Fine grain films?

[RoyK]

Hi

I'm looking for a good, rich fine-grain film with a lots of tone diffs. Would you think it'd be better to go for a T-grain Delta or T-Max or perhaps an Acros, or would an older EFKE PL25 or even Gigabitfilm do the job better? I need to do some pretty large enlargements of these pics with as little as possible grain.

Thanks

roy

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Roy,

For general purposes, a 100-speed film such as those you mention would probably be preferable to the slower films. You don't mention what format you are contemplating, but the T-grain films from Kodak, Delta, and Fuji should serve in all but the most demanding circumstances, even if the negatives are 35mm. Any of them should look terrific at 8 x 10 and very good at 11 x 14, assuming, of course, that you do everything else (camera-holding, focusing, film processing, etc.) with care and precision. In 6 x 6 and larger formats, you should be able to manage even bigger prints with ease.

Konical

 

[Gerald Koch]

I have heard that the tonality of T-grain films is not all that good. Might a conventional medium speed film be better.

 

[jim appleyard]

This is only my opinion, and everyone has a film that they like, but I always prefered the tonality of conventional films over the t-grain. I've shot globs of T-max, and Delta and was never happy with them, but I've always been happy with the conventional.

Yes, the conventional have more grain, but grain is only visible at close inspection. Tonality, composition and lighting scream at you from across the room. Those are the threee things I go for first.

 

[PepMiro]

For better tonallity, I would choose a conventional film but sharpness and fine grain of Delta and T-MAX are difficult to beat. On the other hand, EFKE 25 can achieve both, the rich tonallity and very fine grain but, if you, for example, have to photograph a car race, it's not the best option for obvious reasons.

 

[ChrisW]

It appears you shoot 35mm, so, if you want to project for big prints, go slow. Ilford Pan F+ is boxed as EI 50, but is really a 25, and exhibits great tonality and fine grain. Its rendition of skin tones is flattering. Efke 25 is about the same grain, but the negatives produce more density and acutance. For the finest grain 100 speed film, Acros cannot be beat. The tonal range, for me, is long. I won't support Kodak and TMax films because they are merely pushing the last of their inventory before announcing the discontinuation of B+W film due to obligations to shareholders. PE I know you're listening, so feel free to flame.

 

[df cardwell]

... I won't support Kodak and TMax films because they are merely pushing the last of their inventory before announcing the discontinuation of B+W film due to obligations to shareholders. PE I know you're listening, so feel free to flame.

Chris: Thanks for our daily dose of Haterade.​

 

[df cardwell]

T-Grain films have perfect tonality once you learn to use them, same as everything else.

Ilford's Delta 100 should be plentiful in your part of the world. The only advantage it has over EFKE is 2 stops of speed... which in my book is more than enough reason to use it. Acros is also superb.

I've used TMAX 100 for 20 years and have had wonderful results with it.

IF the rest of your process is well controlled, you won't see any difference between the three superb films. Good luck.

 

[Paul Howell]

I like Pan F and Adox (Efke) 25 developed in Rodinal, Plus X developed in Defender 777, Edwal 12, or Microdol X is also very good. T max 100 in DDX has very fine grain, but I have not warmed up the tones.

 

[ChrisW]

Chris: Thanks for our daily dose of Haterade.​

I am clearly winning friends here. Sorry. Where is Haterade?

 

[Ian Grant]

Now Gerald you should know better, after all T-grain films have been around for years.

More seriously, I tried T-max as soon as it became available in both the 100 & 400 varieties. I also read John Sextons excellent articles in Darkroom Technique. That must be 20 years ago at a guess.

T-grain films are superb, they are streets ahead of older technology films, but not everyone likes them. Why because they are too tonal, lack the raw grittiness that some photographers like in 35mm work.

There is an issue with Kodak's speed ratings as the lab techniques used for US ISO rating give them a stop higher value than their true potential and right from their launch all Kodak's literature has said to obtain full tonality cut the film speed i(ISO) in half.

In contrast Agfa's ISO ratings were based on the DIN ratings, which used a more practical testing method, and is far more accurate.

In reality Agfa's AP & then APX 100 could be used quite happily at 100ISO, to get equivalent results with Tmax100 you need to rate the film at 50ISO, but then right from it's launch Kodak have stated this in their data sheets, and John Sexton said the same about trial batches.

Ian

I have heard that the tonality of T-grain films is not all that good. Might a conventional medium speed film be better.

 

[df cardwell]

There is an issue with Kodak's speed ratings as the lab techniques used for US ISO rating give them a stop higher value than their true potential and right from their launch all Kodak's literature has said to obtain full tonality cut the film speed i(ISO) in half.

I wondered about this at the time, and am confused by it now. I've always had box speeds, and full tonality, with proper midtones. But I've habitually used a reduced agitation technique that may be the cause of my accidental success.

The big problem with the T Grain release, as I saw it at the time, was the 'press' anticipated 100 to be the new Plus X, and 400 to be the new Tri X.

My contact at Kodak that supplied my films in plain yellow boxes told me to shoot 100 like it was Panatomic, and 400 like it was Plus X. And I never had problems.

In other words, the photographic media (Shutterbug, Pop, Modern, et al) just spouted nonsense that is still going around.