HELP!!! starving artist, looking for finest grain B&W

[everitt]

Demetrius, you want very large enlargements, yet you refuse to listen to many peoples' sound advice on larger formats. If you like shooting landscapes and urban settings, an inexpensive MF outfit could easily handle those (street shooting with a TLR is great). Having an MF outfit would allow you another advantage... You could make large prints with films such as Tri-X or HP5 that would look tremendous with the added bonus of higher film speed, and enlargements from finer grained films would make your jaw drop. I'm staring at a 16x16 print I made, hanging in my room, shot with Tri-X in 6x6 format devd in D-76 (easily not the finest-grained film/dev combo!!). It looks absolutely stunning with nary a grain in sight! A similar print in 35mm with a finer grained film/dev combo would look inferior in comparison. This was shot with a $150 MF camera (I'm poor-ass myself, I understand the concern!). I love my TLR so much, that my Nikon system doesn't see much action these days. My only advice now.. Don't knock it until you've tried it.

[tadge_dryja]

Hi Demetrius-

 

I used to be in the exact same boat. I had 35mm stuff, I wanted what everyone wants -- huge, super sharp, totally awesome prints. I tried tech-pan, but gave up on that cause of the insane cost of technidol, and the fact that it's more or less useles in normal developers. Acros is really great, and very sharp, but then so is TMX. I was like "eh, TMX, you can find that on every corner store, Acros must be cooler because it's NEW and from JAPAN and comes in a green box and has a cool name... 'Acros'.... hmmm"

 

But, really, I can't tell the difference between them. I mean, I still would shoot acros given the choice, because it does have a cooler name, after all. I think that's as good a reason as any. I mean, I use HC-110 cause it's like, high-tech sounding, and is this thick, weird goo, and is at least somewhat newer than D-76 (which was made in what, the 20s?). It's also super cheap. (I guess if I was going on developer novelty, xtol would be the choice, but whatever...)

 

So yeah, clearly I feel that not all photo choices need to be totally rational.

 

I tried Pan-F, and it's got a nice look to it, definetly different looking that TMX/Acros, BUT, if you're looking for the least grainy film, it seemed to me that Pan-F was actually a little more grainy than TMX. Also, shooting at 50 is a real drag.

 

So to answer your queation directly, where you want to know how to get sharpness and no grain, and very cheaply: Go with bulk rolled TMX. The rolls are like $22, and you get about 20 rolls from a 100' bulk roll, so it works out to about $1/roll. Cheap, very sharp. HC-110 is also very cheap. I guess rodinal is too but I've never used it.

 

BUT, now let me nod a concession to some of the other posts here. Note that most of what I said was in the past tense. I used to do all that stuff, but I haven't used my 35mm stuff as much lately, and never with TMX... mostly with neopan 1600, TMZ, fuji npz, etc... because 35mm is great for a lot of things, but the fact is, making huge, sharp, smooth prints isn't one of them.

 

I completely discounted MF and LF. I hated hasselblads. (I still kindof do. A thousand dollars for a back??? No light meter? No prism?? Come on!) But, then, I used a 4x5 monorail camera. As soon as I made my first print with it, I was like, oh jeez, that was a mistake, cause now there's no way I can go back. And people are trying to say that LF isn't expensive?? Well... it kindof is. I mean, yeah you can get cheap used LF gear, but you can get much cheaper used 35mm stuff. And basically, your negs are like 16X larger, and will probably cost 16X as much, and you will probably want to print much bigger, more expensive paper, etc.

 

I would just say, don't discount large format. It's not just quantitatively different, it's qualitatively different. A 4x5 neg... it's like a country. You can explore it for days. It's really something.

 

Then again, there are a lot of things 4x5 is completely the wrong tool for. 16x more film means you need 16x or so more light hitting the film.

 

Anyway, I'd say borrow a 4x5 camera, just to try out. If you really "enjoy printing as LARGE as possible", sortof the way I do, I think LF

is really something you'll enjoy.

 

-Tadge

 

PS, LF doesn't have to be too expensive. I got totally set up with a very decent monorail camera, case, tripod & lens for under $1K. Film you can find great deals on from places that sell sketchy re-branded / noname film.

[kelly_flanigan1]

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1238404&size=lg">

[diver down]

Tadge,

I found your answer to be useful, informative, and insightful. It's funny how people can instantly "assume" your future life pursuits, from a 4 sentence passage. These people tend to be both ignorant,and egocentric. I wholeheartedly plan on "stepping up" to larger format photography, but I clearly stated that it was not to be, in the near future. While I truly appreciate those who mentioned that I should try these larger formats, and how cheaply I can purchase equipment, I do not enjoy those who dismiss or belittle ones "choiceS" in equipment. AFTER ALL, my question deals with the pursuit of knowledge as it pertains to film, irregardless of the size of ones camera!(It's a question about FILM!)

[oskar_ojala]

Well the problem is that LF starting at 4x5" is so much superior to any 35 mm in term of image quality. Having said that, Tmax100 and PanF+ have very fine grain, but I like neither for general photography. TechPan has much finer grain than these two, although it has it's own problems, but if you want really fine grain, then forget the "vanilla" films. Then there's the German-made Gigabitfilm, which based on samples seriously rivals TechPan (maybe betters it?) with a more pleasing tonal rendition. I haven't tried it and I don't care much about TechPan's looks (hey, I got my view camera), but for the finest grain it's really either TechPan, Gigabitfilm or fooling around with some microfilm.

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Demetrius,

 

Pan F is the finest grained film for normal use and normal tonality. Develop it in a fine-grain developer such as Perceptol, but remember that the ISO speed will drop to 40 or maybe 32 if you do so. If (like many people) you like to overexpose as compared with the ISO speed, you could find yourself working at EI 25.

 

There are finer grained films such as Kodak Tech Pan, Gigabit, etc. but they're absurdly slow, tricky to process, and (for my money) deliver lousy tonality.

 

Acros is the finest grained 'ISO 100' film but a lot of people find it's hard put to reach ISO 100 in most developers: 80 on a good day, probably 64 in a fine-grain dev. In a normal dev I rate it at EI 64. Also, I think it's got even worse tonality than T-Max 100. The sharpest ISO 100 film is almost certainly Ilford Delta 100 (it's also sharper than Pan F). These views on speed and sharpness aren't just opinions: I have access to people who can test ISO speeds and RMS sharpness, though I can't do either myself (and I suspect no-one else on the forum can either).

 

Very low film speeds are an invitation to camera shake, which may negate the sharpness somewhat. Seriously consider Ilford XP2 Super which will give you very fine grain (albeit with reduced sharpness, though I've seen 80+ lp/mm on the neg) with good tonality (though not everyone likes it) and much less risk of camera shake.

 

Consider also the half-tone effect, which comes into effect at anything between 4x and 10x enlargements with normal films: the latter for Pan F in fg dev and a diffuser head (condenser will accentuate sharpness but also grain). This is when a grey ceases to have that continuous, creamy quality that you get from small degrees of enlargement and can be seen as black speckles on a white background: an 'average' grey, like the half-tones in photomechanical reproduction. This changes the tonality significantly. There's more about the half tone effect on page 14 of my 'Medium and Large Format Photography' (David & Charles/Amphoto, 2001).

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[bjarke_schulin]

When you have have tried all the different finegrained films on the market and you find out that your prints don't look the way you wan't.

You buy something like a nice clean Yashica mat 124G on ebay for 150 bucks.

I have been in the same situantion as you, so own a 124G and a rollei TLR. Now i only use my 35mm camera for action mainly with tri-x....

You'll find out what is right but it may take some time..

Regards Bjarke,

[marc_leest1]

Strange that nobody mentioned efke 25 (35mm), in rodinal 1:50 or XTOL 1:1

[tim_curry]

Dimitri,

 

Amazing that people are so complicated. Try Efke 25 in PMK Pyro developer. Clean, sharp, crisp, slow but very nice. Take a look at the APUG gallery in their critique folder. You will have to scroll back a few pages, but look for an image posted by Francesco for me. I think he called it the "1720cc Beast" or something like that. It is a 35mm post card I sent him, but I've blown up this film-developer combination from a cropped 35mm negative to 8x10 with no grain showing at all. You did say you wanted sharp?

 

You don't need to get rid of your 35mm to do good work, but you do need to use a good tripod in order to take full advantage of the format. It neds to be rock steady for a decent shot.

 

Efke 25 is an excellent film (J&C Photo). PMK developer is very inexpensive to use. Try it with a tripod. Rate it at asa 12. Use 7 minutes at 70f with agitation cycles every 15 seconds (actually a 30 second presoak will be at 7:30). Use distilled water. Use a non-acid fixer and a water stop bath with good agitation. Use what you have!

[conrad_hoffman]

Use an acutance developer. Try dilute D-76, Xtol, Acutol, or FX2. Try the very slow fine grain films on a tripod, but also try FP4+ and TMX for more general purpose use, especially if you intend any hand-held stuff. The look is very different. My taste runs to FP4+ because the grain pattern is very tight, and the edge quality and tonal quality are better than anything else I've used. It's not as smooth as TMX, but the results have more "pop". I've never tried Acros, so can't comment on that one. You need a slightly thin neg for maximum acutance, but a denser one for good shadow detail and tonal quality. IMHO, exposure for your application is more critical, and extra time spent on metering and bracketing will be well spent. Do not over develop for the same reasons.

[robert_davis2]

Let me put it this way. What you're asking is like somebody telling us they have a mini cooper and they want to know what the largest boat they can tow behind it. You then add cost to cloud the issue.

 

LARGE with 35mm is 8x10. Is that what you mean by LARGE? Large with LF can be 24"x30" or bigger. I may have missed it but you never mentioned what you consider LARGE. So what size do you want to print? 5x7 from a 35mm negative are okay quality.

 

The cheapest way to print LARGE is to start with large film. If you want the least costily method with the highest quality you want LF. The cheapest way to print QUALITY is LF. 35mm isn't about quality or size. It's about speed. It used to be about small size but today some 35mm cameras are heavier then some view cameras.

 

If you want quality and size then spend $200 on a monorail and a lens. If you want fast low quality then stick with 35mm. Stop trying to turn 35mm into what it's not. You can do all the voodoo dances you want but 35mm will never turn into a swan. Enjoy 35mm for the things it does well.

[hans_beckert]

People:

 

Demi has said he wants to maximize 35mm, not use another format.

 

He understands that 35mm will never equal 4 x 5 (I hope!).

 

 

Demi:

Pan-F Plus in Acutol is as good as it gets. You may also want to try Delta 100 in FX-39, a combination that I have not used.

[StuartMoxham]

Tmax is supposed to be one of the finest grained film available but mant people don't like its tonality. I have tried it a few times but have never felt the urge to stick with it. I always found that while it was fine grained it lacked a certain sharpness. The last time I tried Tmax was with Agfa Rodinal and this seemed to give it a bit of snap but I am still not a big fan of it. For me the finest I have found and liked was Ilford PanF in D76 1:1 very fine grain but then it is a rather slow film add an orange filter and you're stuck on a tripod most of the time. I personaly find find FP4+ in D76 1:1 to be a good compromise fairly fine grain and pretty sharp too. I began using that combo last summer and I will continue with it again this summer. I hope you find a combo that suites yours needs but you may well find that the only way to get what you want would be to move up to medium or large format. I won't try to convince you either way it is your choice what equipment you use and what you are comfortable shooting with.

[everitt]

Demetrius, what size do you want to enlarge to anyways?

[diver down]

The largest I'm printing is 11x14. Thank you, to all those who were able to comprehend that this was a question concerning FILM, to all the Mental Midgets who were not able to comprehend, The QUESTION CONCERNS FILM!!

Regards...

[gaetano catelli]

<i>Let me put it this way. What you're asking is like somebody telling us they have a mini cooper and they want to know what the largest boat they can tow behind it. </i><p>

yes, Robert; but, what if, instead of gasoline, the mini cooper owner uses 90% nitro-methane plus 10% ethanol?

[sandy_king]

No question but that Pan-F has very fine grain and is a high resolution film.

However, I have done some tests with Efke 25 the past several days,

developing it in Pyrocat-HD 1:1;100, and just out of curiosity I pulled out my

microscope and compared the grain of Efke in Pyrocat-HD with Pan-F in the

same developer. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me Efke has finer

grain and it looks every bit as sharp as Pan-F.

 

However, Efke 25 does not have much latitude, either for exposure or

develoment, so for best resutls you really need to test it carefully with

whatever developer you use to get the most out of it.

[jbq]

Geee, no need to shout at the people who try to help. Relax, dude. Lots of people suggesting to go up to medium format can't be that wrong. If you have a lot of money invested in 35mm, you probably have a bit of equipment to trade in for $50 and get a used cheap-a$$ TLR.

 

That being said, I'm out of here.

[mskovacs]

Boy that's some attitude after saying you want to print "LARGE" instead of clearly stating that you mean 11x14. By not stating the size you want to print when this is the most important point, who's the mental midget around here?

[frankl]

Unless you want to try special developers like pyro/etc, i suggest 100Delta, I did some great 11x14 prints from 100Delta negs souped in d76 at my local lab. It was a bit contrastier and sharper than the Agfa APX100 I shot during the same time.

[hans_beckert]

11 x 14 from 35mm is NOT 'large'. I make lots of 16 x 20's.

[pat_wilson1]

Since when was 11x14 large?

 

I print 16x20 off 35mm TriX negs in PMK sometimes and it comes out great. It all depends on the look you are going for. I have 35mm PanF in PMK at 16x20, grainless. So I'm going to put in another word for PMK because I don't like the trade off for fine grain being a loss in actuance, the masking effect of the stain is a very nice benifit.

[oskar_ojala]

11x14?!? All of this for 11x14?!? Any modern 100 speed will deliver at this size with proper tehcnique. Sure you'll get better results with finer grain films, but after they discontinued APX25, I haven't come across finer grained film than FP4+ or APX100 with pictorial qualities (ie. tonality) that I would like enough for general shooting. Haven\t tried Efke 25 though. However, I've seen 50x80 cm prints made from 35 mm, it\s not what I recommend but it's doable and that's large.

[tim obrien]

Demetrius...

 

Seeing as you have taken all our advice, given freely, and tagged onto only Han's great advice (which isn't bad, mind you), and told all the rest of us that we are mental midgets, you can now go get bent and don't bother asking for any more.

 

I also advise you take what little money you have and buy one of these.... http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671027034/102-3334418-8622517?v=glance

 

tim in san jose

[._._z]

<i>I will continue to spurn the advancements of the LF cult </i><p>

 

You were being recommended to look at inexpensive medium format cameras, not large

format. Read more carefully. And be careful whose advice you choose to listen to.