Fine-art film: TMX or Delta 100?

[RoyK]

Hi

I need a film to do high-quality, sharp images, and I want it to be fine-grain and give me all possible details. What film would you recommend? I've read both TMX and Delta 100 are 'modern' fine-art films... Or should I try Gigabitfilm?

Thanks for any input

roy

 

[kjsphoto]

Use Acros. Rodinal 1:50 give me a EI of 32. Extremely fine grain.

 

[André E.C.]

Try Delta 100 in Ilfotec DD-X 1:4!

Cheers

André

 

[Ole]

I need a film to do high-quality, sharp images, and I want it to be fine-grain and give me all possible details.

For what purpose?

My first suggestion would be to use a bigger film. There is no substitute for area when it comes to detail rendition.

Many years ago I tried Tech Pan - I didn't like it (I still have a roll or two in my freezer). While it is virtually grainless and very, very sharp, the subjective visual "sharpness" is often less due to the absence of grain. Just a hint of grain structure can make a print look much sharper, even if the resolution is lower.

Development also plays a part in detail rendition. "Fine-grain developers" often sacrifise acutance for smoother grain, and will give lower perceived sharpness.

If I were to need the ultimate in resolutin, I would use 4x5" Efke PL25, shoot with the 135mm Zeiss Planar, and develop in Beutler's acutance developer with minimal agitation

 

[rbarker]

I agree with what Ole is suggesting - think about the purpose - what "feel" or "mood" you want the images to have, beyond just fine grain, and then select a film and format that satisfies that requirement.

If the subject is technical in nature, for example, Delta 100 or Fuji Acros might be appropriate. If the subject is more natural, a "traditional" emulsion might be better.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I like both Delta and Acros but have little time for TMAX100 which I find produces the least glowing prints I have ever produced yet requires the most effort.

IMO Delta is slightly grainier and crisper than Acros 100, but Acros is finer grained by a fair margin. Both have an inherently modern look which I like less than more traditional films. Acros in pyro devs is special. V fine grain and sharp and you like. This is my 5x4 travel choice as I can use quickloads. This is prob what I will use when my Namibia trip gets off the ground.

 

[RoyK]

I saw some landscape pics by Stu Levy in the LensWork mag some months back, and found them very interesting. I was told he was using TMX

 

[Ole]

Personally I don't like TMX, but that's just me and my way of working. For landscapes I use FP4+ (in 5x7") or APX100 (in 13x18cm) as long as I have some left.

Those are plenty fine-grained enough when only the film is big!

Incidentally I prefer the same films for portraits, but usually in a smaller format.

 

[Maine-iac]

Hi

I need a film to do high-quality, sharp images, and I want it to be fine-grain and give me all possible details. What film would you recommend? I've read both TMX and Delta 100 are 'modern' fine-art films... Or should I try Gigabitfilm?

Thanks for any input

roy

I'd use ACROS for first choice and Delta 100 as second. Both are T-grain type films like TMax, but are true panchromatic films, unlike TMax which has an extended red sensitivity like Tech Pan. TMax is very fussy about underexposure. I think ACROS may be one of the finest films I've ever used; not only are my 120 negs virtually grainless, but the tones are creamy and the scale is long. AT least in my Phenidone/Ascorbic/Metaborate developer.
Delta 100 is also good, but I don't find the tones as creamy smooth as ACROS.
Acutance is good on both films.

Larry

 

[Mongo]

Roy-

First, what size film will you be shooting? If you're shooting 35mm, then Tri-X is going to give you grain...sort of a "journalistic" look. That's not necessarily a bad thing depending on what you're trying to accomplish. This leads naturally to the 2nd question: What are you trying to make pictures of? You say that you want fine grain and lots of detail, but you might get different recommendations if you want these things for pictures of flowers versus pictures of buildings or landscapes.

In easily available film today, you can go with exotic films like Gigabit and get some amazingly small grain, or you can go for TMax-100 for one of the finest grained films that you can buy anywhere that you can buy black and white film. (A lot of us never found love for TMax-100, but it is definitely fine grained.) Personally I don't shoot either of those films...when I want the ultimate in sharp, detailed images, I shoot Fuji Acros and develop it in Rodinal 1+100. But that's my choice, for my subjects, using my equipment. Knowing what your subjects are and what size film you're shooting will help us give you a better recommendation.

If you're shooting 4x5 or 8x10, then you don't really have to worry about grain. I shoot Efke 100 and J&C 100 Pro in those sizes; not the finest grained films available by a long shot but you'd never know that from my prints. Since the enlargement factor is so small, any film will look fine grained. In medium format I shoot mostly Efke 100, J&C 100, and Fomapan 200...again, not the finest grained films, but they work for me.

But when I want fine grain, I turn to Acros. It's a wonderful film, and the tonality it provides matches what I want, so it's what I use. Is it as fine-grained as TMax-100? Honestly, I don't know. I do know that I've shot both films in 35mm and 120, and I liked the Acros more. Plenty of people must like TMax-100 because Kodak sells a lot of it...I happen not to be one of them. But this is a matter of taste...the tonalities and color response of Acros match my personal vision more than TMax-100. Knowing what you're taking pictures of and what size film you're using will help us help you...some of us will probably even recommend TMax-100!

Best of luck to you.
Dave

 

[nworth]

If you have narrowed your choices down to TMX and Delta100, then there is only one way to go. Shoot a couple of rolls of each, process them, look at the results, and make a choice. It's a very individual thing, and other people's recommendations probably don't mean much. As you get experience with one or the other film, your pictures will change to take advantage of that film's unique characteristics. Don't worry too much about it.

 

[photomc]

I saw some landscape pics by Stu Levy in the LensWork mag some months back, and found them very interesting. I was told he was using TMX

Probably not the answer you are looking for but consider for a moment, almost any film in the hands of someone that understands their tools will look beautiful. So, if you want to get the kind of results Mr Levy did, you will need to test, so that you and the film understand one another and find a developer that you understand. It all comes from lots of work and knowing what the film can do, given a certain light, exposure and development.

IMO, there is no film/developer combination that will give you a print like so and so. But that is just my opinion, after testing developers and film I have just started to "see" results that are to my liking.

Good luck.

 

[gnashings]

As to the author of the original post - I think you will find that very few people here would widdle their freezers down to just one film. But if you are asking directly about the choice between Delta and Tmax - you won't know until you try. Just because I cant get Tmax to look the way I won't, yet find Delta to give me very good results, does not mean you will feel the same. Its a cheap experiment to buy a roll of each and try them. Or even a few rolls, to find the developer combo you like.
Personally, for my needs, I prefer Delta every time - but frankly, I don't use either one of those films unless someone gives me a roll or its all I can get my hands on. But that is just a matter of personal aesthetics - no verdict on the films by any stretch.
And just remember this - developed in the same chemicals, a 120 negative from 400 speed film will beat any 100 speed film from 35mm - its been said before: there is no substitute for that bigger negative.

 

[modafoto]

I use Delta 100 a lot, but I have some TMAX100 in the fridge, too. Both are very nice films (I do them both in Rodinal 1+50, and Tmax100 in HC-110 occasionally).

Give them both a go...and remember to try Acros and Pan F+...and what the heck....FP4+ is mandatory, too

 

[lenny]

It depends

I think the question you have to answer first is what type of printing you want to do. Fine Art is not an agreed-upon designation - and I wouldn't add it to anything Kodak, they seem to hate fine art (that's just my opinion, however).

If you want to print very contrasty, like many people do today, then TMax and Acros will work for you. I prefer much more delicacy in the midtones and neither of those films can do it. Finding film is frustrating, am using Efke 25 at the moment.

So, in addition to format, as someone else suggested, you have to choose a print style. Do you like the way Ansel Adams printed - or Paul Strand, Stieglitz and others. Personally, I like the earlier style, but everyone gets to decide for themselves.