Film Recommendations for Exceptional Detail

[nsouto]

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.

No, not for fine grain at all. Roddy at 1:200 stand is a great "leveler" of high contrast.
Hence a possible replacement for Technidol when the stocks of that one are gone: Kodak in their immense wisdom decided to can Technidol, so it's definitely a very finite item. Although I found a big stash at a local dealer.

CMS20 has such a fine grain it doesn't even worry me at the moment that whatever I use might increase it.

Also not sure how long Adox's own developer will be available. Matter of fact, I need to try that one as well: my film supplier at that online place has offered to source some for me, it's simply not available otherwise in Australia.

But I really need to try this film on 120: it's gonna be amazing, I reckon.
If only I could find more time for this stuff...

 

[nsouto]

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.

How would you go about with HC110 for greatly reducing contrast? High dilution, stand development? If so, how much? Got a bottle of HC110 for a trial a while ago, but have been playing with Rodinal since.

 

[Dennis S]

For me it is HP5+ @ 800 dev. HC110 @ H dilution (half of B solution)

 

[sanking]

I agree with Don, having seen some of the same work he has. For 35mm I don't think there is anything better than the ADOX CMS film he mentions. Question is, will your camera optics and scanning support the detail of ADOX CMS? If not, films like Pan F, Rollei Pan 25 and Efke 25 will give excellent results.

Sandy King

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).

Don Bryant

 

[nsouto]

Question is, will your camera optics and scanning support the detail of ADOX CMS?

Very true, as I'm finding out: dang, I thought Nikon glass was supposed to be some of the best?
CMS20 exposes its flaws mercilessly. And it shows clearly how far a 9000 scanner can go...

This stuff is indeed stunning! I love the results in Technidol so far, will definitely give it a try with the Adox developer.

 

[sanking]

Another good choice for 120 film is Rollei Pan 25. I develop it in two-bath Pyrocat-HD 1:20 with four minutes in Solution A and Solution B at 75 degrees F. The acutance is incredible, as great as I have seen with any combination of developer/film, and the results are virtually grain free in enlargements over 100" wide from 6X7cm film.

I am attaching a sample of my very recent work with this film. The camera was Mamiya 7II with 43mm lens at f/11. The camera was on a tripod and shutter release was with a cable.

The overall image that you see is the full frame of the 6X7cm negative, scanned at 5080 ppi with a high end CCD scanner. In the bottom right you will see a small red rectangle, which corresponds to the .23" X .18" crop I made from the image. The crop has been sized to approximately 8X10". Since the crop is only 1/12 the width of the full frame viewing it on your monitor at ten inches wide would correspond more or less to how it would look printed 120" wide. However, you would need to resize it to about 200 ppi at 8X10" size to account for the magnification.

BTW, I deliberately selected a crop from the far corner of the frame to show how good the Mamiya 43mm lens is at the extreme edges. I think results would have even better but for the fact that there was a good breeze and the exposure was several seconds but as is you can clearly see the veins on some of the leaves in the frame.

Sandy King

 

[toyotadesigner]

http://www.gigabitfilm.de/download/cln.pdf

 

[cupcake_ham]

Wow Sandy. I thought your tests in View Camera between TMX and TMY2 where pretty extreme....but this film is even better. 10' foot wide print with no grain....I never go beyond 40" so I guess even 35mm would be fine for me.

Thanks for posting the comparison. Kinda puts my shiny new Canon 7D to shame

 

[rnwhalley]

Since I posted the initial question on this thread I have learned loads so thanks to everyone for contributing. Yesterday was a major turning point for me in achieving a real leap in quality. I shot a couple of rolls of PAN F50 at ISO25 in 120 format. I then developed them using Ilford ID11 using the recommended time and dilution. I have never had such detail in my negs before and there is virtually no grain even at 6400 dpi. I just can't believe the comparison between these negs and those from the lab.

My problem now is that the poor quality lens and resolving ability of my Epson V700 is quite evident. I think its time to look out for a drum scanner or rent some time on an Imacon.

Thanks so much to everyone for the advice.

 

[pschwart]

Epson scan quality

My problem now is that the poor quality lens and resolving ability of my Epson V700 is quite evident.

It shouldn't be unless you are making large prints. I get very fine 11x14s scanning 6x6 and 6x9 (5X-6x) on an Epson V700, but need a glass holder to keep the film flat.
Pan F also looks good in XTOL and Rodinal.

Since I posted the initial question on this thread I have learned loads so thanks to everyone for contributing. Yesterday was a major turning point for me in achieving a real leap in quality. I shot a couple of rolls of PAN F50 at ISO25 in 120 format. I then developed them using Ilford ID11 using the recommended time and dilution. I have never had such detail in my negs before and there is virtually no grain even at 6400 dpi. I just can't believe the comparison between these negs and those from the lab.

My problem now is that the poor quality lens and resolving ability of my Epson V700 is quite evident. I think its time to look out for a drum scanner or rent some time on an Imacon.

Thanks so much to everyone for the advice.

 

[Ray Heath]

"I think its time to look out for a drum scanner or rent some time on an Imacon."

or learn to print the negatives optically as was always intended

 

[pschwart]

"I think its time to look out for a drum scanner or rent some time on an Imacon."

or learn to print the negatives optically as was always intended

... but then it wouldn't be a hybrid workflow

 

[Loris Medici]

Hi Ray, but optically printing doesn't imply better sharpness and detail (or overall quality except for having the "hand made oomph" - which I value a lot BTW) all the time; you'll need a pretty good / expensive enlarger lens and a pretty good / sturdy / expensive enlarger and good technique in order to surpass the quality you are going to (or will be able to) get from a digital workflow. (If that's possible after all...)

You can do miracles in post processing. And that's not only in terms of "apparent" detail / sharpness increase but also fixing many other imperfections present in the negative. (Possibilities such as dust & scratch removal + local / highly detailed / meticulous manipulation...) Digital possibilities of hue control, split toning (with meticulous control of colors and where they're going to split exactly), easy/fast/effective perspective correction, stiching and whatnot else helps the practitioner in achieving a better overall quality in the end, most of the time. (If not all the time...)

I know, it sounds pretty schizophrenic! But I think you'll give that this is pretty much the current condition of photography in general...

Regards,
Loris.

"I think its time to look out for a drum scanner or rent some time on an Imacon."

or learn to print the negatives optically as was always intended

 

[Bob Carnie]

As Ray points out, the main purpose for negatives is to be printed on enlargers, I am finding out by the month that more and more people want enlarger prints over digital scans and output.
As this is a hybrid site , the options beyond the original negative process are complex and many.

Maybe its nostalgia , maybe it is the look , but if the negatives are in good shape the decision to go to Enlarger prints is becoming more and more prevelant in my world. If price is not a concern then having a traditional Black and White enlarger print made is generally the way to go.
By having a first rate darkroom and equipment, split printing techniques, and lots of water , I personally can make a print that would be hard to mimic with digital PS work.
It can be done but I do not consider the clone tool any big deal over having clean negatives and environment in the first place.
This is true for Black and White, as the controls in the darkroom are much more available to the competent worker.


For Colour , all bets are off as PS does rule in todays working world.

Though , if time is not a concern, budget is not a concern then with complex masking techniques** sadly forgotten or never used** then I would say working in a Enlarger based darkroom can every bit equal working in PS in colour.

Most of what I see of PS work today would be labeled Kitch 20 years ago , Today blending two images or more is no big deal , everyone can do it and every one seem to want to today..
If I see one more photomerge or blend or HDR merge give me a brown bag I want to be sick.
The hue saturation tool should be banned from use until workers figure out what it really is for. I have never seen more putrid colours in my life when workers go apeshit on these controls.

In the past , only a few workers had the skill level , determination, patience and desire to manually work with multiple images.
Only a very few made it work with success, Jerry Ullesman comes to mind.

I can only think what Ray is referring to is the simple beauty of an enlarger print from a well exposed/developed negative.
It is very hard to mimic with a digital hybrid platform, and I wonder why one would want to mimic it.

I have seen some very beautiful work done by people on this site , large format and apug , who use a scanner and digital negatives to make , carbon, gum, platinum and gum over.
What is evident to me at least with all these workers is that the major benifit/reason is ease of workflow getting to a final negative for contact purposes. What I am not seeing with these workers is a lot of Manipulation in Photoshop to get to that final neg, basically a simple dodge/burn/contrast
adjustments that traditionally they would consider if working in a traditional workflow making enlarged negatives using a Durst.

Since my main area of interest is BW silver printing and colour printing, I cannot comment on the real differences between lets say a platinum done with a enlarged/neg or in/camera neg over one that is produced by a inkjet neg from a scan. But there are those here who have worked both ways and can comment on the differences.

I have clients that want me to work digitally only, and I have clients who want a hybrid workflow, and I have clients who want only enlarger prints.

Three -five years ago I started my digital quest as I believed at that time that enlarger prints were soon to be extinct. There was a dramatic drop in business that almost sunk my company.
Today to my pleasant surprise I am finding that enlarger prints are treasured and am printing many shows in this style. We do more hybrid type printing but there still is a constant flow of film processing and enlarger fibre prints.

 

[sanking]

"I think its time to look out for a drum scanner or rent some time on an Imacon."

or learn to print the negatives optically as was always intended

For the better part of five or six decades, until the end of the 19th century, most of the photographs made, by whatever, process, were contact printed, not optically enlarged. I think it is fair to say, the contact print from a same size negative is "what was always intended."

Then these charlatans came along and started cheating by using an enlarger to make larger prints than their negatives. This of course allowed for the use of small miniature cameras, which was of course something the early pioneers who worked with 18X22" glass plate negatives never intended. But many people were fooled into believing that these enlargements were "real photographs."

For about a hundred years now folks have been making photographs by means that were definitely never intended, or even envisioned. These bastard methodologies have of course corrupted many otherwise fine and decent human beings.

Sandy King

 

[pschwart]

As Ray points out, the main purpose for negatives is to be printed on enlargers...

Make your case. I wouldn't want to be on this side of the debate

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ok
in my world every negative that I have worked on has been enlarged.
lately this also means scanning and upsizing to Lambda output.
This past month we processed over 100 Jobo runs filled with 8x10, 4x5 and 120 from a few sources.
The bulk of these runs are intended for fibre based prints enlarged in my darkroom.
Certain clients demand that these prints are done this way, which in 2009 moving forward seems to be going against the grain.
I will admit that the bulk of work today is not done this way but I still seem to be in the wet darkroom printing show work on enlarger, which as I said really , shocks me.
Actually I am quite happy I kept my darkroom and be on this side of the debate.
We also make wet prints from digital files which though still in its infancy , shows promise.

Make your case. I wouldn't want to be on this side of the debate

 

[pschwart]

You have neatly dodged my challenge I thought you and Ray are
claiming that the most correct handling of negatives is optical enlargement.
If I misstate then my apologies.

Ok
in my world every negative that I have worked on has been enlarged.
lately this also means scanning and upsizing to Lambda output.
This past month we processed over 100 Jobo runs filled with 8x10, 4x5 and 120 from a few sources.
The bulk of these runs are intended for fibre based prints enlarged in my darkroom.
Certain clients demand that these prints are done this way, which in 2009 moving forward seems to be going against the grain.
I will admit that the bulk of work today is not done this way but I still seem to be in the wet darkroom printing show work on enlarger, which as I said really , shocks me.
Actually I am quite happy I kept my darkroom and be on this side of the debate.
We also make wet prints from digital files which though still in its infancy , shows promise.

 

[pellicle]

Sandy

For about a hundred years now folks have been making photographs by means that were definitely never intended, or even envisioned. These bastard methodologies have of course corrupted many otherwise fine and decent human beings.

I guess you would have to count yourself in that group

However I'm not entirely sure I can qualify as having been otherwise fine and decent

 

[Bob Carnie]

I can't speak for Ray, never met him

but speaking straight from my heart.

after viewing thousand of prints over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing like a well printed *enlarged* negative in a wet darkroom using Black and White paper.
This is my personal opinion , I am quite happy being on this side of the fence. I currently work in many hybrid workflows and am trying to learn some of the contact processes with the help of PS and my negatives off the Lambda.

The only prints that I have seen that completely inspire me beyond silver prints are the carbon prints I saw this year by that southern gentleman Mr King. The quality of the shadow areas is IMO not possible with silver but I believe that silver beats carbon in the highlights.*just an observation which once again is my own personal belief.)
I also hear Keith Carter prints are spectacular in Tri Colour Gum and I really want to give this a go, I am sure I am opening myself for a whole can of whoopass by doing so, and I have seen colour carbon prints that fall into the realm of breath taking by John Bentley. His process is mind boggling difficult but when working well are truly outstanding.

Platinum Prints do not fall into a realm that inspires me though I know it is the medium of choice for many workers.
Azo prints quite frankly never impressed me but they seem to inspire awe in some.
Inkjet - well I am going to hell for saying this are HO HUM and I have never seen one that is awe inspiring. If one listens to ink printers talk you'd think otherwise but the mere fact of the ink spreading and mushing together says it all for me.

One thing I saw that I saw at the same time as I viewed Mr Kings work, were gum over platinums... they were beauty's
I have stated I do not like platinum prints as much as silver, but the thought of Gum Over Silver , now there is a winning combination.

So now that I have put my go..ads on the fence, how about you .. please pick sides and make your case.

You have neatly dodged my challenge I thought you and Ray are
claiming that the most correct handling of negatives is optical enlargement.
If I misstate then my apologies.

 

[rnwhalley]

pschwart, to answer your earlier point regarding the limitations of my V700, I tend to do most of my scanning on a Minolta 5400 and the difference in quality is very noticeable. I am also intending to make large prints. A 6x7 scan at 3200 dpi is coming in around 28" wide and looks OK if a little soft. I am really aiming for a sharp 60" print. Why? Because I like to challenge myself.

 

[pschwart]

pschwart, to answer your earlier point regarding the limitations of my V700, I tend to do most of my scanning on a Minolta 5400 and the difference in quality is very noticeable. I am also intending to make large prints. A 6x7 scan at 3200 dpi is coming in around 28" wide and looks OK if a little soft. I am really aiming for a sharp 60" print. Why? Because I like to challenge myself.

If your aim is to make 60" prints then I agree, a dedicated film scanner is the right tool for the job.

 

[sanking]

Over the years I have determined that my minimum standard is a scan that will allow me to print at an effective resolution of 360 dpi at the print size.

The Epson V700 has *maximum* effective resolution of about 2300 ppi. That is, you can scan a MF negative at 6400 ppi but the real resolution is only about 2300 ppi, or 45 lp/mm. I own this scanner and have tested the resolution several times with a resolution target.

If you scan a 6X7 cm negative with the V700 the maximum print size you can get, without rezing up with interpolation, is about 18X22". That is not bad and in fact I don't often print larger from 6X7cm. However, a maximum resolution of 2300 ppi leaves a lot of resolution on the film (usually) so anyone wanting to print larger would definitely do bettter with a dedicated film scanner, professional flatbed or drum scanner.

Sandy King

 

[pschwart]

I was (gently) pulling your chain because you seemed to be saying that negs are properly meant to be optically enlarged. If the discussion has morphed into one on print qualities, this is a different kettle of fish. I'll just say that there is really fine work being done with all the processes you mention -- even inkjet. I certainly appreciate a fine handmade print -- I printed B&W and color professionally for a number of years long before digital processing was available. I shoot film and digital, and print carbon transfer, palladium, and (with no apology) inkjet. If I had a darkroom, I'd probably print silver, too.

I can't speak for Ray, never met him

but speaking straight from my heart.

after viewing thousand of prints over the last few years I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing like a well printed *enlarged* negative in a wet darkroom using Black and White paper.
This is my personal opinion , I am quite happy being on this side of the fence. I currently work in many hybrid workflows and am trying to learn some of the contact processes with the help of PS and my negatives off the Lambda.

The only prints that I have seen that completely inspire me beyond silver prints are the carbon prints I saw this year by that southern gentleman Mr King. The quality of the shadow areas is IMO not possible with silver but I believe that silver beats carbon in the highlights.*just an observation which once again is my own personal belief.)
I also hear Keith Carter prints are spectacular in Tri Colour Gum and I really want to give this a go, I am sure I am opening myself for a whole can of whoopass by doing so, and I have seen colour carbon prints that fall into the realm of breath taking by John Bentley. His process is mind boggling difficult but when working well are truly outstanding.

Platinum Prints do not fall into a realm that inspires me though I know it is the medium of choice for many workers.
Azo prints quite frankly never impressed me but they seem to inspire awe in some.
Inkjet - well I am going to hell for saying this are HO HUM and I have never seen one that is awe inspiring. If one listens to ink printers talk you'd think otherwise but the mere fact of the ink spreading and mushing together says it all for me.

One thing I saw that I saw at the same time as I viewed Mr Kings work, were gum over platinums... they were beauty's
I have stated I do not like platinum prints as much as silver, but the thought of Gum Over Silver , now there is a winning combination.

So now that I have put my go..ads on the fence, how about you .. please pick sides and make your case.

 

[Loris Medici]

Who-ho! That's really discouraging; I was thinking to purchase that scanner to be able to get good quality scans of negatives from a Bessa III.

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_8.htm

In this review above they tell that V700 is able to match results from a Nikon 4000dpi dedicated film scanner. Perhaps their Nikon have problems? (Or dedicated film scanners are the same; much lower practical resolution than stated hardware resolution...) Or your criteria is pretty strict... Which one?

Anyway, my intended print size is ~12.4x15.3" (31.5x39cm) which makes 5.6x enlargement, and V700 still fits the requirement, except for its excessive price. (Compared to its performance, I'd pay that price - USD 900 for a brand new one in my area - w/o complaints for a true 3200dpi scanner...

Sandy, which scanner would I go for if I wanted true 8-9x enlargement?

Thanks & regards,
Loris.

...
The Epson V700 has *maximum* effective resolution of about 2300 ppi. That is, you can scan a MF negative at 6400 ppi but the real resolution is only about 2300 ppi, or 45 lp/mm. I own this scanner and have tested the resolution several times with a resolution target.

If you scan a 6X7 cm negative with the V700 the maximum print size you can get, without rezing up with interpolation, is about 18X22". That is not bad and in fact I don't often print larger from 6X7cm. However, a maximum resolution of 2300 ppi leaves a lot of resolution on the film (usually) so anyone wanting to print larger would definitely do bettter with a dedicated film scanner, professional flatbed or drum scanner.