Can You Have It All? Fine Grain And Sharpness?

[gainer]

If you are trying to get the edge effect that is often confused with sharpness, you may not be able to have fine grain, good resolution and sharpness. If you have a print that is truly sharp, your eye will see edge effects that disappear when you look at the image closely enough. It is part of the human optical system. Remember to judge a photo from the distance that gives the proper perspective. If necessary, build a fence around any print on display so grain sniffers cannot do their thing.

I am at this moment looking at an 8x10 print made with 10x magnification from a 35 mm HP5+ negative. With the aid of a reading glass, my viewing distance is about half the diagonal of the print. I see no grain. I can count blades of grass. What must one do to get visible grain frm a 4x5 negative?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel HV

Try looking at a grainy 35mm print from a few meters or rather cm's away, in reality the difference is apparent from quite a distance away.

It appears your saying sloppy technique is acceptable.

Ian

I don't think you really understand the irony I'm implying here. People search for magic bullets; sometimes it's rather a question of changing your context, or your perspective rather than changing your product.

And no, it does not appear that I'm agreeing with sloppy technique, and I take offense at your interpretation. A print's grain is way less visible from 20ft away than it is from your nose stuck on it. Other people's experience concur with mine, just read the other posts here.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It appears your saying sloppy technique is acceptable.

Since when is grain sloppy technique?

The choice is simple:

1 Accept grain OR

2 Make smaller enlargements OR

3 Move up to a bigger format OR

4 Try to break the laws of nature by striving for the finest possible grain and the maximum possible sharpness, at the same time.

Obviously you start out with a sharp, fine-grain film, and right here you are introduced to the problem. Delta 100 is the sharpest ISO 100 film you can get, but not the finest grained; Acros is the finest grained, but not the sharpest. What a coincidence!

Then you choose a developer that gives you maximum possible sharpness or finest possible grain. 'Or' is the operative word here.

Cheers,

R.

 

[film_guy]

I don't get the whole thing against grain, since I thought one of the reasons why people shoot B&W film instead of going with digital is for the "grainy-look" of B&W films. Learn to love the grain!

 

[coriana6jp]

So far the closest I have come to finding my free lunch, is Pan-F in Perceptol 1:3 at ei25. No grain, and very sharp.

But, since I still have to pay for it, its not my free lunch.

Gary

 

[Ian Grant]

As you rightly say "Obviously you start out with a sharp, fine-grain film"

All modern 100 ISO films from Agfa, Ilford, Kodak and Fuji are capable of excellent sharp, fine grained results. Obviously there are some slight differences between but that's to be expected.

A photographer who has tested and honed his exposure and development with a film & developer combination can get the optimal fine grain & sharpness that the film is capable of. Whether you use the Zone system, BTZS or other methods it is important to do this yourself as other factors come into the equation, calibration of light meters, agitation technique, accuracy of thermometers etc.

Under or over or exposure, under or over development all play a part in the final quality that can be obtained and the difference in print quality can be quite marked in terms of tonality, sharpness and grain.

There are no magic bullets it's finding the combinations that work bets for yourself and fine tuning them.

Ian

Since when is grain sloppy technique?

The choice is simple:

1 Accept grain OR

2 Make smaller enlargements OR

3 Move up to a bigger format OR

4 Try to break the laws of nature by striving for the finest possible grain and the maximum possible sharpness, at the same time.

Obviously you start out with a sharp, fine-grain film, and right here you are introduced to the problem. Delta 100 is the sharpest ISO 100 film you can get, but not the finest grained; Acros is the finest grained, but not the sharpest. What a coincidence!

Then you choose a developer that gives you maximum possible sharpness or finest possible grain. 'Or' is the operative word here.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Harry Lime]

Watch your prints from further away. Suddenly, grain will disappear...

Taking a great picture has the same effect! Eliminates all grain and lens quality issues. Amazing stuff!



back on topic:

Tri-X in XTOL or Ilford DD-X is pretty impressive. Tight grain, very sharp, excellent tonality. In my opinon the best balance of grain, tonality and film speed.

APX100 in Rodinal was sheer magic, but of course that film and AGFA are dead as a doorknob. Once the rekmaining stock is used up, it's game over. This was a huge loss.

I wasn't crazy about APX in solvent developers like D76. A little grain gives your eye something to lock on to and the image appears much crisper. Of course you'll see the grain from six inches away, but if you get any closer you'll be on the other side of the print.

If all else fails you'll have no other choice but to move up to a larger format. Even going 6x4.5 or 6x6 from 35 makes a noticeable difference, while still keeping the camera a reasonable size.

But always remember, content trumps everything else.

 

[jim appleyard]

Years ago I was caught up in the "grainless thing". All I had was 35mm (hey, marvelous things can be done with it, just lokk at Galen Rowell's work) and I was stuck on T-Max 100 and Tech Pan. Yes, virtually grainless, but tonality suffered and I shot roll after roll trying to make it work. After awhile I realized that grain is PART of the photo and moved back to trad films for their ease of use and better tonality.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Under or over or exposure, under or over development all play a part in the final quality that can be obtained and the difference in print quality can be quite marked in terms of tonality, sharpness and grain.

There are no magic bullets it's finding the combinations that work bets for yourself and fine tuning them.

Ian

I totally agree, although it`s also a matter of finding a film and developer combination that you find the most aesthetically pleasing too.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

If you really must avoid grain, use C41-process B+W films. But beware! As Thornton puts it: "Where the eye could see only smooth grey, it felt dissatisfied and searched for textured detail. With medium speed film, the grain itself provided that sharp texture to give the illusion of high definition. ... So, if you want an appearance of sharpness use a film which shows a little grain. Don't fall for the old wives' talethat you need the slowest film for the greatest sharpness. You will be very disappointed."

"Thinking it through, if a little grain helped apparent sharpness, I reasoned to myself, then a lot should make it even sharper. So I tried 400 speed films, of which Kodak's Tri-X was the undoubted king in the 60s and 70s. Bingo! In comparison 10x8 prints from 35mm negatives, Tri-X looked slightly sharper than FP4" for prints up to 8x10 inches. Thornton, Edge of Darkness 74-75 (Amphoto Books 2001).

Sanders

 

[dynachrome]

Fine Grain And Sharpness

I have used APX 100 a little and I don't see how it can be made to have the same fine grain as TMX. Any solvent type of developer which could reduce APX 100's grain sunstantially would also reduce its sharpness considerably. If you are making prints no larger than 11X14 then traditional films like Plus-X or FP4+ will give very fine grain with medium format negatives. If you need the flexibility of 35mm equipment and still want to enlarge beyond 8X10 then you will need finer grain films. If I want the finest grain I will use either Technical Pan or Imagelink film in a 6X7 camera. These are very slow films when they are used for continuous tone work so they aren't suitable for action photography.

Last week I shot a test roll of Kodak UC 100 (I know that's color film) in my Bronica GS-1. I had an 11X14 made from one frame. There is no grain to be found anywhere and the sharpness is excellent. The general rule is that you use the largest format and slowest film that your shooting circumstances will allow. The 6X45 format is a big jump im quality from 35mm film but in an 11X14 the quality jump from 6X45 to 6X7 can also be noticed. Some of my favorite film/developer combinations for good grain and sharpness are: Ilford FP4+ in AMALOCO AM 74 1:15, Pan F in AMALOCO AM 74 1:15, Pan F in Edwal FG-7 1:15 with plain water, Fuji ACROS in undiluted Fuji Microfine, Kodak TMX in Ilford Microphen, FP4+ in PC-TEA (you need to make this one yourself) 1:50, Ilford Delta 400 in indiluted Microphen, Tri-X in HC-110 Dilution B. All films are rated at box speed.

 

[Steve Smith]

As Thornton puts it: "Where the eye could see only smooth grey, it felt dissatisfied and searched for textured detail. With medium speed film, the grain itself provided that sharp texture to give the illusion of high definition. ... So, if you want an appearance of sharpness use a film which shows a little grain.

That is probably also why low resolution images look full of detail when viewed on a monitor when the same image would look terrible if printed out.

Steve.

 

[Alan Johnson]

The idea,put forward in Thornton's book, that prints from FP4 look sharper than those from tech pan comes from a session at his camera club looking at small prints, I believe 10x8.If he had made bigger prints,eg 11x14, I think he would have got a different result with 35mm.The degree of enlargement is a significant factor.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Alan, I don't know nothing about no camera club. But you are right, that enlargement size is a factor to consider. In fact, Thornton discusses that at length, in the passage immediately following the remarks I quoted. He notes that the Tri-X image from 35mm film begins to fall apart at sizes above 8x10. If my quote suggested otherwise, it is my mistake, not Thornton's.

For the reason you mention -- enlargement sizes -- I do disagree with the person who wrote earlier that the slowest film and largest format practical should always be used for optimal sharpness. I shoot in MF with a Rolleiflex and in 5x7 with old and modern lenses, always with Tri-X. Frankly, the view camera gains no discernible advantage in sharpness over the Rolleiflex at normal enlargements. What the Rolleiflex loses in negative size, it gains in film flatness and superior optics. For me, the choice of format is driven not by sharpness, but by the shape of the negative, the need to use a particular lens, or the ambience and workflow desired.