Best B&W Film Reversal Kit: Foma, Adox Scala, or Bellini

[Lachlan Young]

thinness of Aviphot

It's not the film base, more the relatively thin emulsion (if it's anything like APX 200s, 7.5 micron total), and probably the silver/m2 needed to deliver higher average gradients than film designed to deliver normal contrast at sea level.

 

[MattKing]

Emulsion thinness is one of the biggest reasons that Kodachrome was as sharp as it was - those individual layers were very thin, for their time.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

It's not the film base, more the relatively thin emulsion (if it's anything like APX 200s, 7.5 micron total), and probably the silver/m2 needed to deliver higher average gradients than film designed to deliver normal contrast at sea level.

Yup

 

[Henning Serger]

Wait a moment, this is interesting and not OT to me.

Hello Alessandro,
I am not the member you have asked the following questions below, but I am confronted with that topic regularly in my film, developer and lens tests, and I can answer your questions based on the results of thousands of scientific tests over the decades:

Are you stating that the finest grain a film has (or a developer imparts to a film - it comes to mind Perceptol for example) the less sharp a film is?

No. In most cases - but not in all cases - finer grained films offer higher resolution and better contour sharpness in the sense that the contours / edges are more clearly separated to the surrounding. That can be very well seen at very high magnifications, e.g. in projection and under a microscope.
But sometimes there are some exceptions, like Ektar 100 for example, which offers very fine grain, but resolution and contour / edge sharpness are not on the same level as films like Fujicolor 100, Fuji Pro160, Portra 160, Superia 200 etc.
Acros 100 I and II have finer grain than Delta 100, but Delta 100 has a bit higher resolution and better sharpness than Acros (both developed in SPUR HRX for direct comparison).
Another example: TMX has a similar fineness of grain compared to Agfa Copex Rapid (SPUR DSX), but Copex Rapid has significantly higher resolution and better sharpness.

On the contrary, Rodinal and Ilfosol 3 are the most sharp developers around?

No, they are not. Both can deliver very good sharpness - based on a pure visual impression - at low to medium scale enlargements. But at high enlargements and under the microscope you see that the larger grain has a negative effect on real edge / contour sharpness. The lines / contours are becomming more "ausgefranst" (frayd / unraveled / frazzled).
With ADOX FX-39 II and Tetenal Neofin Blau (and other Beutler based formulars) you can also get a very good sharpness, with some films even a little bit better than Rodinal.
And with SPUR Acurol N, SPUR HRX, CG512, JOBO Alpha and the soon coming new SPUR Omega X even better sharpness, and (much) finer grain as well.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

That's only a part of the story.

Yes, because I did not want to write a several pages long article here .
Nevertheless its a very important part because it demonstrates a different approach Kodak has chosen with several of the latest films.

The high frequency information transmission capacity of a given emulsion is effectively limited by the granularity (quite severely) and/ or where the MTF response falls off (as that enhances the visibility of the granularity).

That is theoretically correct. But it is overlooking the fact that in real world tests with lens+film even at a lower object contrast ratio of 1:4 (my standard test) the granularity of fine grained CN films, BW films and especially colour positive films is so fine that you can surpass 100 lp/mm easily. So you don't have significant resolution limitations because of the grain in this film class.

Therefore if you design an emulsion that has extremely high low frequency MTF response, and a slightly faster roll off at high frequencies it'll look both much sharper and finer grained than one that has a less strong MTF response at lower frequencies and a longer roll-off at higher frequencies.

Correct in theory. But not relevant here in this case (topic was Ektar 100) because Ektar is not designed in that way, no extremely high MTF at low spatial frequencies.

In the real world, despite what high contrast resolution tests might suggest, there are very real limitations as to how much useful resolution a given opto-mechanical system can record on film, but getting the highest possible MTF below 40 cyc/mm will look dramatically better perceptually than any of the claims over whether an extra 10 lp/mm at high frequencies makes a difference.

1. I don't do high contrast resolution tests. My tests are all done at a relatively low object contrast of only 2 stops (1:4). Because that is extremely relevant to practical photography, as you have many very important details of that object contrast in about all photos.
2. The possible resolution values with film have very significantly increased in the last years with the new, much improved lens designs. Former knowledge about system resolution values of lens+film from 40 years ago is partly outdated. Old books cannot tell the whole current story.
3. In the case of the comparison of Provia 100F to E100, Provia delivers both a significantly higher MTF at low spatial frequencies (therefore looks sharper in direct comparison), and about 10% higher resolution values at higher spatial frequencies (and that is seen in projection with the higher magnification).
4. Concerning Ektar 100: The difference to the best CN films is 20-30 lp/mm, and that difference is visible in bigger prints.

And that is what really matters in making convincing big enlargements - not whether a film can resolve a high contrast target at 110 or 120 lp/mm (the micro-fine detail difference is of no matter to viewers who aren't aerial recon analysts),

Again, my test results are not based on high contrast targets, just the opposite.
And for big enlargements you also have to consider the following: At viewing distances of about 25cm the human eye can resolve about 6-10 lp/mm in a quantative way, so the test persons are able to count the lines precisely. But if you then show them a chart with 15-20 lp/mm, they cannot count the single lines anymore, but lots of test persons are still able to see a quality difference: They see that the test object has a higher resolution and more details than the first object, they just cannot quantify the difference. And that is also one of the effects you see in bigger enlargements (prints, projection) with higher resolving materials.

You can see the effect I summarised in your results too - while the midtone gradient is being brought down to a reasonable level, the toe and shoulder remain very sharp - very much a fundamental function of the emulsion - and not something that process alteration is probably going to alter significantly. In the right circumstances it can be aesthetically successful. With neg/pos, it's possible to get round that problem more effectively (squeeze more on to the straight line), but for reversal it's a problem.

I would not draw any conclusions in that direction from only two snapshots I've posted here, and in a different context. The overall contrast on that day was extremely high, so high that any photographic medium would have had problems. And that are scans, not all data on the original transparencies could have been recorded.
For reasonable conclusions you have to make direct side-by-side comparison tests under exactly the same test conditions

For the record, Ilfosol 3 is much sharper than Rodinal, and finer grained - but because of the heightened sharpness the grain is more visible than something like D-76.

If someone wants both excellent sharpness and very fine grain, then the way to go is the route of the latest innovations in developers, like SPUR HRX, JOBO Alpha and SPUR Omega X (will be introduced soon).
Much better performance in that regard than the old(er) formulations, for which production costs and high-volume production capabilities played a significant role as well (a bit simpler formulars).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Emulsion thinness is one of the biggest reasons that Kodachrome was as sharp as it was - those individual layers were very thin, for their time.

Matt, time and technology have moved on.
For today's current films you cannot make any conclusions like "the thinner the emulsion, the sharper the film is automatically".
I tested Kodachrome in my standardized film test just before the discontinuation in comparison to all available colour reversal films of the market at that time.
Result:
All ISO 50/18° and ISO 100/21° E-6 colour reversal films from Kodak and especially Fujifilm delivered better sharpness, finer grain and significantly higher resolution than Kodachrome 64.

There were very good reasons why positive film users switched in masses from Kodachrome to the E-6 alternatives in the 90ies and the first decade of this century. I was one of them, and I never looked back. The E-6 alternatives surpassed Kodachrome in detail rendition (resolution, fineness of grain, sharpness), light sensitivity, colour reproduction, costs, possibility to develop at home, and colour stability when exposed to light / in projection (Kodachrome colours are fading away very fast when you project them regularly).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I found a page online that tests different projection lenses and thought it would be useful to share here since this thread is also about slide projection: https://deltalenses.com/projector-lens-group-test-1-fast-90s/

Thanks Miha.
Just an addition from my side, as I have also tested projection lenses:
From my results I can put the Leica Super-Colorplan and the Zeiss P-Sonnar on a higher ranking compared to the results in the test you have linked.
And my assessment is confirmed by several other tests done and published in Germany (which has been the country in which slide projection has been most popular).
Based on my and these other published tests I can give the following recommendations for different projector brands:

Leica:
Best lens: Leica Super-Colorplan 2.5/90.
Second best: Leica Colorplan 2.5/90 and Zeiss P-Sonnar 2.5/90 (it can be used in the PC projector line with a slight adjustment).

Zeiss-Ikon / Zett:
Best lens: Zeiss P-Sonnar 2.5/90.

Kindermann silent 1500 / 2500 series:
Best lens: Kindermann MC-B 2.4/90 (made by Docter Optics, this lens has an aperture and can be stopped down).

Braun Paximat Multimag series:
Best lenses: Braun Ultralit PL 2.4/90 and Braun Ultralit 2.8/85 MC-B (with aperture).

Rollei Rolleivision twin series (35mm):
Best lens: Rollei AV-Apogon 2.4/90.

Rollei Rolleivision 66 medium format projectors:
Best lenses: Schneider AV-Xenotar 2.8/150 and Rollei AV-Apogon 2.8/120.

Kindermann diafocus 66T medium format projector:
Best lens: Kindermann 2.8/150 MC.

For slide projection I always recommend using the best lense(s) for the specific projector available.
It is really worth it!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

You are welcome @Henning Serger . As for the Kindermann lens - I wonder why would a projection lens need an aperture? My Pradovit has a switch to adjust brightness, with a 'normal' setting for full brightness and a dimmed option to help extend the lamp's life. I don't understand why anyone would want to dim the brightness through the lens aperture.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Thanks Miha.
Just an addition from my side, as I have also tested projection lenses:
From my results I can put the Leica Super-Colorplan and the Zeiss P-Sonnar on a higher ranking compared to the results in the test you have linked.
And my assessment is confirmed by several other tests done and published in Germany (which has been the country in which slide projection has been most popular).
Based on my and these other published tests I can give the following recommendations for different projector brands:

Leica:
Best lens: Leica Super-Colorplan 2.5/90.
Second best: Leica Colorplan 2.5/90 and Zeiss P-Sonnar 2.5/90 (it can be used in the PC projector line with a slight adjustment).

Zeiss-Ikon / Zett:
Best lens: Zeiss P-Sonnar 2.5/90.

Kindermann silent 1500 / 2500 series:
Best lens: Kindermann MC-B 2.4/90 (made by Docter Optics, this lens has an aperture and can be stopped down).

Braun Paximat Multimag series:
Best lenses: Braun Ultralit PL 2.4/90 and Braun Ultralit 2.8/85 MC-B (with aperture).

Rollei Rolleivision twin series (35mm):
Best lens: Rollei AV-Apogon 2.4/90.

Rollei Rolleivision 66 medium format projectors:
Best lenses: Schneider AV-Xenotar 2.8/150 and Rollei AV-Apogon 2.8/120.

Kindermann diafocus 66T medium format projector:
Best lens: Kindermann 2.8/150 MC.

For slide projection I always recommend using the best lense(s) for the specific projector available.
It is really worth it!

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks!
Are you aware of any good ~60mm projection lens - neat to have large image in smaller rooms.

As for the Kindermann lens - I wonder why would a projection lens need an aperture?

Increased optical performance when stopped down a bit as with most lenses I've read about?
And possibly larger DOF for deeper focusing field, resulting in less focusing issues?

 

[miha]

Increased optical performance when stopped down a bit as with most lenses I've read about?

I don't think this is the case. If you read the literature, Leica advertised the Super Colorplan to be on par with their APO taking lenses. Achieving optimal quality already at f/2.5 with a 90mm lens designed specifically for the projection of a 2-dimensional object is an easier task for optical designers than achieving the same on a comparable taking lens.

 

[Henning Serger]

You are welcome @Henning Serger . As for the Kindermann lens - I wonder why would a projection lens need an aperture? My Pradovit has a switch to adjust brightness, with a 'normal' setting for full brightness and a dimmed option to help extend the lamp's life. I don't understand why anyone would want to dim the brightness through the lens aperture.

Hello Miha,

good question, and I will try to answer as best as I can:
Well, you don't necessarily "need" an aperture in a projection lens, but in certain cases / applications it has an advantage.
I have this Kindermann 2.4/90 MC-B lens (with aperture), made by Docter Optics. For my Kindermann silent 2500 (250W) projector.
This lens is already very good at open aperture, and stopped down to f4 or f5.6 it has really excellent quality.
Stopped down you not only have outstanding image quality, but also more depth-of-field, which improves overall image quality in those cases when your slide mounts don't offer very good "Planlage", flatness of field (which is often the case with cheaper slide mounts).

The downside is of course that the projected image on the screen will be visibly darker when the lens is stopped down.
But that can be acceptable (means the image on the screen will be bright enough in most cases) if
- you use the lens with a 250W projector (and not with a 150W projector)
- when the projected image has a max. width of 1.5 meters (= normal image size in a living room projection)
- when you have a very bright screen, e.g. a high-reflective one with tiny glass-beads.

I had used the Kinderman silent 2500 with this lens with a Da-Lite Picture King screen with the outstanding High-Power surface (probably the best slide projection screen ever made). In this combination the brightness on the screen stopped down with the MC-B lens was acceptable.
But later I added to my projection set-up the Leica Pradovit PC projector with the Leica Super-Colorplan lens. And using the Diaspeed HT-XYZ slide mounts which offer optimal Planlage, flatness of field. Therefore no need anymore for a stopped down lens. This Leica set-up is now for many years my main set-up for 35mm projection. The Kindermann with the MC-B lens is used sometimes for older transparencies in sub-optimal mounts.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanks!
Are you aware of any good ~60mm projection lens - neat to have large image in smaller rooms.

Ivo, with the standard 90mm projection lenses you normally don't have any problems to project to a screen size of 1.5 meters width. Which is possible even in relatively small living rooms (I am doing that regularly).
And because of that I have never used a 60mm lens by myself, I never needed it. Photographer friends using projection also never used one.
Therefore I cannot give you advice from own tests and experiences.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

Thank again Henning. As you mentioned, and as we know, an f/2,5 lens that performs optimally wide open is certainly possible (such as the Leica (Super) Colorplan, among others), so stopping down feels like too much of a compromise. My Pradovit is a 250W projector, and I prefer using it at full power for larger projections. On the other hand, when projecting smaller images, the slide flatness and lens quality become progressively less important.

 

[runswithsizzers]

@miha, I'm curious if this thread answered your question? That is, based on what is posted here, or on your own experience -- have you decided which one of the three B&W Film Reversal Kits is best for you -- Foma, Adox Scala, or Bellini?

And if you have picked one as a favorite, what attributes were the deciding factors for you?

 

[miha]

@miha, I'm curious if this thread answered your question? That is, based on what is posted here, or on your own experience -- have you decided which one of the three B&W Film Reversal Kits is best for you -- Foma, Adox Scala, or Bellini?

And if you have picked one as a favorite, what attributes were the deciding factors for you?

I'm afraid it doesn't. I'll have to search for the grail myself. I'm glad Henning shared his results with the Adox film and demonstrated how it best represents slide film. I wish other participants would present their results on a light table, but unfortunately, it's rare to actually see them - most just talk about their outcomes . While the Adox HR 50 offers greater resolution, I find its tonality less appealing. The Adox developing kit, however, seems the most user-friendly, with only two components. On the other hand, Fomapan 100R is the only film I plan to try first, using its dedicated kit.

 

[Henning Serger]

I'm afraid it doesn't. I'll have to search for the grail myself. I'm glad Henning shared his results with the Adox film and demonstrated how it best represents slide film.

Miha, as written in my post above my phone snapshots of ADOX SCALA I have posted here can only give a very rough first impression. Only in real life on a light table and in projection transparencies show their full unique and outstanding beauty.
Digitalisation and computer monitors with their extremely limiting quality simply cannot show the beauty of this unique medium.
Monitor views suck, compared to the original. That is the reality we have to accept.
But maybe you are in the future in Germany, and it could be that I will be in Slovenia in the foreseeable future. Then we could meet, and I can show you all in real life. If you like.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

Henning, I agree, monitors suck. This is why I print negs and project slides, and why I need to explore different combos by trying out several options.
And yes, I would be more than happy to meet a fellow photographer, whether in Germany or Slovenia, if the opportunity ever comes along.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Ivo, with the standard 90mm projection lenses you normally don't have any problems to project to a screen size of 1.5 meters width. Which is possible even in relatively small living rooms (I am doing that regularly).

Then there are really small rooms - like filling 1.75m screen from 3m distance and 90mm would produce half of that

 

[f/Alex]

This may have alresdy been mentiones, on a smartphone currently, scope is limited, but i have had pretty good sucess just using a 25:1 hydrogen 3% peroxide-white heinz vinegar combo recently.

 

[brbo]

Henning, I agree, monitors suck. This is why I print negs and project slides, and why I need to explore different combos by trying out several options.
And yes, I would be more than happy to meet a fellow photographer, whether in Germany or Slovenia, if the opportunity ever comes along.

Since we are from the same country, I can dig up my Fomapan 100R slides developed in Foma kit and give (I'm from MB) or send some to you to give you better idea of what to expect from this combination. There were no Leica lenses or tripods involved (just everyday shots) so maybe not the best to judge the resolution from, though...

I see that I have also scanned some of them. See here...

 

[perkeleellinen]

Then there are really small rooms - like filling 1.75m screen from 3m distance and 90mm would produce half of that

Kodak Retinar 36mm works very well for me in a small space.

 

[miha]

Hi @brbo this is most kind of you! As we speak I already have the Foma Reversal set on the way, so the proof will be in the pudding Your flickr examples already gave the idea of what of expect. Btw, resolution etc looks perfectly fine, and it isn't a concern. It's the tonality that I'm after. Thanks again. Anyway, If I find myself in MB or if you happen to be in Gorenjska region, we can meet up for a beer!

 

[brbo]

@miha, great!

Will you be using Foma R100 or some other film?

 

[miha]

@miha, great!

Will you be using Foma R100 or some other film?

Yes, Foma R100.

 

[miha]

Just arrived

Looking forward to trying the film out. Any tips on what EI to use if it's different from the box speed?