Finest grain

[hjoseph7]

<p>Peter that is some really nice grain that seems to equal if not best T-max(100). Maybe next time I'm on vacation I'll try it. Do you know of any good Tutorials on reversal processing ?</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>i posted my process here http://myfilmstuff.blogspot.ca/2011/04/my-bw-reversal-process.html and try to update it as often as I can. I would suggest trying Foma 100 first as it does not require a solvent in the dev and could make your first efforts easier.</p>

<p>However, I did a thread on flickr named "Reversal with ORWO for Dummies" which gave a how-to specially for UN54/N74+. I covered where to get the stuff, as much as possible. Presently, the film is only available in bulk - www.orwona.com . That discussion is at http://www.flickr.com/groups/1924424@N22/discuss/72157629499928508/</p>

<p>Give it a try. Once you get a good result it is easy to understand why those LFers love DR5.</p>

<p> </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Peter.... Good to see you spreading the wealth. :-)</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p ><a name="00aSQU"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1800195">PC B</a>, Jun 02, 2012; 06:29 a.m.</p>

 

<p>Zack, claiming that a thicker film base in C-41 films is the cause for loss of resolution in output is simply wrong.<br>

(then some science stuff)</p>

<p>A thicker film base by itself won't do much. However, it does have an effect, even if it's just a small one. Now I'll admit that:<br>

A) Most of my film/developer experimentation was done in the darkroom, where printing is a whole 'nother animal compared to scanning.<br>

B) There's nothing currently available that allows you to A/B thicker and thinner versions of the same film, and hasn't been since everything switched over to self-hardening films.<br>

C) Having a different film base also means that the films will develop differently, and I lack the scientific knowledge to tell you what those differences are.</p>

<p>That said, very few films (Acros and the Efke 'high silver content' films are all that come to mind immediately) have a totally clear base layer. Tri-X is a little grey, and most films are pinkish. That means that during exposure, you're shooting through not only the emulsion, but also a layer of (extremely light) colour. The tint of the base layer reduces contrast (or extends tonal range, however you want to look at it), while also producing a very subtle diffraction effect that masks grain (barely), and reduces detail (also barely). A darker or thicker base layer will have a stronger effect. If you don't believe me, try putting a blank strip of any pink t-grain film on top of your regular negative during printing, and examine both prints (with and without the extra strip) with a loupe.</p>

<p>It's not a strong effect, no. But it happens. The dye base of C-41 also has an effect, and between the two of them it can be very noticable.</p>

<p>It doesn't have to be bad; I usually shoot portraits with Kodak Portra even if I'm printing in the darkroom, since the 'limited' tonal range and slightly lower grain/detail imposed by the emulsion generally make a more flattering image. But if I were looking for the biggest print I could make, as sharp, clear, and low-grain as possible, I would ALWAYS choose a silver-based film.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>I told you folks Can of worms... We can argue until we are all blue in the face. The thing is if it was said in the OP's question what current film is the finest grain in D-76 straight and undiluted we could have answered it... then maybe not. :-)</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Larry,</p>

<p>It's fun to argue, and often highly educational when experts do it, but in this case, there really is an answer. The OP didn't ask what film/developer combination produces the finest grain, the OP asked about the finest grain B&W pictorial film around ISO 100. This question has nothing to do with developers. Film has inherent grain structure independent of developer. Kodak say TMX has the finest grain, and Fuji say Acros has the best grain, while Ilford essentially concede to the others, and there are no other legitimate contenders. So the answer is; it's either TMX, or Acros, depending on how you look at it/ what testing methodology you use. Easy!</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Jay I don't disagree I just feel that if we take the RMS charts made by the manufactures under their controlled conditions we fail all others. In real life I do find ACROS a great film but it seems mushy to me where YMY seems a tad nicer and then again... define fine?..... :-)</p>

[jay_de_fehr]

<p>Larry,</p>

<p>I don't disagree, either. It's just so rare we get a question with an actual, quantifiable, objective answer, I thought it was worth noting. </p>

[Bill Bowes]

<p>Hello everyone. My worm for the can! Agfa Retro 80S (135-36) at 100asa. 2.25 ml Rodinol in 450 ml DI water (1:200 for you math freaks). 60 minutes semi stand (3 ez inversions at 30 minutes). TLC the rest of the way. My negs are planned for wet prints, but scans are near perfect (V600 with stock settings). Enjoy, Bill</p>

 

[Bill Bowes]

<p>Computer joys!...they are faster than a goof! Here is the pic that should have gone with the posting. Bill</p><div></div>

[larrydressler]

<p>Bill I too love Rollei 80S but I prefer it at 125 in Diafine.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Jay, you can ever prove what film has the finest 'inherent' grain. In order for those of us without scientific testing equipment to actually observe the grain the film needs to be developed, meaning that some sort of developer needs to be used. It's not really possible to have this converstion without discussing developers. The question of which film has the finest grain before developing is all but irrelevant.</p>

<p>The closest we can come is figuring out which film has the least grain with a standard developer. That would probably have to be TMax; Fuji doesn't make chemicals, and (I don't think) Ilfrod makes a developer specifically for Delta. I'm pretty sure that TMax is the only 'standard' film that has its very own 'standard' developer, so it stands to reason that both the film and the chemicals have been optimized to work together.</p>

<p>Don't pay any attention to manufacturer's claim of 'best/finest/etc.' though. Since they don't need to tell you how they tested it (as long as all testing is the same), it means nothing. 'Finest grain' could mean that all films were developed in TMax. It could mean that the inherent grain is the finest, even if it isn't the finest after developing. It could even mean that TMax has the finest grain of any 100 ISO film, but only if all 100 ISO films were exposed at 400 ISO, and then developed in TMax.</p>

[manuel_odabashian]

<p>I suppose i should add, since this is getting rather complicated, the finest grain in a standard developer without any unusual development just normal</p>

[pc_b]

<blockquote>

<p>The closest we can come is figuring out which film has the least grain with a standard developer. That would probably have to be TMax; Fuji doesn't make chemicals, and (I don't think) Ilfrod makes a developer specifically for Delta. I'm pretty sure that TMax is the only 'standard' film that has its very own 'standard' developer, so it stands to reason that both the film and the chemicals have been optimized to work together.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji produces and sells film developers.They even produce their own D-76 version.<br>

The "dedicated" developer for the Delta range of films is DD-X.<br>

Tmax developer is not even 'dedicated' to Tmax films. It's just a mediocre liquid cash cow developer for those too lazy to work with Kodak's great powder developers of yore (D-76, Microdol-X, Xtol). Even less it is any kind of standard developer.<br>

Jay's diddy about TMX vs. Acros is quite accurate. The question about the least grain (when developed) is pretty academical when it's about RMS 7 vs. RMS 8.<br>

Plus, there is so much more difference (in a positive sense) between TMX, Acros, 80S, and Delta100 than just RMS. I just recently learned to love 80S for its interesting set of abilities, too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't pay any attention to manufacturer's claim of 'best/finest/etc.' though. Since they don't need to tell you how they tested it (as long as all testing is the same), it means nothing. 'Finest grain' could mean that all films were developed in TMax. It could mean that the inherent grain is the finest, even if it isn't the finest after developing. It could even mean that TMax has the finest grain of any 100 ISO film, but only if all 100 ISO films were exposed at 400 ISO, and then developed in TMax.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Theatrical paranoia, insufficient basic knowledge, and not enough common sense. Tragical, kinda.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Microdol-X is still made just under another name. I find though it is not as fun as it used to be because it dissolves too much. Yes T-MAX developer only got it's name because it came out at the same time as the first Tmax films. When the TMAX films came out all the test reports I read about them and the standard that Kodak used was D-76.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00aTVU"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1800195">PC B</a>, Jun 06, 2012; 08:07 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>The closest we can come is figuring out which film has the least grain with a standard developer. That would probably have to be TMax; Fuji doesn't make chemicals, and (I don't think) Ilfrod makes a developer specifically for Delta. I'm pretty sure that TMax is the only 'standard' film that has its very own 'standard' developer, so it stands to reason that both the film and the chemicals have been optimized to work together.</em><br>

Fuji produces and sells film developers.They even produce their own D-76 version. The "dedicated" developer for the Delta range of films is DD-X. Tmax developer is not even 'dedicated' to Tmax films. It's just a mediocre liquid cash cow developer for those too lazy to work with Kodak's great powder developers of yore (D-76, Microdol-X, Xtol). Even less it is any kind of standard developer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you live in the states, then I have no idea where you're buying Fuji chemicals. I haven't been able to order them from Fuji for several years (I work in a photo supply store), and they're not on Freestyle, B&H, or Adorama, and Amazon only sells an x-ray film developer that is not branded as Fuji, but comes up in a Fuji search. The only black and while Fuji products I can order are Acros, or Neopan in 135 only.</p>

<p>DD-X says that it is designed for 'all Ilford films, especially the <em>Delta</em> line', but the only 'companion product' they list is Delta 3200. If you read the fine print on their fact sheet, the only claim they make is that it is excellent for high ISO and push-processed films. But if you don't read the fine print, I can understand how you'd just see the words 'Delta' and 'fine grain' and move on.</p>

<p>Of the three brands, Kodak is the only company that manufacturers a developer that is for sale in the USA for 'general use developing' that is 'optimized for T-grain films.' And I'm not saying that TMax developer is that great; just that by going on face value, it is the only developer made <em>by a standard film producer</em> that uses a 400 ISO companion film shot at box speeds as their example of what the developer does well. Arista and Rollei might have something too - I'd actually be shocked if they didn't - but Arista films are iffy at best and Rollei is too expensive to be considered 'standard', so I didn't bother to look them up.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>Don't pay any attention to manufacturer's claim of 'best/finest/etc.' though. Since they don't need to tell you how they tested it (as long as all testing is the same), it means nothing. 'Finest grain' could mean that all films were developed in TMax. It could mean that the inherent grain is the finest, even if it isn't the finest after developing. It could even mean that TMax has the finest grain of any 100 ISO film, but only if all 100 ISO films were exposed at 400 ISO, and then developed in TMax.</em><br>

Theatrical paranoia, insufficient basic knowledge, and not enough common sense.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So would 'common sense' be trusting that the company doing the testing is going to test their competitor's films in different chemicals that make them look better, even though they have no legal or ethical obligation to do so? That would help explain why Kodak had to file for bankruptcy.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Tragical, kinda.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you mean <em>tragic</em>?</p>

<p>Seriously, if you're going to call someone out for not knowing their stuff, do a quick Google search first. It took me five minutes to look all that up.</p>

 

[larrydressler]

<p>OH boy this can of worms is starting to smell. I do many film test with many films and developers to find what I like best. I do use the standard times the Manufacture list for their branded developers as a starting point. if I use those developers. If I don't I start from scratch with educated guesses from my past experience. And I have to say these times are for me and I am willing to share them but they may not be what you like,but you can use them as a starting point. Just like I use the Manufacture's starting points.<br>

Larry </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>You're right Larry, I sort of overreacted. I got called out with a bunch of bad info, and instead of just saying, 'A quick Google search will show why your critisicm is unfounded,' I felt compelled to break it down point-by-point.</p>

<p>PC B, my apologies. I still think you're wrong, but I didn't have to tear into you like that :P I'd change my response, if the Edit button was still there.</p>

<p>Can we all agree that the proper answer to 'which film has the smallest grain?' is that if it's really such a massive issue, you ought to be shooting a larger format? Seems like a neat and tidy way to sidestep the eternal, unanswerable question.</p>

<p>After shooting 4x5 heavily for a while, I finally understood why Portra 400 sheet film is so often sold out, while 160 sheet film is almost always easy to get ... and why so many people shoot Tri-X sheets, while many fewer shoot FP4. Once you get a larger negative, the grain becomes almost irrelevant. If you have practically invisible grain on a 400 speed 16x20 print, how large do you need to print before it's even worth shooting 100? And if you're printing 36" wide prints with any regularity, shouldn't you then be shooting 8x10?</p>

<p>I still use the Zone System now and again, but I stopped jerking around with Perceptol and other funky low-grain developers once I realized that 'better' isn't actually any better if you can't see it.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>You did not tear into me. And I never felt you did. I shoot 16mm through 4x5. I do try to to think ahead of how I will develop my film from the time I load to the time I develop. I believe I Don't even know why you thought you were attacking me as none of what you quoted was mine.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>What I said to PC B was confrontational ... that's why I apologized to him.</p>

<p>Where do you get 16mm film? And ... I have to ask ... why?</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I get 16mm film by slitting my own film or using movie stock for my Minoltas and Kiev cameras i also can do 8mm in my Minox. I love all cameras and films and try my best to use them. I sold the 8mm Minox recently so it is 16-4x5 for now. I though am thinking of building an 5x7 for fun.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I know you've been at this way longer than I have Larry, but I would probably recommend an 8x10 over a 5x7. Very few films are still available in 5x7, and those will probably be dropped soon. You're obviously comfortable sizing your own film, but since you're probably going to have to buy 8x10 film anyway pretty soon, and since you could always use a reducing back, it might be worth the relatively small price jump to a larger camera.</p>

<p>How do you shoot the 16mm? Is it with a reducing back, or do you just stick the whole strip in there? </p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I shoot the 16mm in 16mm still cameras. As for LF I have sold off all but one 4x5. As for the 5x7 As I said I thought about it. I have a Minolta and 2 Kiev cameras that use 16mm film. I had a Minox camera but it was just too small. I know people over at subclub who love shooting nothing but super small format. I just like to shoot cameras of all types and to do so at times I have to cut my own film. I am getting older and it may be time to thin my herd a little.</p>

[DB_Gallery]

In 35mm and 120mm I shoot mostly Acros, TMX and Pan-F. I also have a robust stash of APX-25 and Techpan which are

phenomenal in 120. I have just started shooting 4x5 and process using a Jobo Expert drum 3010 and CPP2, will probably

move my 120 over to that system too once the tanks get here. In 4x5 I shoot TMX, TMY and Rollei IR400 it all looks

great. I don't agree with the post of using 400 speed film in an 8x10 over 100 speed in a 4x5, that a load of bull. An 8x10

is an enormous commitment where as my 4x5 with a lens on it is right at 4 pounds.

 

And I don't scan these images, I print them in a real darkroom so an 8x10 enlarger would be a massive beast versus my

very manageable 45MXT.

 

I souped 6 sheets of 4x5 TMX in Xtol today, it looks utterly spectacular.

[larrydressler]

<p>The thing is Finest grain for the OP was 35mm to MF from what I gather. I still shoot Sub mini to keep my skills up and I use all kinds of films in those formats including my huge stash of Micro film and many others with home made developers and others but I have to say again... Can of Worms. :-)</p>