Best exposure index for Plus-x

[sanking]

A smooth picture is your reward for carrying a 4x5 camera in an awkward case out into the field. Now the OP was inquiring on how to get less grain in his pictures, not whether or not it should be there.

That is exactly right, and he was made to feel bad by folks who insist that we should just accept grain. I respect the right of those persons to make prints with golf ball size if they like. Why won't they accept that others of us have the right to seek toi eliminate or minimize grain in our work if we so choose? What is up with folks who want to impose their aesthetic principles on the rest of us?

Sandy King

 

[removed account4]

That is exactly right, and he was made to feel bad by folks who insist that we should just accept grain. I respect the right of those persons to make prints with golf ball size if they like. Why won't they accept that others of us have the right to seek toi eliminate or minimize grain in our work if we so choose? What is up with folks who want to impose their aesthetic principles on the rest of us?

Sandy King

i hope i didn't come off like that sandy - i always like learning how and why people do what they do.
if grainlessness and sharpnessness is what you strive for, that is fine by me ...

it is like landscape photography, i don't "get it" it doesn't mean i don't try to do it, or wish i understood why+how people do it ...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You could continue to use Tri-X, but process in Xtol for really smooth grain.
Plus-X is a fine grained film that looks a lot like Tri-X. You should easily be able to shoot it at EI 100. I use it at box speed with Xtol.
If you want even finer grain than that, use Kodak Tmax 100. It's arguably the finest grained ISO 100 film there is. Processed in Xtol, a well exposed and processed negative produces an 8x10 print that could easily be mistaken for coming from a medium format negative. But it looks different, it is a more linear film with less toe and shoulder.
If you want to continue with ISO 400 film, try Tmax 400. The new TMY-2 is amazingly fine grained and sharp too. But expensive, if you're looking for budget film. Fuji Acros is also extremely fine grained, and is available from Freestyle as Legacy Pro 100 at a formidable price. Not everybody likes the look of that film, but it sure has fine grain and it's very sharp.

- Thomas

Since shooting more medium format I'm starting to get annoyed at the graininess of Tri-X 35mm enlargements, so I'm looking to buy some finer-grained 35mm film to keep around for bright conditions.

I was going to buy some Foma 100 but then I remembered that Plus-X is available pretty cheaply in the form of Arista Premium 100.

I personally like Tri-X better at 200 than at 400. I find that I have to expose it at 200-250 in all of my cameras to get good negatives (by my definition) in D76 1+1.

Proper Kodak Plus-X is 125 speed, yet the Arista Premium version is 100. This is a small difference, but if Plus-X is overrated like Tri-X, then it's really closer to a 50 speed film. I have heard on motion picture fora that the Plus-X reversal film is drastically overrated and people overexpose it by up to 2 stops and get good footage.

What do you find to be the effective speed of Plus-X and how does it compare to Foma 100 in terms of 'true speed' and graininess?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I should also add that it depends a bit on the lighting situation what you want to do with your exposure index for Plus-X. In really flat lighting compared to a scene of high contrast (or brightness range) you may wish to expose your film differently, giving enough exposure to get the shadow detail YOU think is appropriate. Then while processing you must of course take the lighting conditions into considerations so you don't block your highlights up or end up with negatives that are difficult to print.
Some lighting may require an exposure index of 50, and others 200.

 

[sanking]

i hope i didn't come off like that sandy - i always like learning how and why people do what they do.
if grainlessness and sharpnessness is what you strive for, that is fine by me ...

it is like landscape photography, i don't "get it" it doesn't mean i don't try to do it, or wish i understood why+how people do it ...

All I am saying is let's just address the question of the OP without throwing in all this stuff about whether grain is desirable or undesirable. I am only talking about grain because the OP felt that his question might have offended someone, when in fact he was the one who should have felt offended.

As for the subject, it has been mentioned that TMY-2 is a fine grain film, and that is definitely true. It would certainly be my choice for 35mm work if I needed more speed that provided by Acros, Tmax-100 or Delta 100.

Sandy

 

[BetterSense]

It's ok, really.

 

[Chazzy]

The main issue here was the OP even worrying about the level of grain of 135 400TX in the first place - which some of us just found to be funny.

And I think that those of you who have pounced upon him are out of order. Obviously the film manufacturers think that there is a place for slower films, and obviously people are buying them. And please don't tell me that grainy photographs are automatically more interesting than technically superior photographs.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

The original OP was we needed to suggest an alternative to Tri-x in 35mm as it was to grainy tto him after using MF for a while. He'd like to know more about plus X, FOMA 100, and Arista Premium 100 aka (Plus X) as viable emulsions to try. I suggested he take a look at Arista Legacy Pro-100 (ACROS) as it's been a revelation for me lately. I never thought I would use 35mm film again. After rediscovering it again recently, I have been blown away by the sharpness, and lack of grain with the Legacy Pro-100 film. I've also been developing in 8 year old Diafine I had mixed up!! I love the fact that you can expose frames differently and not have to worry about blocking the highlights in scenes with high brightness ranges.. The way that Diafine works makes for a slight speed increase, but more importantly, does not over develop the highlights. All highlights get sufficient development, and as long as you have exposed for the shadows correctly, everything will fall into place. To me, that allows HUGE latitude in how you expose your film. I'm not saying it negates the issue totally, but I have rolls done recently where the SBR differs greatly and in MF or LF circles would call for modified development or a pyro developer. With the Diafine developed negs, ALL frames are easily printable, with minimal grain, and super sharp. It works for me, and will be something I continue to use from now on.

 

[BetterSense]

That's very interesting to me. I like the grain structure of Neopan 400 a lot which is what I use in medium format, so maybe I will give the Acros/Legacy a try.

I like to use Diafine with Tri-X too because it seems to magically give a printable negative when exposed in the neighborhood of 1000, but I avoid doing it exclusively because it exaggerates the grain compared to D76, and 1000 is pretty fast for daylight anyway. Maybe I'll end up shooting Acros normally and Tri-X in the dark, both in Diafine. I bought the 2x 1-gallon batch and I've been using about a liter of it for months now, keeping it stored in plastic juice bottles. The rest is in glass wine bottles; I think I have a lifetime supply of Diafine. Does it ever go bad?

 

[jim appleyard]

Yes, it does, but it takes quite awhile. In fact, there was a thread here a few months ago about someone who's Diafine had gone bad after several years.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Well mine's going strong for 8 years now. It was mixed back in 2001 when I first moved in here. I used it for two rolls of film and its been sat there until about a month ago when I found it..... I shook it up good and made sure no deposits were in there, and it's been working fine. I know it will fail at some point, but it's almost gotten to the point where I want to see how long I can push it until it does die.... Both solutions are not as clear as when I mixed them obviously, and I am diligent about making sure no cross contamination occurs, but they appear to be working fine for now.

I have also heard that it can be replenished, but I certainly have not tried it.

 

[sanking]

The original OP was we needed to suggest an alternative to Tri-x in 35mm as it was to grainy tto him after using MF for a while. He'd like to know more about plus X, FOMA 100, and Arista Premium 100 aka (Plus X) as viable emulsions to try. I suggested he take a look at Arista Legacy Pro-100 (ACROS) as it's been a revelation for me lately.

If the Arista Legacy-Pro-100 is really Acros I would definitely second your recommendation. Over the past two or three years Acros has become my favorite film for medium format. It is every bit as sharp and grain free as Tmax-100 and Delta 100, which are also very good films for MF, but in addition Acros is virtually reciprocity failure free. The practical effect of this is that your exposures in many low light conditions may actually me less than they would be with a high speed ASA 400 film.

I develop Acros in either divided D23 or in divided Pyrocat-HD whenever I have exposed a roll of film with scenes of varying contrast, or in regular Pyrocat-HD when thall of the frames on the frames on the roll are exposed in the same lighting condition.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

And I think that those of you who have pounced upon him are out of order. Obviously the film manufacturers think that there is a place for slower films, and obviously people are buying them. And please don't tell me that grainy photographs are automatically more interesting than technically superior photographs.

Charles,

Another important consideration is that the concept that "grain is good" is almost entirely a result of the popularity of the miniature film camera in the 20the century. You rarely ever see grain on vintage 19th century prints, whether they be salted paper, albumen, silver gelatin or silver collodion, platinum, etc. Most 19th century prints, which were made from LF negatives, have a creamy grain free look that is smooth as a baby's butt.


Sandy King

 

[wogster]

Matt,

First, I can assure you that I have made more than my fair share of grainy, fuzzy and boring photographs, and maybe a few nice grainy ones as well. Grain can work for some subjects. I made a print this evening that was shot with a 6X4.5 camera with ASA 800 Portra film, and at 12X18" in size it has a lot of grain, but in this case the grain mimics the stone on a very old coat of arms.

I don't consider grain to be a defect, either, just a technical characteristic that exists with certain combinations of camera size, film, and final image size. There is just nothing you can do about it if you want to shoot street scenes held with high speed film in a 35mm camera-- you are going to get grain. So we have come to associate grain with some types of photograhy, but that of course is being changed because grain is virtually non-existent in high quality digital cameras, even when used at ASA of 3400-6800.

Sandy

Sometimes though digital can look too perfect. We have all seen the photo that was shot in the smokey Jazz club using 35mm and Tri-X, pushed to the very limit, grainy and contrasty as can be. Shoot the same image on a high ISO capable digital, so that it's perfectly noiseless, and you would think it's boring. Grain can give an image character. If someone wants a grainless image though, take some 120 size PanF, rate it 25EI, soup it in a fine grain developer, and you have virtually no grain, especially if the print is 8x10 or smaller. Of course you need to be prepared to have a tripod at all times.....

 

[Thomas Wilson]

I can imagine such a Jazz club photo, shot with perhaps T-max 400, in a 4x5 press camera (with modern glass even), painstakingly processed in fine grain developer.

Just imagine the glistening drops of condensation rolling down a lip-stick stained glass, or the ash from a cigarette bending just before it drops to the ground. The iridescence of true pearl accordion keys, keenly polished from decades of use. Reading nuanced glances between patrons through smoke so real you could almost smell it. Steam rising from a basket of shrimp while a small chalkboard at the end of the bar lists the specials and the "Catch of the day."

Yea, that's boring.

 

[clayne]

I can imagine such a Jazz club photo, shot with perhaps T-max 400, in a 4x5 press camera (with modern glass even), painstakingly processed in fine grain developer.

Just imagine the glistening drops of condensation rolling down a lip-stick stained glass, or the ash from a cigarette bending just before it drops to the ground. The iridescence of true pearl accordion keys, keenly polished from decades of use. Reading nuanced glances between patrons through smoke so real you could almost smell it. Steam rising from a basket of shrimp while a small chalkboard at the end of the bar lists the specials and the "Catch of the day."

Yea, that's boring.

You can get that nuance from 35mm Tri-X as well. Obviously I don't think anyone will take any issue with 4x5 (although in that setting grain tends to be beneficial). Much of detail in a scene like that is merely inferred - having down to the writing on the wall sharpness isn't something most viewers of it even pay attention to. It's the feeling that they take away from the scene as a whole that makes it what it is.

I just get the vibe that we have a lot of large format bigots in here. The very thought of using 135 is hell to them. Reminds me of the audiophile crowd who wouldn't dare listen to their Queen albums played on "inferior" sound systems without 5k$ cables and 20k$ monoblock amps. Do these people actually listen to anything?

 

[Dave Pritchard]

Grain isn't noise. Grain is artifact. Dust and lint is noise. You may like artifact or dislike it. Dirt, on the other hand, is just dirt.

 

[wogster]

Grain isn't noise. Grain is artifact. Dust and lint is noise. You may like artifact or dislike it. Dirt, on the other hand, is just dirt.

You are correct, so if you have grain anyway, you might as well use it to add character to the image. If you don't like grain in your prints, then go and buy a 120 camera, and a pile of PanF and some fine grain developer, you can look all day without seeing much in the way of grain in an 8x10 print.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I just get the vibe that we have a lot of large format bigots in here. The very thought of using 135 is hell to them. Reminds me of the audiophile crowd who wouldn't dare listen to their Queen albums played on "inferior" sound systems without 5k$ cables and 20k$ monoblock amps. Do these people actually listen to anything?

This is a completely nonsensical comparison. 5000 dollar cables won't make any difference to the actual sound, whereas a 4x5 camera can give a result that is differentiated from 35mm.

Tom.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Actually, with audio equipment you get what you pay for mostly. But when it comes to exotics that are hugely expensive, it's more a matter of 'taste' whether you like the sound or not. Cables may or may not make a difference to the listener - it's there if you believe it is, if you want to hear it.
I believe the same is true with cameras. You can use an inexpensive Pentax K1000 and a simple 50mm f/1.7 lens and buy it for very little money and make photographs that are just as 'good' as those made from 8x20 cameras. It's all subjective and a matter of taste, which is what makes the discussion both interesting and moot.
If you believe that 4x5 is the best format, then you're going to get the best results with it, as opposed to using something you don't like. If you think 35mm best - guess what - same thing. Grain can sometimes really help to accentuate an image.

There are no absolutes, only interpretations. Use the grain if you want to. Don't use it if you don't like the look of it. In this case, the original poster asked about how to best expose Plus-X or using other alternatives to Tri-X, because he didn't like the grain.
Fuji Acros / Legacy Pro 100 in Diafine seems to be a fine candidate right now. He has an interesting solution.

Inexpensive audio systems can sound amazing too. Usually it's down to matching components and making sure that speakers / amplifier / CD player / turntable work well together, and cables are definitely a part of making that synergy happen. It's much like photography, where you select a paper you like and a print developer and then you design your film / film processing / camera / lens to suit that paper.
The camera is not that important, as long as you can convey your message, your intent, and show the content.

 

[Andrew Horodysky]

Beautifully worded, Thomas!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Thomas,

My point about the 4x5 compared to 35mm is that the differences can be measured, tested, observed etc. In an objective to semi-objective way, not about subjective notions concerning what is 'good' or the 'best format'. I use from 35mm to 8x10. Preferences shouldn't really be confused with technical realities or issues.

Tom.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Tom, my post wasn't directed at you. Just the whole discussion.

You are right that results can be measured. But mostly, in my opinion, those measurements mean very little to the satisfaction of the photographer as far as the final print is concerned.
I speak a bit from my own perspective where I care very little about the technical quality of a photograph. I care about the message, the mood, and the content. As a matter of fact I just sold my 4x5 outfit because I just couldn't find a single advantage it would give me over my Hasselblad or Canon that I care about.

 

[dpurdy]

Aren't people just drawing the same line in a different place? How many who don't care for technical concern would shoot 110 film or micro film or whatever is the smallest available film or half frame film? At some point the quality won't be good enough to give you what you want. Everyone will draw that line somewhere and then disagree where it should be drawn.

 

[sanking]

Aren't people just drawing the same line in a different place? How many who don't care for technical concern would shoot 110 film or micro film or whatever is the smallest available film or half frame film? At some point the quality won't be good enough to give you what you want. Everyone will draw that line somewhere and then disagree where it should be drawn.

You make a very good point. And ultimately all of us have the right to make our own decisions as to what is good and poor print quality, and the importance of content versus technical considerations such as grain, clarity, tonal values, sheen, texture, etc.

If you are making prints for yourself you have only yourself to please, but if you are a professional or fine art photographer who has to please others those interests will have to be met as well. What sells in one market or with one genre of photography may not sell at all in other venues.

Another issue is that people should avoid trying to impose their aesthetic standards on others. I personally like the kind of creamy tonalities and sharp detail that is characteristic of medium format and large format photography, but if people want to work with zone plate lens with 35mm and ASA 1600 film I wish them good look in getting the results they are after. I certainly am not going to laugh at them or put them down. Over the years I have used every type of camera, from 35mm rangefinder and SLRs to 20X24, and digital as well. I currently have an exhibition up in Xalapa Mexico that includes carbon transfer prints made with Canon G9 digital (tiny little 7mm wide sensor) , Canon 50D digital (APS sensor, smaller than 35mm film), and in film, Fuji GA645zi, Fuji GW690III, Mamiya 711, 5X7", and 7X17". The fact that I missed 4X5 should not be taken as a slight on users of 4X5.


Sandy Kiing