Best exposure index for Plus-x

[eddym]

Have I offended anyone? Is there something wrong with attempting to control or manipulate the amount of grain in one's photographs by experimenting with different film speeds for different applications?

I don't think you can make a post on APUG without offending someone. If you try really hard, maybe you can offend everyone!

 

[MJFerron]

I shoot a bunch of Plus-x (now Arista Premium 100). I change the rating based on light conditions. Here in ever bright central Texas I usually rate it at 80. 100 in hazy sunshine and 125 on cloudy days. You really don't need 80 on a cloudy day to open shadows as that's been done for you atready. Tmax developer 1-4 at 72 degrees for 4.5 min. is my most recent developer workflow. These settings may vary depending on your camera/meter combination.

 

[gainer]

When philosophers argue with one another, which is what they are expected to do, they define their terms so that they know what they are arguing about, and know when they are arguing. There are times when I think we make up terms as we go along without bothering to define them. Must I define "viewing distance for proper perspective"? It is that viewing distance from a photograph at which the visual angle between any two objects in the photo is the same as that angle was in the photographed scene. That is something with which you may take issue.

When you view a photo from that distance, it will seem to have a depth not apparent from other viewing distances. Distortion of perspective has its artistic uses, as does a grainy appearance, but if one prints in such a way as to resolve grain, which is a common criterion for a sharp print, sooner or later a grain sniffer is going to say "Ah HA!".

Many claims of grain or lack of it are such that I cannot take issue with them, especially on the internet. That's enough from the old grump for now.

 

[clayne]

The whole thing with "grain is annoying, I just hate it!" type of arguments are that they seem to completely ignore the picture entirely. Aren't you guys capable of just looking right past that, without even thinking about it, and taking in the photograph for what it is? Or is fidelity so important to you that you feel it makes or breaks a photograph? (which honestly I think that sharpness and clarity are a fairly weak point to make or break something on)

Is Legacy Pro-100 really ACROS? I read somewhere that it was another Fuji 100 speed film that has been distributed before in other parts of the world but not the US.

Sandy King

No. Legacy Pro 100 is Fujifilm ACROS 100. It is not Fujifilm Neopan SS 100.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Sandy, what he said.... There was some dialogue about this on Flickr, and SS has a different color base than regular ACROS. All sources point out the Legacy Pro 100 is in fact ACROS.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

It's funny that the word fidelity has been offered as a criteria worthy of contempt, albeit, with a little sarcasm I hope.

When listening to one's favorite recording of a musical performance, or a speech, for that matter, does one enjoy discerning "tape hiss" from the cymbals and strings?

It's no coincidence that an analog magnetic tape's noise floor is determined by the size of the magnetic particles (grain) and the volume of tape that passes over the playback head per unit of time (format size).

Consider trading in your perfectly clean digital audio equipment for some old-school, noisy, 8-track (cassette) player from the seventies. When someone asks, what's that hissing sound,? you can reply, That's supposed to be there. That's the sound of low fidelity, Isn't it great!!

 

[sanking]

The whole thing with "grain is annoying, I just hate it!" type of arguments are that they seem to completely ignore the picture entirely. Aren't you guys capable of just looking right past that, without even thinking about it, and taking in the photograph for what it is? Or is fidelity so important to you that you feel it makes or breaks a photograph? (which honestly I think that sharpness and clarity are a fairly weak point to make or break something on)

The answer is yes. Although I have never used the word fidelity to describe the kind of photographs I like, if fidelity is undestood as sharpness, clarity and lack of grain then yes that is important to me.

What makes or breaks the photograph is an entirely different issue that involves other aesthetic and artistic concerns. But if one wants to make photographs that are sharp and show little or no grain they should not have to justify that choice to anyone. The original question of the OP was tecnical one and should be answered in that context.

Grain is just grain, it has no intrinsic artistic value. If you like it feel free to make use of it. I don't like it and try to avoid it to the extent possible, though it is a necessary evil in some cases.

Sandy King

 

[dpurdy]

It is "interesting" that if you say you are concerned with sharpness and or fine grain, people often draw the conclusion that is all you are concerned with. I like clarity from sharpness and fine grain and spend a lot of time trying to attain those qualities, including a lot of time testing and researching how to achieve those qualities, but that is part of the aesthetic "language" I am trying to work with. Not the final and most important concern.
Dennis

 

[clayne]

Grain is just grain, it has no intrinsic artistic value.

Many, many will probably disagree with you on this - but you're of course entitled to your opinion.

It's funny that the word fidelity has been offered as a criteria worthy of contempt, albeit, with a little sarcasm I hope.

When listening to one's favorite recording of a musical performance, or a speech, for that matter, does one enjoy discerning "tape hiss" from the cymbals and strings?

No I'm saying simply learn to ignore it and listen to the MUSIC rather than being obsessed with the limitations of the medium.

 

[removed account4]

bettersense
good luck with your search for a grainless image.
i like plus x, and use it often times as an alternative to tmax films.
but i must offer a disclaimer, i only make "sharp and grainless"
images when i have to for "work" otherwise it is something else i strive for.

i have never understood what the point of a grainless or ultrasharp image
is, other than to have an exact recording of a scene, rendered in
the a surreal black and white image.

i suppose there are some instances where that is mandatory
- like documentary / newspaper or record photography ( habs / haer kind of stuff )
or just for the joy of saying that one can do it ( because one LIKES it! )

i am probably in the minority of folks, i enjoy an image that needs to be interpreted ...
i never put my nose to a print to see how sharp and grainless it might be, but instead ...
take a step back and look at the image as a whole - grainyness, fuzziness and all ...

i always like to read threads like this, because i really can't understand what is so important about
grainlessness, and sharpness and it helps me to understand it a little bit more every time i see this sort of thread.

john

 

[sanking]

Many, many will probably disagree with you on this - but you're of course entitled to your opinion.

Well of course I am entitled to my opinion. That goes without saying.

But, I don't know many large format photograhers who would disagree with me about grain. Clarity and grainless prints are one of the main reasons many of us moved up to the larger formats.

Sandy King

 

[Anscojohn]

The movement of lens and film technology since the advent of "small" format cameras like the Rolleiflex and "miniature" format cameras as the Leica has been towards sharper, finer-grained images at any given film speed with those formats.

Since the "look" of a grainy, unsharp image is obtainable in the darkroom from such negatives if one desires, attempting to achieve such a result through camera exposure, film choice, and type and level of development deprives one of the greatest amount of flexibility in exhibiting one's artistic sensibilities. So why bother not striving for the greatest clarity, sharpness, and absence of grain in the negative?

In ye oldene dayz, if I produced grainy, unsharp photographs it was proof-positive that I was inept. Nowadays, I merely have to convince the viewer it was done on purpose as part of my overall photographic vision. Life is good.

 

[clayne]

Perhaps the issue is one of fidelity vs subject or point. How many times have you seen this one?: ultra-sharp, grainless, perfect exposure, perfect contrast, and surprise: BORING subject.

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.

More and more I become convinced that some of the most prolific and moving photographers of our time have also been the least bit concerned with how perfect their photographs are.

 

[sanking]

Perhaps the issue is one of fidelity vs subject or point. How many times have you seen this one?: ultra-sharp, grainless, perfect exposure, perfect contrast, and surprise: BORING subject.

[/QUOTE


For every print that I have seen that was sharp, grainlss and boring I have seen at least two hundred that were equally boring, and also grainy and fuzzy.


Sandy King

 

[Anscojohn]

For every print that I have seen that was sharp, grainlss and boring I have seen at least two hundred that were equally boring, and also grainy and fuzzy.


Sandy King[/QUOTE]
*******
I agree with both of you. But if the boring photograph is crisp, sharp, grainless, with a full range of tones I can still look at it and marvel about how good film and lenses have become. With a boring photograph on the other end of the "technical quality" spectrum, I can wonder if the photographer was a true arteeste who was able to sell someone a bridge of some sort; rather than just a slob or a poor craftsman. So, yasee, I can have it all.

 

[Thomas Wilson]

:munch:

 

[sanking]

I agree with both of you. But if the boring photograph is crisp, sharp, grainless, with a full range of tones I can still look at it and marvel about how good film and lenses have become. With a boring photograph on the other end of the "technical quality" spectrum, I can wonder if the photographer was a true arteeste who was able to sell someone a bridge of some sort; rather than just a slob or a poor craftsman. So, yasee, I can have it all.

Let's not forget about the role of subject matter in all of this. People are not going to use 8X10 cameras to do bird photography, and the expectation is generally that a large landscape photograph, whether color or B&W, will be sharp with lots of detail.

Sandy King

 

[reub2000]

Back to the OP: Your going to have to figure that one out yourself. Try whatever testing you did on 400TX to get to EI 200 on to find the EI for Plux-X.

My testing that I did in Darkroom 3 class, revealed that 400TX in both D-76 and HC-110 had a speed of 400. 125PX in HC-110 had a speed of 80-100. Many of my classmates got slower speeds.

 

[clayne]

Let's not forget about the role of subject matter in all of this. People are not going to use 8X10 cameras to do bird photography, and the expectation is generally that a large landscape photograph, whether color or B&W, will be sharp with lots of detail.

Sandy King

Because we haven't seen enough landscape photography yet. Sorry, now I'm just being grumpy. :rolleyes:

 

[nickrapak]

I think grain can be described like the "clicks and pops" of a record album. There are certain types of music that just sound "right" with clicks and pops. It may be lower fidelity, but the "mistakes" enhance the experience of listening to an old record. On the other hand, there are some types of music that are best heard with clean, lossless, digital audio. In this case, the clicks and pops would be detrimental to the listening experience, and pure audio is superior. However, there are some people that believe one type of media is the end-all, be-all of superiority. That doesn't mean that their opinion is wrong, just different than most.

Grain is just that. It can be good, it can be bad, there are people that hate it, and people that love it, but we all have to use what we as individuals like best instead of squabbling over opinions.

 

[MattKing]

The appearance of grain helps keep it clear that a photograph is the result of a process, not a hole in a wall that we can look through.

Sometimes we prefer the process to be very evident - think bromoils for instance.

Other times, the presence of obvious signs of the process itself tend to distract from the enjoyment of the subject of the photograph. Grain can be distracting, if it intrudes on that enjoyment. Whether or not it does intrude depends on the subject, and such practical matters as how big the photograph is.

I would be willing to bet that most new photographers have greater problems with grain than someone with the experience of Sandy King, even when using the same materials, because Sandy, as a result of experience, has better technique available to him.

I don't consider grain to be a defect, but it can be a problem.

Matt

 

[sanking]

Sometimes we prefer the process to be very evident - think bromoils for instance.

.......
I would be willing to bet that most new photographers have greater problems with grain than someone with the experience of Sandy King, even when using the same materials, because Sandy, as a result of experience, has better technique available to him.

I don't consider grain to be a defect, but it can be a problem.

Matt

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

 

[clayne]

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

Or it can be changed by changing your perception. If you're unable to look past the grain - then who really loses?

 

[reub2000]

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.

 

[BetterSense]

grain is virtually non-existent in high quality digital cameras, even when used at ASA of 3400-6800.

I don't really know about the state of high-quality digital cameras. But I have to say that while even thick nasty grain can be 'looked through', I have a hard time 'looking through' even the slightest bit of digital noise. I think our brains can look through analog grain and see what's on the other side as still real, while doing the same with digital noise is much harder. It makes all sense to me too, considering that grain is a physical pattern on a physical negative and it stands to reason that our brains are capable of filtering out such random physical interference in the real world. I suppose in certain cases this could be why people like grain, as it might make the image seem even 'more real' than if the grain was not there.