Film Recommendations for Exceptional Detail

[rnwhalley]

I have recently become a bit obsessed with turning out the sharpest most detailed images and I would like to get peoples views about film use, specifically B&W.

For this work I will be shooting with an XPan and usually a 45mm lens but sometimes a 90mm. Typically the camera is tripod mounted and the subject matter is landscapes, often of mountains or rock formations with lots of detail. I don't do my own developing but use a lab that takes reasonable care. I then scan the images using a Minolta 5400 before output.

What I am looking for are recommendations of readily available (and resonably priced) films that exhibit very fine grain structure and exceptional sharpness for use in my Landscape work. I have been shooting with Ilford Delta 100 and whilst I like it, I am sure there is better given my requirements and workflow.

Many thanks

 

[mrred]

Ironically, should should try the BW Colour film. Aside from slide, it is supposed to have quite a bit of detail.

 

[MikeSeb]

If you like Delta 100, stick with it. You could also try T-Max 100 (100TMX), which is also exceptionally fine-grained, sharp, and contrasty; or its faster sibling T-Max 400 (400TMY-2). The latter is of course 2 stops faster, but has extremely fine grain for its speed.

I use both and like them quite well. They scan beautifully as long as you don't overdevelop. Optimum negatives for scanning should have exposure enough to render important shadow detail, and be developed only enough to keep important highlight detail. Overly dense negatives scan poorly.

 

[Jordan]

Actually, I think Delta 100 is pretty much ideally suited to your needs. There are other great fine-grain films out there (TMX, Acros, etc.) but none of them are all that much sharper or finer-grained than Delta 100.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I have recently become a bit obsessed with turning out the sharpest most detailed images and I would like to get peoples views about film use, specifically B&W.

There's detail captured on film, and there's detail in the final print. Which are you trying to maximize? They aren't necessarily the same thing. The print in particular depends on the enlargement level, and the bottom line is, if you want big prints, shoot big film.

If it's just an exercise to see how much information you can pack onto your film, you might try something like Tech Pan. I've never used it and hear it's a PITA, but if it's absolute resolution you are after, that's a possible path.

 

[mrred]

Shapness

Don't forget that the developers have a large hand in the sharpness (detail). Developers can work differently film to film.

Sharpness usually comes at a cost of grain (developers dissolve the silver grain). If you want great sharpness and low grain, choose a film with 'disgustingly low grain'. When you develop to be sharp, grain will still be tolerable; that will be your detail.

 

[rnwhalley]

Thanks, there are some interesting thoughts coming out. I hadn't thought of trying the BW Colour films, I assume you mean the likes of Ilford XP2? I have a few rolls in the freezer so will try to dig them out. T-Max100 is also something I have tried but I seemed to struggle with the scanning because of grain. Having said that, as mmred points out, developers have a lot to do with the sharpness.

My objective is to capture as much detail in the neg as possible as my starting point and I accept the point that big film is best. I also shoot with a Pentax 67 but carrying it and tripod 3,500m up a mountain has started to get to my back, hence why I like the XPan (and it has v.sharp glass).

I had thought about the Kodak Tech Pan but decided not to bother as it's now difficult to get hold of so I would hate to fall in love with it.

Someone else has suggested Ilford Pan F Plus 50 although then commented that it's too contrasty. Does anyone have any experience using this?

I am off to Poland at the weekend so please don't be offended if I am not responding for a while.

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.

 

[donbga]

Thanks, there are some interesting thoughts coming out. I hadn't thought of trying the BW Colour films, I assume you mean the likes of Ilford XP2? I have a few rolls in the freezer so will try to dig them out. T-Max100 is also something I have tried but I seemed to struggle with the scanning because of grain. Having said that, as mmred points out, developers have a lot to do with the sharpness.

My objective is to capture as much detail in the neg as possible as my starting point and I accept the point that big film is best. I also shoot with a Pentax 67 but carrying it and tripod 3,500m up a mountain has started to get to my back, hence why I like the XPan (and it has v.sharp glass).

I had thought about the Kodak Tech Pan but decided not to bother as it's now difficult to get hold of so I would hate to fall in love with it.

Someone else has suggested Ilford Pan F Plus 50 although then commented that it's too contrasty. Does anyone have any experience using this?

I am off to Poland at the weekend so please don't be offended if I am not responding for a while.

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts.

ADOX CMS developed in the ADOX developer. It will blow everything else out of the water and your scanning technique and scanner will be stressed, along with your camera optics. Scanned on a drum scanner and the detail and tonality are incredible. Very large prints can be made with no grain and nice tonal transitions. The results are much better and less grainy than TMAX-100 (though I have nothing against this film).

I saw some prints today made with ADOX CMS and shot with Leica ASPH glass and the results easily rivaled 4x5. I don't say this lightly since I'm a LF shooter.

I have also heard from one very credible member of hybridphoto who is getting incredible results with Ilford Pan F plus using a glycine <sp> based developer who scans with a drum scanner.

TMAX-400/2 is also a good choice if you need the speed.

Don Bryant

 

[Peter De Smidt]

I recommend Acros developed in one of the Pyrocat formulas.

 

[Ray Heath]

g'day Robin

i doubt that film choice is really what you need to consider

why don't you firstly attempt to define what are "the sharpest most detailed images"?

then consider how your perception of theses values relate to DOF, selective focus, bokeh, enlargement factors, presentation and the many other variables that determine image quality

 

[pellicle]

Don

ADOX CMS developed in the ADOX developer.

recently someone (I think here, not you) chipped me about my use of CMS as a film stock suggesting that I would not get near my optics abilities using it.

So far I have been quite pleased with what I do get and that's developing with D-76

worth trying the ADOX developer??

 

[donbga]

> worth trying the ADOX developer??

I think so.

Don

 

[rnwhalley]

Hi Ray,

Thanks for your reply. I already do shoot pretty sharp and detailed images and realise the vast number of variables that can dictate this. I have a reasonable workflow which I am just working on bit by bit. The current aspect that I am looking to improve is film choice and was interested to see what others would recommend.

Pete, I haven't tried the Fuji Acros but will try to get a few rolls to try it out.

Don, I think you might have nailed it for me with the ADOX. Just found it in the UK at a very reasonable price. I am now very tempted to even start developing my own negs having read the company web site.

I really appreciate eveyones input on this. Now I'm off to Poland. See you all in a week.

Robin

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

TMX in D-76 (1+1). It's not my favorite film for landscape from a tonality standpoint, but if you're planning to print digitally, you can fiddle with the curve, and it will get a lot of information on film, and D-76 (1+1) will give you very fine grain and pretty good acutance. Excellent reciprocity characteristics are another plus, if you do long exposures.

Pan-F/Rodinal is a classic fine grain/high acutance combo with a more traditional B&W tonality that should require less curve fiddling in Photoshop.

It's not hard to develop your own film, and you don't even need a darkroom to do it with a changing bag and a daylight tank. Unless you're using a custom lab that will develop your own film in the developer you request, and you're willing to do some testing to find the best processing times, etc. with their methods, then you're not going to get the kind of optimal results you're after without developing your own film.

 

[jd callow]

I have no idea which b/w film will render the most detail (I always thought it was TMX after TP was pulled from market), but I do agree with David that the path to get there with b/w film is through your own darkroom. If you shoot colour film I'd try provia 100F for slide and ektar 100 for colour neg and have it developed by a pro lab. If you were looking for kodilith or graphic film kind of detail with minimal tonal range you could experiment with crossprossing fine grained e6 films (pushed they pick up contrast and detail at the expense of tone). I tend not to focus on what is sharpest so others will have better suggestions.

 

[waynecrider]

I'd say get a fine grained film, 100 iso or under and use a non-solvent developer like FX-1. For tabular films try FX37.
In the FDC (Film Developing Cookbook) there is talk about image characteristic trade off's (grainer prints) when looking for maximum sharpness. You might find a copy and read some more about such developers. In the FDC it mentions a list of developers for highest acutance being FX-1, HDD, Beutler, Neofin Blue,and some Pyro developers. Again realize that grain goes up but the prints look sharp almost to the point of engraved with the developers above. I actually prefer FX-2 with less grain increase.

 

[clay]

I have used the Pan-F / glycin developer combo on the 35mm format, and it is an acid test for your lens' resolving ability. When I use this film and a tripod, I get amazingly grain free scans. I have a 8000 dpi Aztek drum scanner, and when it is scanned full resolution, it is pretty incredible. The glycin also tames the contrasty nature of Pan-F quite well. Here is a SBR 12 scene with this film developer combo on 35mm film taken with the non-ASPH summilux 50:

The jpeg compression has crunched the shadow detail in this image, but the original tiff file has all the detail you could want.

And here is a 100% crop from that image:

I think it is pretty obvious that the lens is the limiting factor here. I think the newer ASPH lens would have been sharper, but as you can see, this one is no slouch. I shot this at f/5.6 to avoid diffraction issues.

For this test, I used theGSD-10 developer at the recommended time of 6:30 at 70 deg diluted 1:5. This is essentially a Hubl paste variation.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I also shoot with a Pentax 67 but carrying it and tripod 3,500m up a mountain has started to get to my back...

[friendly teasing]
Wimp! I schlep a 5x4, five lenses, ten film holders, and all the other required bits up and down the mountains whenever I get the chance. My wife likes it -- says it slows me down enough so that she can keep up. ;-)
[/friendly teasing]

Seriously, I know what you mean. I've had my years of back trouble and don't need any more! At this stage I've got my kit down to 16Kg (includes three liters of water) and it's still too much. Ah, the sacrifices we make for photography.

 

[rnwhalley]

Only 16Kg. My add on pouches come to more than that.

Seriously though, there is some great advice here (some of which goes over my head at the moment). I have some ADOX CMS film on order as well as some Pan F. I have also bitten the bullet and put in a bid on ebay for a few Patterson developing tanks etc and managed to persuade a friend (who used to work for Ilford) to give me some advice on how to best develop. Looking forward to experimenting further.

Thanks again everyone.

 

[toyotadesigner]

What about Gigabit b&w film?

More information here:

http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/menu.htm

They offer many film types up to 4x5.

 

[rnwhalley]

A quick update to say that I have developed my first two films. They were Pan F plus and I used Rodinal at 1:100 for 12 mins. They looked a little flat however they scan like a dream. WHilst they are slightly better than the Lab films, I am sure I can get a much better performance in time.

I have purchased a number of other developers that I am going to to try including the ADOX.

Thanks again for all the help

 

[nsouto]

I think so.

Don

Just a quick note to say I'm getting incredibly detailed and virtually grainless results using CMS20 with Technidol (liquid blisters).

Exposed at ISO 20, developed on default dilution and agitation for 9 minutes.

It easily outresolves the best my coolscan 9000ED can do and certainly stretches my lenses to the limit. Very good gradation on skin and metal surfaces as well.

Pity it's only ISO 20, but nevertheless very impressive.

Definitely going to try this thing as well on Rodinal 200:1 stand development.

 

[donbga]

Just a quick note to say I'm getting incredibly detailed and virtually grainless results using CMS20 with Technidol (liquid blisters).

Exposed at ISO 20, developed on default dilution and agitation for 9 minutes.

It easily outresolves the best my coolscan 9000ED can do and certainly stretches my lenses to the limit. Very good gradation on skin and metal surfaces as well.

Pity it's only ISO 20, but nevertheless very impressive.

Definitely going to try this thing as well on Rodinal 200:1 stand development.

Why Rodinal? And at 1:200. I'm not sure there would be enough developer in solution.

I fail to understand the attraction that Rodinal receives to achieve fine grain. There are better developers to pick from in that regard, IMO.

 

[mrred]

I fail to understand the attraction that Rodinal receives to achieve fine grain. There are better developers to pick from in that regard, IMO.

1) It keeps forever. ex: if I mix up XTOL, I have to use it or loose it.
2) 1 shot means little to no prep time.
3) Roddy has several looks from "smooth and silky" to "charcoal" and "spotty".

I only need to keep two developers handy. WD2D+ for standard wide dynamic range/pulling and Rodinal for everything else. I tend to shoot knowing how I will develop beforehand. It's part of the process. If I had to do everything in one soup, I could do without WD2D+ as Rodinal can get close with more extreme stand developments.

 

[donbga]

1) It keeps forever. ex: if I mix up XTOL, I have to use it or loose it.
2) 1 shot means little to no prep time.
3) Roddy has several looks from "smooth and silky" to "charcoal" and "spotty".

I only need to keep two developers handy. WD2D+ for standard wide dynamic range/pulling and Rodinal for everything else. I tend to shoot knowing how I will develop beforehand. It's part of the process. If I had to do everything in one soup, I could do without WD2D+ as Rodinal can get close with more extreme stand developments.

Considering items 1 -3, I think HC-110 to be a better choice. I used Rodinal on and off for years with different films, additives, and dilutions and after all that I think that Rodinal is way over rated. Just my opinion not trying to start a brawl.

Don