Finest-grained film at 1600?

Vonder · Mar 9, 2010

I'd like some opinions please, on the following films:

Delta 3200 @ ASA 1600

Tri-X 400 @ ASA 1600

Tmax400 @ ASA 1600

Which of these films at ASA 1600 produces, in your experience and opinion, the lowest-grained, best-detailed images? If developer (and or development methodology) makes a huge difference please tell me what works and doesn't work for you - I'm an Xtol fan so that would be my first choice for developer.

I'd include Tmax3200 but the project I have in mind will be with 120 film. I'm also open to other film suggestions.

Ian Grant · Mar 9, 2010

Ilford XP-2 @ 1600 EI push processed in C41, finer grain and better tonality.

Ian

Vonder · Mar 9, 2010

Ian Grant said:
Ilford XP-2 @ 1600 EI push processed in C41, finer grain and better tonality.

Ian

Alas, that would mean I couldn't print it well enough myself, which rules ithat film out. I have not used it but have used the Kodak version and really like it.

Ian Grant · Mar 9, 2010

XP-2 prints very easily it's not at all like the Kodak version which is designed for Minilabs to print on RA-4 papers. XP-2 is designed for conventional B&W printing.

Ian

Vonder · Mar 9, 2010

Ian Grant said:
XP-2 prints very easily it's not at all like the Kodak version which is designed for Minilabs to print on RA-4 papers. XP-2 is designed for conventional B&W printing.

Ian

I did not know that. Interesting! However, Ilford's spec sheet says that the film can not be pushed - results in no practical increase in film speed.

See http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061301945161573.pdf page 3. Are you saying Ilford is not correct, in your experience? Or perhaps that a 2-stop underexposure will make no difference with this film due to its great latitude?

RobertV · Mar 9, 2010

Ian Grant said:
XP-2 prints very easily it's not at all like the Kodak version which is designed for Minilabs to print on RA-4 papers. XP-2 is designed for conventional B&W printing.

Ian

Which is correct althought a push processing is not recommended by Ilford for this film. Best preformance and tonality is around iso 250 and use a standard 3:15 min. C41 processing.

When going over iso 800 it's also difficult to print.

My advice: Tri-X 400 in Diafine. iso 1250-1600 with nice tonality but maybe not the finest grain.
Finest grain Delta 3200 on iso 1600 but only due to the type of tabulair crystals.

Ian Grant · Mar 9, 2010

Ilford stopped recommending push processing when the film changed from XP-1 to XP-2, a big problem was labs didn't like XP-1 because it used a non standard C41 process time rather than the normal 3 mins 15 secs, most C41 machines in use today can only process for the standard time so for 100% compatibility Ilford dropped the push processing.

However I kept push processing XP-2 and it worked just as well as XP-1, the same with XP-2 Plus when that came along, so my experience differs from what's written in Ilford's Datasheet, and I push processed 100's of rolls over the years.

Ian

Ian Grant · Mar 9, 2010

RobertV said:
Which is correct althought a push processing is not recommended by Ilford for this film. Best preformance and tonality is around iso 250 and use a standard 3:15 min. C41 processing.

When going over iso 800 it's also difficult to print.

Robert, I regularly push processed XP-1, 2 and then 2 Plus and the negatives were aesy to print.

Ian

Jeff Kubach · Mar 9, 2010

T-Max at 1600 at T-Max developer did Ok by me.

Jeff

Robert Hall · Mar 9, 2010

I would try Jeff's idea with the new T-Max film, but I was at Kim Weston's place in October and he used some 3200 in medium format, 6x7, and they looked fabulous at I think it was a 16x20 enlargement. It was inspiring enough to make me go get some 3200 I just havent had a chance to try it yet.

RobertV · Mar 9, 2010

Robert, I regularly push processed XP-1, 2 and then 2 Plus and the negatives were aesy to print.

I did several times XP2 super for iso 800 in 3:15 minutes + 0:30s but I was not really impressed by the result (yes, grain is less).
However iso 250 gives a very wide tonal range but always a bit soft negatives which you can also see in the print. It's OK for portraits but I like a real B&W film much more.

Maybe due to standarisation Ilford gives no recommendation for pushing this film.

Tim Gray · Mar 9, 2010

If you want finest grain, the T-MAX 400 at 1600 should fit the bill. Best shadow detail is a different question, and I'd have to side with Delta 3200 or T-MAX 3200. Tri-X is a great film; I love it. But it's grainy. Whether or not it makes better speed than T-MAX 400, I don't know.

Just for the record, pushing doesn't really increase speed in any of these films. You might gain a 1/3-1/2 of a stop.

If I were doing a project, I'd pick up a roll of each and shoot some tests.

domaz · Mar 9, 2010

If you want the finest grain prints use Delta 3200 in 120 size. It's the only film with this speed available in 120.

Vonder · Mar 9, 2010

Thanks to all who have replied thus far. I have Tmax on hand, and have ordered some Delta 3200 and XP2. I will do a bit of comparison. It's not a big project but one I hope to have fun with.

pentaxuser · Mar 9, 2010

At 1600 D3200 looks acceptably fine grained with DDX IMHO and it is probably similar to Xtol. Alternatively try Perceptol stock with it. The grain is even finer but use the speed recommended for 3200 which is 18 mins. My own dev time at 1600 and Perceptol stock is 20 mins.

Ian Grant doesn't need any endorsement from me but if he says that pushing XP2 plus is OK then I'd give it a tryas I see you are going to.

pentaxuser

ted_smith · Mar 9, 2010

I shot some Delta 3200 about a year ago - lovelly prints but grain was noticeable.

Less noticeable was the prints I've just had back from shooting my first roll of Fuji Neopan 1600. I've not created any large prints yet (only 7 x 5) but the one's I have you can hardly notice the grain at all. The image below was one such image (note this is a 'standard' scan of the negative, done by my lab, so not quite the same as a proper print!)

pentaxuser · Mar 9, 2010

Ted is this Fuji 1600 shot at 1600 in comparison with D3200 shot at 3200 or shot at 1600 also? Looks good to me from the neg scan and worth a punt if 1600 is considered fast enough.

pentaxuser

ted_smith · Mar 9, 2010

It's Fuji 1600 shot at EI1600 (I always worry about venturing too far from the manufacturers normal rating). I don't have my Delta 3200 shots to hand, but they were shot at EI3200. So my comments were based on Fuji 1600 shot at 1600 and Delta 3200 shot at 3200

Harry Lime · Mar 9, 2010

Neopan1600 is quite fine grained, but the contrast creeps up really fast. Kodak 3200P has by far the biggest grain.

I still say Delta 3200 @ 1600 is the high-speed film to beat. It certainly seems to offer the best exposure latitude of the the bunch (Neopan1600/Kodak3200P/Delta3200). Grain is similar to Tri-X @ 400. The great thing about D3200 is the way it handles contrast. In general it has low contrast, which really works to your advantage at night. IMO D3200 is hands down the best ultra-highspeed film on the market. And you can get it in 120.

That said the new TMY-2 400 in XTOl is very impressive at 1600.
Tri-X @1250 in Diafine is surprisingly goood. Grain is quite tight.

I keep hoping that Kodak updates TMY 3200P with some of the pixie dust they added to TMY-2 400... Basically I would like to see TMY 1600.

clayne · Mar 13, 2010

APX25 @ 1600.

Oh you mean you want shadow detail? Neopan 1600 then.

I still say Delta 3200 @ 1600 is the high-speed film to beat. It certainly seems to offer the best exposure latitude of the the bunch (Neopan1600/Kodak3200P/Delta3200). Grain is similar to Tri-X @ 400.

D3200P grain similar to 400TX? Not at ANY EI. Absolutely not!

Harry Lime · Mar 13, 2010

clayne said:
APX25 @ 1600.

Oh you mean you want shadow detail? Neopan 1600 then.

D3200P grain similar to 400TX? Not at ANY EI. Absolutely not!

Not Kodak TMY-3200P, Ilford Delta 3200.

TMY3200P has grain the size of golf balls. I souped it in both TMAX and Diafine. It looked better in TMAX. There was a noticeable boost in shadow detail.

In my experience Delta3200 in DD-X or XTOL produces quite reasonable grain, similar in size to a traditional 400asa film that was not processed in a developer with strong solvent characteristics. I find it to be similar in size to what I get from Tri-X in Barry Thronton's 2-bath, but obviously it does not have the same shape as Tri-X.

fschifano · Mar 13, 2010

I can't comment about the results you'd get with Ilford's XP2 Super because I've never had it push processed. If Ian says it can be done, then I'd be inclined to believe him. You can indeed print this stuff onto traditional B&W paper. I've done it many times from normally exposed and processed XP2 Super negatives.

But if C-41 negatives don't float your boat, you might want to give Tri-X developed in Diafine a try. I've pushed both TMY and TMY-2 in XTOL, and while the grain is finer than what you'll get with Tri-X in Diafine, I wasn't very happy overall with the negatives. Put into zone system parlance, I didn't start getting any shadow detail until I hit what should have been around zone 4 - 4 1/2 with normal exposure and development. Negatives from Tri-X in Diafine seem to hold detail a bit lower down the scale while keeping the highlights in check better, and needed far less dodging and burning to make a good print. Many of the negatives I've made from Tri-X in Diafine seem to almost print themselves. Delta 3200 or TMax 3200 will give you a nicer tonal range to work with, but either will be much more grainy. So there are your choices. The tradeoff for a longer tonal scale is more grain. It's really going to be up to you to decide what will work for what you have in mind.

Tim Gray · Mar 13, 2010

One thing to keep in mind about Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 - ask 10 people their opinions on them, and half will say Delta is grainier, the other half will say TMax is grainier. Same goes for tonality, etc. You really need to try them both for yourself and see which one works better for you.

Chazzy · Mar 13, 2010

Tim Gray said:
One thing to keep in mind about Delta 3200 and TMax 3200 - ask 10 people their opinions on them, and half will say Delta is grainier, the other half will say TMax is grainier. Same goes for tonality, etc. You really need to try them both for yourself and see which one works better for you.

Only one of them is available in 120, so that settles the matter for me. I haven't tried Delta 3200 yet, but it's definitely something that I intend to do.

fschifano · Mar 13, 2010

Delta 3200 is really quite a nice film if the grain doesn't bother you too much. Considering that you're using it in medium format, it shouldn't be too much of a consideration. I've used it only in 35 mm format, and while the grain is noticeable at about 5x enlargement, it's not terrible. A 6x4.5 negative at 5x enlargement will get you an 11x14 print. At normal viewing distance, the grain should hardly be noticeable.

Finest-grained film at 1600?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency