Fine Grain 400

RMD · Apr 9, 2008

Opinions requested on which film gives the finest grain :

Ilford Delta 400
Ilford XP2
Kodak BW400CN

Helen B · Apr 9, 2008

Dye-image (chromogenic) and silver-image films have different characteristics to their graininess, so it's difficult to draw firm conclusions, especially when the film is scanned and digitally post-processed. The scanning itself affects the appearance of the graininess - as well as the characteristics of the scanner, scanning a silver-image film at higher resolutions (eg 5400 to 8000 spi) can make it look less grainy than when it is scanned at lower resolutions.

My simple answer would be that the BW400CN has a slight edge over the others, if low graininess is the sole criterion.

Using noise reduction software with dye-image films can result in an almost grain-free image - for example I use Portra 800 as my general purpose colour/B&W film, and if you give it plenty of exposure (EI 200 or 400) it has very low graininess even without noise reduction software. That's one of the characteristics of dye-image film: the graininess tends to reduce as the film gets more exposure. Being a colour film, it also enables you to make subtle (or not-so-subtle) changes to the way in which colours are changed to monochrome.

I'd recommend trying a little of each, and finding out how they compare after scanning and printing with your system.

Best,
Helen

keithwms · Apr 9, 2008

If scanning then the chromogenics win. Xp2 will have significantly better sharpness than bw400CN and similar "grain". I found bw400CN to be smooth.. but I also wasn't impressed with the edge definition.

One thing to bear in mind, the true speed of the xp2 is not 400. I mean, most people are rating it at 320 or slower. So... if this were meant to be a competition between semifast 400 speed films, then it's not really a fair competition. I mean, once you get down to the low 300s then you're only a stop away from finer delta and t-grain territory.

I'll throw one other film into the mix: agfa scala.

I agree with Helen's comments on portra; I recently used a comparable film, ISO 800 fuji pro z rated at 1600 and pushed to 3200 and got a rather smooth image in very low light- the exposure was ~1/15 sec at f/1.9....

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c76/keithwms/spottedcat004.jpg

This is with no noise reduction. But this was 645 format, bear that in mind. Everything I said above is based on medium format observations.

Greg_E · Apr 9, 2008

Exposed via pinhole, I found Kodak 400BW very similar to XP2, both rated at around 320, and a couple of frames even more exposed. I'm not a fan of either from the grain produced with a pinhole camera. If I ever get myself going I have some Efke 25 and Efke 50 (120 format) that I'll try with both pinhole and lenses, and have it developed at DR5 for a positive image.

Moving my pinhole over to my extension tubes and a body cap for some testing. Need to cut a couple more body caps to make switching diameters easier. Still looking for the right size pinhole for me, tried the math, now I'm down to just trying different holes to see how it affects the image.

keithwms · Apr 9, 2008

Greg, just a few stray thoughts on pinhole, feel free to disregard ....

I think chromogenics and pan films may not be an optimal choice for pinhole systems, which are extremely non-apochromatic. I think you will find that films with narrower sensitivity region (e.g. ortho films) give better sharpness. You know this already.

Also, on the matter of grain and pinhole: the pinhole shots I've done were contact printed. So the grain was a non-issue, even pushed hp5+ or whatever. But I allege that the boosted, traditional edge contraste helped support the idea of more depth of field. I realize that you may want grain, that is your prerogative, but I would add that c41 films likely will not have the edge contrast plus pleasing grain that you [may] want.

With any film I think there is a balance of detail and grain / dye texture. A person may want more of one than the other. Pinhole is kinda the extreme end of things in which you can vague / not-too-prominent detail but substantial grain relative to the amount of detail. What I am saying, and which you already know, is that one may want a traditional-grained film as opposed to chromogenics or t-/delta- grained films, and for more than one reason.

sanking · Apr 10, 2008

A couple of other issues that could impact the appearance of grain in these three films.

Grain in the Delta 400 film could be decreased quite a bit if you were to develop the film in a staining type developer. This results in a large percentage of silver density, which is the cause of the grain, being replaced with dye stain.

Also, whether you scan in RGB or B&W might impact grain. Even though these are all B&W films I would recommend scanning in RGB and then looking at grain in the three channels. You may be able to use blur on one of the channels to minimize grain, and there are many controls available in CS3 when you convert to B&W that can be used to reduce grain.

Finally, fluid mounting, other things being equal, can result in considerable improvement in the appearance of grain. This tends to matter a lot more with scanners capable of very high "effective" resolution than with less capable equipment, but as a general rule fluid mounting is useful for reducing grain even with consumer type scanners.

Sandy King

Greg_E · Apr 10, 2008

I have not tried fluid mount with either of those films yet.

RMD · Apr 11, 2008

Thanks for all the responses. I now intend to try all three to see which gives the 'best' results for my taste.

donbga · Apr 11, 2008

mdenton said:
Opinions requested on which film gives the finest grain :

Ilford Delta 400
Ilford XP2
Kodak BW400CN

Since you asked. I like all three but my fav of the three is Ilford Delta 400. However, I would take a strong look at Kodak TMY-2 processed in TMAX-RS at 1:7 or 1:9.

Don Bryant

Donsta · Apr 12, 2008

mdenton said:
Opinions requested on which film gives the finest grain :

Ilford Delta 400
Ilford XP2
Kodak BW400CN

There are a lot of good points made in this thread...

The chromogenic films need to be very overexposed to give decent shadow results - shoot either at EI 400 and the shadows will be very grainy. Shoot them at 200 and they'll look pretty good. For me, the big advantage to chromogenic films is the ability to scan them and utilize Digital ICE dust removal with desktop scanner.

If you want real box speed, I am of the opinion that the new Kodak Tmax 400 (TMY-2) cannot be beaten - extremely fine grain for 400 speed film and very sharp. Drop me an email to donaldhuttonATbellsouthDOTnet and I will be happy to email you some high rez scans of this film developed in TMax developer.

Russ - SVP · Dec 31, 2009

I find the grain on Neopan 400 to be very similar to that of Delta 400. Even though it is a non Tabular (T-grain) grained film. It has the wonderful tonality of Tri-X, but the fine grain of Delta 400. It's also quite forgiving in exposure and development. Delta 400 is my second choice in traditional 400 speed B/W films. In the C-41 process B/W films, I find Fuji Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP-2 to be very good and fine grained. Exceptional flesh tones when exposed at 200, and they scan very well. I routinely use them for wedding-portrait shooting.

Neopan 400 snap (non-CN version)

Neopan 400CN (straight scan, no post processing)

Neopan 400 (straight scan from neg)

Ilford XP-2 (straight scan from neg)

donbga · Jan 1, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
I find the grain on Neopan 400 to be very similar to that of Delta 400. Even though it is a non Tabular (T-grain) grained film. It has the wonderful tonality of Tri-X, but the fine grain of Delta 400. It's also quite forgiving in exposure and development. Delta 400 is my second choice in traditional 400 speed B/W films. In the C-41 process B/W films, I find Fuji Neopan 400CN and Ilford's XP-2 to be very good and fine grained. Exceptional flesh tones when exposed at 200, and they scan very well. I routinely use them for wedding-portrait shooting.

Neopan 400 snap (non-CN version)

Neopan 400CN (straight scan, no post processing)

Neopan 400 (straight scan from neg)

Ilford XP-2 (straight scan from neg)

I didn't realize that Fuji made a C-41 BW film.

Russ - SVP · Jan 1, 2010

Don Bryant said:
I didn't realize that Fuji made a C-41 BW film.

Don

It's made by Ilford, to Fuji's specs. It's my favorite of the B/W C-41 films. XP-2 being very similar to the Fuji offering.

donbga · Jan 1, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
Don

It's made by Ilford, to Fuji's specs. It's my favorite of the B/W C-41 films. XP-2 being very similar to the Fuji offering.

Interesting that Fuji can't or doesn't produce this film. I don't think it is sold in the US.

Don

Russ - SVP · Jan 1, 2010

Don Bryant said:
Interesting that Fuji can't or doesn't produce this film. I don't think it is sold in the US.

Don

Don

It's probably more cost affective to have Ilford make it for them. Ilford is already setup and tooled to do it. As far as not marketing it in th eUS, it's probably a marketing agreement between the two, so that Fuji isn't competing with the Ilford product in the States. I get mine by the brick from a buddy in the UK. But, you can also order it on-line.

donbga · Jan 3, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
But, you can also order it on-line.

Seems like I'll just stick with XP2 which I can get easily.

Thanks,

Don

Russ - SVP · Feb 13, 2010

Don Bryant said:
I didn't realize that Fuji made a C-41 BW film.

Don

Yes, they do market their own version. It's made by Ilford, per Fuji specs. It's a wonderful film. I love the stuff.

sperera · Mar 4, 2010

Hey Don, Ive emailed you.....this is what I said...I copy so perhaps someone can comment too.....

".....I've been using Fuji Acros 100 recently in XTol and the damn thing causes me loads of newton ring.....compared to Tr-X 400 for example (also in Xtol) caused me no newton rings......cos the film is thicker is the only thing i can see!!!! its as simple as that....thinner films = newton rings for me.....i remember scanning Agfa APX 25 years ago and that was nearly impossible!!!!!

Bottom line I'm thinking os ditching 100ASA films and going for 400 asa films....the short list is T-Max 400 - Tri-X 400 or Neopan 400

Thanks for your help on this!!!!!

Russ - SVP · Apr 13, 2010

sperera said:
Hey Don, Ive emailed you.....this is what I said...I copy so perhaps someone can comment too.....

".....I've been using Fuji Acros 100 recently in XTol and the damn thing causes me loads of newton ring.....compared to Tr-X 400 for example (also in Xtol) caused me no newton rings......cos the film is thicker is the only thing i can see!!!! its as simple as that....thinner films = newton rings for me.....i remember scanning Agfa APX 25 years ago and that was nearly impossible!!!!!

Bottom line I'm thinking os ditching 100ASA films and going for 400 asa films....the short list is T-Max 400 - Tri-X 400 or Neopan 400

Thanks for your help on this!!!!!

I absolutely love Fuji Acros or Ilford Delta in X-Tol. But, if you are going to go to a 400 speed film, Neopan 400CN, Neopan 400 and Delta 400 are fantastic films.

Kiron Kid

Fine Grain 400

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency