Different Emulsions For Different Formats

Just wondering if I'm the only crazy person who feels this way:

Shooting in 35mm, I tend to like the traditional grain structures - FP4 and HP5 are my main choices. I've used the t-grain emulsions and had some pleasing results, but it's looking like an 80/20 in favour of the traditional guys in 135 format. On the other hand, when I shoot in MF or LF, I'm appreciating a lot more the finer grain qualities of emulsions like the Delta stocks and Acros. I would say the advantage is more like 60/40 in favour of the 'modern grain' style. So I still shoot shoot a lot of HP5 and FP4 all across the formats but only because I shoot mostly in 35mm and want to standardize.

Anyone else feel this way? One would assume the opposite: finer grain for the smaller format would be preferable. Just wanna know people's opinions on the matter.

For those of us who grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's, grainy 35mm was a fact of life, and now in the 10's even if you weren't in the 80's or earlier you have seen classic 35mm pictures from the 40's onwards so it looks natural and proper.

For MF/LF most people try to get away from 35mm look and also taking a long time to set up a picture is a way of life, so that's also natural to go with slow and fine films because everything large format is slow.

So... no, you're not the only one.

That's almost exactly as I like it too. For some screwy reason, I prefer grain in 35mm, and lots of it, while w/ 120 film I like tighter grain. Strange, yes?

For 35, grain is going to be there no matter what, so you might as well embrace it.

OTH 2016 Tri-x sure isn't what 1980 Tri-x was (grain wise).

Many years ago I standardised on APX100 for all formats 35mm to LF with Tmax100 as my backup. When Agfa ceased LF film I went entirely to Tamax100 & Tmax 400 (120 ). However I switched to Ilford Delta 100 120 & 5x4 and Delta 400 120 & HP5 for hand held 5x4 work, the reason was poor availability of Tmax films when outside the UK.

I don't like grain in any format since APX100 (original) disappeared I've stopped shooting 35mm, I found it a stop faster than Tmax100. I've got used to shooting with TLRs again and so when not using LF shoot 120 film almost always hand held.

Ian

Kawaiithulhu said:

For those of us who grew up in the 60's, 70's and 80's, grainy 35mm was a fact of life, and now in the 10's even if you weren't in the 80's or earlier you have seen classic 35mm pictures from the 40's onwards so it looks natural and proper.

For MF/LF most people try to get away from 35mm look and also taking a long time to set up a picture is a way of life, so that's also natural to go with slow and fine films because everything large format is slow.

So... no, you're not the only one.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I also grew up in the transition to the digital age (I'm 28) and became accustomed to very 'clean' photos. When I first started out, I was convinced grain was the devil! I purchased all the finest grain films and got them as slow as I could to avoid grain (I carried a tripod with me pretty much ALL the time). That's all changed now. Btw, I'm very particular about the look of the grain as well how much there is. Rodinal doesn't always cut it. Not all grainy films and developers are welcome.

Just a comment about taking time, I still think 35mm deserves a lot of time to set up to take a proper picture if it calls for it. I myself, do it quite often. The presence of grain doesn't mean sloppy habits are ok. All that to say that of course 35mm is the easiest to be spontaneous with than the larger formats, so the so-called 'sloppy-ness' does happen more often in the smaller format...

I shoot Foma 200 rated at 160 across the board, from 35 to 4X5, with an occasional roll of Tmax 400 when I need extra speed. I currently use MCM 100 as my primary developer so I have my times nailed down. I usually print 5X7 to 11X14 from 35mm, grain is just of the look so I don't pay that much attention, need to look for grain from a 6x9 or 4X5 negative. If I wanted to really minimize grain I would shoot Tmax 100 in 35 and 6X6 and Tmax 400 in 6X9 and 4X5.

When the T-grain films came out I tried a couple of rolls. Hated the results which looked very artificial to me. Even digital film has grain you simply cannot avoid it.

it doesn't matter to me the format or how grainy the negative might or might not be.
i'll use whatever i have handy. i one who shoots LF or uses it because it is slow
and i have to contemplate every exposure. if i had to do that, i wouldn't bother...

Just the opposite for me. The low cost of 35mm film means you can loosen up, experiment, be casual, and get shots that larger formats have difficulty capturing. That's always been 35mm's forte. Small, light cameras w/ great lenses that you can shoot quickly. If I had to tote a tripod and set up shots I would stop working. There is no way to get spontaneity w/ that approach.

I shot Acros in 35mm back in the distant past, and that stuff was essentially grainless up to 8x10. You had to pick your developer wisely of course. Actually, I find Tri-X 35mm shot at 200-250 and developed in D76 to have very little grain (especially compared to HP-5), and that's a combination you can be real sloppy w/ exposure and developing and it will bail you out every time. Tri-X in Acufine is essentially grain free at reasonable enlargements, but that combination is almost too sharp. People who s c a n often have issues w/ grain because that will accentuate it.

I am not a T grain fan either. Boring.

I mostly shoot Arista EDU 100 in my MF cameras, usually developed in Rodinol. The FOMA films interestingly have an antihalation layer in 120 format but not in 35mm. In 35mm, I find significant halation as well as the Rodinal grain annoying and only occasionally shoot Arista EDU.

In 35mm, I tend to shoot Acros or Tri-X developed in HC-110.

momus said:

If I had to tote a tripod and set up shots I would stop working. There is no way to get spontaneity w/ that approach.

Click to expand...

THAT is one of the reasons i love using a graflex slr, or falling plate cameras .. and even a speed graphic.
you don't need to use a tripod if you don't want, and you can do whatever you want on the fly.
even if i had to set up a 8x10 or 11x14 camera i don't spend 1/hour micromanaging an exposure.
i point, focus frame stick the holder in, and expose. i am sure the camp that spends an hour waiting for the light to be perfect
and doing lots and lots of meter readings before they expose their holder has their reasons. if i had to spend that much time
even for a large hand coated sheet of something or another, i would probably give up.
but that's just me, everyone has their reasons and their flow,
and if works for them, that's great.

I'm going to miss Plus-X when my last few rolls are gone, because I like having different tools available for different purposes.

That being said, TMY-2 is absolutely wonderful:



I know, I can transition to FP-4+ - but I'd prefer not to.

momus said:

Just the opposite for me. The low cost of 35mm film means you can loosen up, experiment, be casual, and get shots that larger formats have difficulty capturing. That's always been 35mm's forte. Small, light cameras w/ great lenses that you can shoot quickly. If I had to tote a tripod and set up shots I would stop working. There is no way to get spontaneity w/ that approach.

Click to expand...

Oh, totally. 35mm is unbeatable for it's ease of 'set-up'. I'm just saying that I often find it valuable for my style of photos to set up a tripod even for 35mm. But yeah, that's not to say I don't use 35mm as a casual camera. If I was forced to choose one format, it would be 35mm as I would still be able to cover 90% of what I want.

I just own 35mm cameras - and since I'm almost brand new to developing my film and printing from the negatives, I took the advice to stick to one film - which is HP5+. It's not that I'm really searching/forcing the grain, but for my taste it adds something to my pictures that I really like.

All the Best,
Brian L

MattKing said:

I'm going to miss Plus-X when my last few rolls are gone, because I like having different tools available for different purposes.

That being said, TMY-2 is absolutely wonderful:

View attachment 160936 View attachment 160937

I know, I can transition to FP-4+ - but I'd prefer not to.

Click to expand...

Matt, that 2nd one is right up there with AA's best. Great work!