8x10 film sharpness

Till now, I`ve used Tri-X and JandC Classic 400 in 8x10, but recently got a box of 8x10 Acros, I just had to try this film in 8x10, as I`ve had great results in other formats with it...Too bad it`s so expensive...

To the point: Do you see a difference in sharpness between 100 ISO and 400 ISO 8x10? I`m contact printing.
To my eye the Acros looks sharper than the Tri-X and Classic 400, but I don`t have a powerful loupe to really check if I`m just imagning this....

I haven't shot any (!) 400 film in LF, but it seems to me that there is a difference even between 100 and 25 ISO films! It could of course just be the tonality that's different, leading to a difference in perceived{/i] sharpness.

I guess the only way to be sure is to pop a piece of film under the microscope.

There was a post on one of the LF forums, probably lfinfo, that stated the tabular grain films were capable of about 2x resolution of conventional films HP4+ etc. I don't remember who posted.

Sorry I couldn't come up with a link.

Steve

The T-grain Kodak films, TMAX-100 and TMAX-400, definitely have more resolution than traditional films of equivalent ASA. For example, TMAX-100 has more resolution than either FP4+ or Plus-X, and TMAX-400 has more resolution than TRI-X or HP5+. I suspect the same is also true of the Ilford and Fuji T-grain films but can not say for sure as I have never compared them.

But I have found the increse in resolution to be on the order of 20-25%, not 2X.

Sandy

Steve Hamley said:

There was a post on one of the LF forums, probably lfinfo, that stated the tabular grain films were capable of about 2x resolution of conventional films HP4+ etc. I don't remember who posted.

Sorry I couldn't come up with a link.

Steve

Click to expand...

I think we're dealing with two separate questions here:

1. do slower films provide greater resolution (sharpness) than faster films? Acros, in particular, claims very high resolution in non-photographic tests.

2. will it be noticeable in 8x10 contact prints?

Conventional wisdom would answer yes to question 1 - smaller crystals in the slower films will record finer detail, although processing methods will also have a significant effect on apparent sharpness.

The same conventional wisdom would respond "probably not" to question 2, but that depends on the viewer. For example, many 8x10 shooters making contact prints opt for faster (ISO 400-ish) films on the premise that the fine detail provided by slower films won't be seen in a contact print. Personally, I think there is a middle ground where people can "sense" finer detail than their eyes can actually resolve.

Without having done any microscopic analysis of 8x10 film and contact prints I made a few years back, my experience was that 8x10 T-Max 100 film generally looked sharper and contrastier in print than Tri-X. Same scene in some instances, same developer (PMK). I couldn't tell you for the life of me whether it was because the TMX was "sharper", the Tri-X was "mushier", or if the TMX just had better local contrast and therefore more apparent sharpness. Or was it because the TMX had better reciprocity characteristics and therefore was less prone to camera shake during those looooong exposures . . . . or was it the old wooden filmholders or the ancient, kind of shakey Korona, or, or, or. LF presents so many variables.

Peter Gomena

AZO contacts

rbarker said:

I think we're dealing with two separate questions here:

1. do slower films provide greater resolution (sharpness) than faster films? Acros, in particular, claims very high resolution in non-photographic tests.

2. will it be noticeable in 8x10 contact prints?

Conventional wisdom would answer yes to question 1 - smaller crystals in the slower films will record finer detail, although processing methods will also have a significant effect on apparent sharpness.

The same conventional wisdom would respond "probably not" to question 2, but that depends on the viewer. For example, many 8x10 shooters making contact prints opt for faster (ISO 400-ish) films on the premise that the fine detail provided by slower films won't be seen in a contact print. Personally, I think there is a middle ground where people can "sense" finer detail than their eyes can actually resolve.

Click to expand...

Ralph,
I think that any film contact printed on AZO will appear sharper than on other papers, but then you are stuck with printing only the size of the negative. You get something and you lose something it's the saga of photography.
Jack B

I just did some test scans comparing HP5+, Tri-x 320 and Tmax 400. Tmax 400 was definatly sharper, but i like the tonality of tri-x the best of the 3.

rbarker said:

1. do slower films provide greater resolution (sharpness) than faster films? Acros, in particular, claims very high resolution in non-photographic tests.

Click to expand...

okay, I'll bite: what is a none photographic test? (just curious)
Bob

This one gets kicked around from time to time. There is a point at which resolution has no visible effect, but grain becomes a player. Ralph has posted as good an answer as I have seen on the subject. Your eyes can tell a difference where science is on one end and perception is on another.

If you look at sheet of Efke 25 you will be hard pressed to see grain with 'most any developer and a loupe. Efke 100 shows visible grain with a loupe, but this doesn't show up in a contact print. This is with PMK which tends to mask grain. Change to pyrocat and minimal agitation and things begin to change. The 25 still shows no real grain, but the 100 now has more pronounced grain and edges start to change as separation of values comes into play with edge effects. Especially in shadow areas, the 100 comes into its own as the grain (to me) adds contrast and tonality to enhance contrast where the smoother 25 doesn't exhibit the same micro-contrast. The grain is still not seen in the print, but it is certainly there and changes things.

Depending on subject matter, tonality, edges, shadows, developer and too many other variables, fine grain is needed for a fine contact print. Depending on your perception of grain, one man's poisin is another man's high. So, the answer to grain and a sharp print is both yep and nope. tim

laz said:

okay, I'll bite: what is a none photographic test? (just curious)
Bob

Click to expand...

My understanding, Bob, is that Fuji's resolution tests of Acros were done in their lab without the use of a camera, resolution test targets, etc. - presumably so as not to be limited by the resolution capability of the lens. As I recall, they claimed Acros would resolve something like 200 lp/mm, touting it as being better than Tech Pan. But, I'm working off of memory cells that may be subject to parity errors, so don't quote me on that.

Thanks for the good answers!