100 ISO films

[vince-p]

<p>I've been shooting 400 films for ages, along with occasional rolls of Pan-X, but I'd like to venture into working with 100s. My experience with TMax 400 suggests to me that the TMY films while virtually without visible grain if properly developed are also a bit low contrast for my taste. I'm about to use some 400 and process in Xtol but increase thee agitation significantly, to see if that address what to my eyes is a kind of dullness or short dynamic range. Yet people love the TMY 100; and I've certainly seen pictures on the web where the contrast is deeper and more pronounced than I have ever succeeded in getting with the faster cousin, TMY2.</p>

<p>All in all, I'd love to get informed opinions that describe the strengths of Acros 100, TMY 100, Delta 100 (and Ilford Pan F while we're at it??); and also of course Pan-X which is normally shot at 125. What specific characteristics distinguish these films from one another? And what developers and techniques bring out their strengths? Many thanks for much great advice I've gleaned from you all in the past, and for any contributions to this question.</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>Vince,</p>

<p>I would not judge the properties of any film developer combination from pictures that I have seen on the web. Perhaps one should not judge them from what people _write_ on the net either. Still, here are some thoughts based on my experience with 35 mm film. BTW, my usual enlargement factor is 10-15 times.</p>

<p>Generally speaking I like high contrast prints. However, I do not like prints made with filters 4 and 5. I think they are not as smooth (has nothing to do with sharpness) as I like them.I guess the grain activated by these filters is different from the grain activated by filters 3 and lower. I therefore develop my negatives so that they are somewhat contrasty. You mentioned Xtol. When I use Xtol, which is often, I _always_ develop much longer that what the film and/or developer manufacturer suggests. Like 20-25% longer.</p>

<p>Delta 100 used to be my standard film (developed in Xtol 1+1). I found the picture sharp and pleasing. Supply problems made me change to TMX (100). It certainly has less grain than Delta 100 but I found the prints too soft to my taste when the film was developed in Xtol. The sharpness problem was solved by switching to the SPUR SD2525 developer. This is a local German brand. I have only used Delta 100 occasionally since then, and I have always been disappointed grain-wise.</p>

<p>As you say, TMY2 is virtually without visible grain. Well, not with all developers. I use Xtol 1+1. As I try to keep things simple, I wanted to limit myself to one film and two developers (at the most). As I like TMY2 I tried it out with some speed reduction developers to see if it could be used so as an alternative to TMX with regard to grain, sharpness, acutance, grey scale and so on.</p>

<p>Indeed it can. Especially with regard to the grey scale. The developer I found well suited for this is the Rollei LS, also sold under the name of CG512 in Germany. It is similar to Ilford Perceptol and Kodak Microdol-X</p>

<p>My recommendation to you would be to stick with TMY2 and increase negative contrast by developing longer or using more agitation. Have you got access to a densiometer to check out if your development time and other parameters is correct? It is a great help and a onetime thing. Unless you keep changing films and developers. ;=#)</p>

<p>The next step would be to try Perceptol et al.</p>

<p>I still have a stock of TMY and SD2525, but it is TMY that gets used all the time.</p>

 

[rick_jones5]

<p>While it is always interesting to try new films I strongly recommend you resolve your issues with TMY before moving on. If you can correct the contrast issues with TMY what you learn can be translated to any new film you choose. You indicate TMY is a bit low in contrast with a kind of dullness or short dynamic range. Based on my experience with TMY that description does not describe the film characteristics but rather how it is processed and printed. What makes it difficult to make suggestions is not knowing your process (do you print with a conventional enlarger? Does it use a condenser or diffusion system? Or do you print digitally?) So tell us more. As to your idea of increasing agitation significantly that can certainly increase contrast but I have always preferred to keep my agitation routine the same while varying the development time. Again, tell us more.</p>

[christer_almqvist2]

<p>Typo correction. The last line should read:</p>

<p>I still have a stock of TMX and SD2525, but it is TMY that gets used all the time.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>I print digitally and not with great equipment but my judgments are based on film scanned at 2900 dpi on Nikon Coolscan IV -- 2900 dpi is its maximum, alas. I view at 100 percent or larger if necessary on a 22" 8-bit calibrated monitor.</p>

<p>So issues of enlargement and paper and print processing are not yet part of my repertoire of problems.... though I wish they were. Someday perhaps.</p>

<p>Mostly, though, I wanted to get a sense of how others see the various films. There is always an intensity of devotion to the TMax films that interests me, and, yes, I do intend to solve my problems with the TMY, in addition to making forays into 100.</p>

<p>Does anyone here like Pan-X? I've always found, like its big brother, muscular and forgiving... hmm, like a handsome benevolent god. But not necessarily 'fine'.</p>

<p> </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>I print in a traditional wet darkroom. I find that Delta 100, developed in DD-X, gives very good tone and minimal grain. Most of my prints are cropped 8x10, if printed full frame they would be between 11x14 to 16x20. If I want even less grain I use PanF+, also developed in DD-X.</p>

<p>If I want sharp, PanF+ or even Delta100 to TMAX-100 developed in Rodinal 1+50. However PanF+ in Rodinal can be an unforgiving combination especially for pictures of people. It will show the slightest skin blemish or wrinkle in the skin.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Try a roll of Tri-X, shot under the same circumstances as TMY-2 400, and develop on the same basis (Kodak data sheet times, whatever).<br>

What you may find is that the more S-curved HD curve of Tri-X gives more snap to the image, since it has higher mid-tone contrast, at the cost of compressed shadows and highlights.<br>

It is normally expected to have to apply some curves to any B&W film when scanning and printing through a digital darkroom workflow. You can apply an S-shaped curve to make TMY have much of the look of Tri-X.</p>

 

[vince-p]

<p>John,<br>

Yes, I do find that I apply some curves in the levels function of PS to a lot of my BW workflow. But each type of film, when scanned, has a "look." Sometimes the "look" is "you f*cked up" however, on the better days, it is something else.</p>

<p>And yes it is the higher mid-tone contrast of Tri-X that I miss in TMY -- but I think I can address that in the processing. What I really want to know is what specific characteristics of the 100 ISO films that people favor, stand out for them as that film's defining characteristics. In other words, right now, I have a sense of what Tri-X, TMY, HP5+, Neopan 400, and Neopan 1600 shot at EI 800 all look like, developed in Xtol or sometimes divided D-76. But I have no idea what words / expectations to bring to thinking about the 100s.</p>

[adam_n.1]

<p>i'd recommend investigating plus-x, it's the easiest b&w film to scan that i've found so far. really crisp, punchy contrast with a great tonal range. i usually develop it in hc-110.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I also love the Plus-X and HC-110 combination. No shortage of contrast there.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Just bought a brick of TMX. I've messed with it in the past and decided to try it again. I was quite pleased with my fist roll in straight D76. I've a bit more work to do with finding the perfect time but the grain in 35mm was a bit less noticable than Plus-x shot with my Rolleicord 6x6. (those big negs were beautifully detailed though)</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>... films while virtually without visible grain if properly developed are also a bit low contrast for my taste ... I print digitally and not with great equipment but my judgments are based on film scanned</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This being the case, smaller than desired density excursion on the developed negative matters only to the extent that digitized tonal resolution is suboptimal. Practically, it just means curving out a bit more aggressively in post - the essential equivalent of printing on harder grade paper in the traditional darkroom.</p>

<p>Push the film a bit the next time shooting under similar lighting conditions. Give it less exposure and develop longer.</p>

<p>In my opinion, Acros is the best in 100ISO films. Grain, resolution, and sharpness characteristics are all comparable to TMX. However, the edge goes to Acros because it has the most forgiving reciprocity failure characteristic of any emulsion I'm aware of. This is important for those exposures requiring seconds long or more time.</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Try Fuji ACROS 100 in Rodinal developer 1:50. Very good contrast and a long, long tonal scale.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I like APX 100 in straight D76 but APX100 is not a modern fine grained film maybe TMY is has finer grain.</p>

[steve_johnston4]

<p>I use Xtol with Pan F+ 120,deveoped in a Jobo rotary processor, scanned on a 10 year old Imacom film scanner at 3200ppi. Using an Epson 3800, 16x20 prints on glossy paper look great and no grain. To get a long tonal range, I develop for a slightly flat neg and scan as such. Then in PSE adjust the levels and channels to get what I want. I can predict that TMY would be similar.</p>