br>

<br />Also, for the hybrid film/digital process I'd suggest T-Max 100 over Pan F+. TMX is virtually free of grain; Pan F+ has fine grain but not as fine as TMX. TMX is better suited to the hybrid process for scanning negatives. And it's easier to use various digital sharpening techniques while avoiding exaggerated grain.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>You're scanning past the real optical resolution of the V750. (That's not a dig -- I have one and admire it.) You really need at least a Nikon Coolscan V to get all the resolution Pan F+ or TMAX 100 are capable of. Unfortunately, Coolscan V is discontinued, and used ones are getting more expensive by the day!<br>

You might be able to eek out better results from the V750 using the fluid mounting accessory.<br>

Or, get a 4x5 monorail view camera.</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>Lex<br />Thank you for your response, it answer questions i had not asked yet, because i was thinking of trying an acutance developer but was worried about the grain also.<br />And yes i have had problems with DOF in the past, i would prefer to shoot f8 or f11 but was lacking DOF at such close focus distances.<br />I might just have to get a drum scanner to help with some of the issues of the flatbed, especially film flatness. <br />I do shoot alot of tmax 100, its my favorite film to use, and have had excellent results, for some reason ive had the impression pan-f had finer grain so it was my goto film for my high resolution stuff, but ive noticed excellent results with the tmax, i think i need to run some more tests of tmax, as its the one i would prefer to use anyway.<br />John, i have thought about the fluid mount, have you used it? does it provide much better results?]<br>

<br />Im going to try some t-max in the same conditions and compare, but do you have any recommendations on dilutions? i have only diluted 1:1 and 1:2, should i try 1:3 or more, or will this not help me achieve my goal of fine detail.<br />As i understand full strength will give the finest grain but reduce sharpness, dilution reduce the solvent effect but what is the negative side of diluting too far?</p>

[ray_cutting]

<p>And Lex you are absolutely correct on the mottled effects on the silver grey surface, when i shoot cameras with other body colours this is hidden, i think this condition i shot brings the worst out.</p>

 

[ray_cutting]

<p>Another quick question, does the Nilon Coolscan scanners hold the negatives perfectly flat?<br>

Are they drum scanners?<br>

I find the Ilford is quite flat after development but the Tmax curls really bad and i have to place in book for 2-3 days before it flat enough to scan quality results.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>The Nikon scanners can hold the negs perfectly flat if you get a glass carrier. They are not drum scanners however. Even with a fluid mount in the Epson, I think the Nikon will produce better results out of the box.<br>

If you dilute too far, depending on your tank you might not have enough developer in there to fully develop the film. How about trying Rodinal stand development? In my opinion, developing does not change the sharpness of a print dramatically. The problem you have here is mainly to do with your scanner. The Nikon should be a very good compromise to getting a drum scan, although it depends on what you want to do with the result.<br>

If you want much better results, do what John says and get a bigger camera. Leicas are nice and they have sharp optics but you can't substitute for film area. I think a 4x5 would suit this job perfectly. You get movements and the huge neg. You'd probably get better results scanning a 4x5 on a flatbed than a 35mm drum scanned. You can also get a very usable system for less than a Leica too :)</p>

[keith_tapscott]

<p>If you want the optimum resolution from Pan F Plus, use Ilford Perceptol developer which is formulated to minimise grain albeit at some loss of effective film speed. (You don't get something for nothing.)<br /> I found using half of the ISO and a dilution of 1+1 produces very satisfactory results with that combination with excellent tone reproduction.<br /> Read the Ilford Pan F Plus technical information for a guide to get started.<br /> http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=5&t=Consumer+%26+Professional+Films</p>

<p>An acutance developer such as Rodinal or Neofin will help to produce edge effects that give an exaggerated appearance of increased sharpness, but will also make the grain more prominent, although Pan F is already very fine-grained any way. Don't confuse resolution with acutance.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Pan F out resolves a V750.</p>

<p>It is short of like wanting to use old Panatomic-X versus Plus-X on a box camera; the better film makes the box cameras lens better? :)</p>

<p>A flatbed is a low pass filter; super fine details are lost.</p>

 

[chuck_albertson1]

<p>If you want better resolution/sharpness, try Delta 100. Fine grain does not necessarily equate better resolution.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>The real question is with Delta 100 one gets better resolution/sharpness on the *negative*; but one does not notice the betterment with the low pass fllter of the flatbed.</p>

<p>It is sort of like polishing ones riding lawn mower to "get better gas mileage" ; you cut the air drag!</p>

<p>To a math major there is a difference; to an engineer it is in the measurement noise; thus no better.</p>