FP4+ Mushy Grain

[chuckroast]

I just zoomed waaaaaaay in on a 4x5 sheet of CMS 20 II developed in Adotech IV, and all I saw was mush. Mush, mush, and more mush. I also checked Pyrocat-HD developed sheet, Caffenol, Xtol, POTA, D-23, and CD4-LC.... mush! Prints from all these developers look eye-poppingly sharp, though

OK, but let's remember something. Apparent grain is a consequence of both the film structure and the developer you're using. Low apparent grain is frequently achieved by using a solvent style developer that "nibbles away" at the edges of the grain. This makes the appearance smoother at the cost of acutance/edge sharpness.

Staining developers - PMK Pyro, Pyrocat - sort of give you the best of both worlds. Pyrocat, especially, can be used in very high dilution/long standing development that optimizes acutance (i.e., not much solvent effect), but the grain is masked well by the stain the developer produces.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Well, Kodak refer to Tri-X as a fine grain film and I certainly don't believe them.

In fact, I don't recall reading any description of any negative film, ever, that did not mention the film has "fine grain" and "wide latitude" too. ;-)

 

[GregY]

FP4+ responds beautifully and with low apparent grain in Pyrocat-HD

It sure does. FP4+ in Pyrocat has been my go-to in all the formats i use up to 5x7. I have made 20x24" prints from 120 neg. Although i usually don't enlarge 35mm past 11x14" I have on occasion made 16x20" prints. FP4+ exhibits a very nice tonality.

 

[chuckroast]

Well, Kodak refer to Tri-X as a fine grain film and I certainly don't believe them.

Decades ago, these characterisations might have been reasonable, but in this day and age they sound funny.

Handheld 35mm Tri-X, scan of 8x10 silver print (it's all about how it's exposed and developed):

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you just look at stained pyro negatives through a magnifier you tend to get a wrong impression of how the printing paper will see that same grain. But if you add a deep or even medium blue filter when viewing the same neg, you get a quite different impression.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

OK, but let's remember something. Apparent grain is a consequence of both the film structure and the developer you're using. Low apparent grain is frequently achieved by using a solvent style developer that "nibbles away" at the edges of the grain. This makes the appearance smoother at the cost of acutance/edge sharpness.

Staining developers - PMK Pyro, Pyrocat - sort of give you the best of both worlds. Pyrocat, especially, can be used in very high dilution/long standing development that optimizes acutance (i.e., not much solvent effect), but the grain is masked well by the stain the developer produces.

This I know...My comment was slightly tongue in cheek...I've been a Pyrocat-HD user for 20 years with FP4, and various other films. Definitely my favourite developer.

 

[faberryman]

If you just look at stained pyro negatives through a magnifier you tend to get a wrong impression of how the printing paper will see that same grain. But if you add a deep or even medium blue filter when viewing the same neg, you get a quite different impression.

The OP does not have an enlarger, so a discussion of how the printing paper will see the grain is not really relevant. He could look at his negatives through a blue filter, but to what end?

I am wondering what scanner he is using and, in particular, whether it can resolve the grain? Does he have an issue with grain aliasing?

 

[GregY]

The OP does not have an enlarger, so a discussion of how the printing paper will see the grain is not really relevant. He could look at his negatives through a blue filter, but to what end?

I am wondering what scanner he is using and, in particular, whether it can resolve the grain? Does he have an issue with grain aliasing?

That being the case, it's worth saying that subjective impressions from looking at a negative through a loupe bear little relation to how the negative would print.

 

[Anon Ymous]

In fact, I don't recall reading any description of any negative film, ever, that did not mention the film has "fine grain" and "wide latitude" too. ;-)

Uh, yes...

Handheld 35mm Tri-X, scan of 8x10 silver print (it's all about how it's exposed and developed):

View attachment 349019

Well, yes, you can have Tri-X photographs that don't have conspicuous grain. Development and proper exposure will help, but won't make it a fine grained film. It helps if the image has a lot of texture, which will hide grain, but given some uniform areas, grain will become more visible. If your image looks bland with a normal paper grade and you have to bump contrast, grain will inevitably become more visible. Anyway, I don't exactly disagree with you, but if Tri-X is fine grained, then what would TMax/Delta 100 be?

 

[faberryman]

I don't exactly disagree with you, but if Tri-X is fine grained, then what would TMax/Delta 100 be?

The technical datasheet for TMax 100 refers to it as "extremely fine grain". TMax 100 has a granularity of 8 compared to 17 for Tri-X. The technical datasheet for TMax 400 refers to it as "very fine grain" with a granularity of 10. The technical datasheet for TMax 3200 refers to it as "fine grain" with a granularity of 18.

 

[pentaxuser]

In fact, I don't recall reading any description of any negative film, ever, that did not mention the film has "fine grain" and "wide latitude" too. ;-)

It's funny you should say that as my perception is much the same

pentaxuser

 

[snusmumriken]

Ilford may not agree with this, but I think FP4+ works best in metol-only developers. Perceptol is lovely, but it does lose speed and there are plenty of others without the salt, like D-23.

Obviously there are finer-grained medium-speed films, but FP4+ remains a beautiful film, even in 35mm. For several years I have run Delta 100 and FP4+ side-by-side. I appreciate both, but I am particularly fond of FP4+. I definitely wouldn’t describe it as coarse-grained.

 

[pentaxuser]

The technical datasheet for TMax 100 refers to it as "extremely fine grain".

I wonder what the tech datasheet for CMS 20 II says about grain- "extremely non existent?

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I wonder what the tech datasheet for CMS 20 II says about grain- "extremely non existent?

pentaxuser

"electron microscope required"

 

[faberryman]

I wonder what the tech datasheet for CMS 20 II says about grain- "extremely non existent?

From the datasheet:

"CMS 20 is the finest grain and highest resolution recording material known on earth."

I am not sure what the prepositional phrase "on earth" implies.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The technical datasheet for TMax 100 refers to it as "extremely fine grain". TMax 100 has a granularity of 8 compared to 17 for Tri-X. The technical datasheet for TMax 400 refers to it as "very fine grain" with a granularity of 10. The technical datasheet for TMax 3200 refers to it as "fine grain" with a granularity of 18.

Sounds a bit like eBay ratings doesn't it? EXC+++, EXC+++++, EXC+++++++++++++

 

[Vaughn]

That being the case, it's worth saying that subjective impressions from looking at a negative through a loupe bear little relation to how the negative would print.

And it can point to a possible course of action. Take the negatives thru one's whole process (to wetprint, inkjet, digital display, whatever), then compare the negatives seen thru a loupe (with and without a filter?) with the final results. Examine closely to see if there is a correlation one can use to be able to examine negs with a loupe to determine future quality(s) of the final result, whatever form that may be.

I stopped making proofs of my negatives decades ago. My brain inverts them to positives (or perhaps more accurately, I do not see them as negatives or positives)...a by-product of judging negative contrast closely for years without a densitometer experimenting with alt processes. (I make no claim of doing things the easy way). I found this back-and-forth between the neg and the print very helpful.

 

[GregY]

And it can point to a possible course of action. Take the negatives thru one's whole process (to wetprint, inkjet, digital display, whatever), then compare the negatives seen thru a loupe (with and without a filter?) with the final results. Examine closely to see if there is a correlation one can use to be able to examine negs with a loupe to determine future quality(s) of the final result, whatever form that may be.

& look at the print results from viewing distance as well. Tonality often has a great effecter on print quality than does grain size, just as lens character has as much or more impact than pure sharpness. I have to say if i were limited to only one film, I'd choose FP4+. It is a superb film.

 

[chuckroast]

Uh, yes...


Well, yes, you can have Tri-X photographs that don't have conspicuous grain. Development and proper exposure will help, but won't make it a fine grained film. It helps if the image has a lot of texture, which will hide grain, but given some uniform areas, grain will become more visible. If your image looks bland with a normal paper grade and you have to bump contrast, grain will inevitably become more visible. Anyway, I don't exactly disagree with you, but if Tri-X is fine grained, then what would TMax/Delta 100 be?

So "fine grained" isn't the same claim as "no visible grain". Referring back to the image I posted. There are some areas with little or no texture - the top of the lock, the out of focus areas upper center right. You can see some grain there, but it's not really visually distracting.

The reason exposure matters is that it's one of the components that drive contrast. As you point out, having to bump contrast can exaggerate grain. But, similarly, how you develop matters a lot too. Tri-X in ordinary development schemes can show pronounced grain. In this case, a very long, dilute development with few agitations kept the grain under control.

ASIDE: Note that the image I posted was from a straight scan of an 8x10 silver print. The only post scan manipulation was to try and match the densities of the scan to the print as best as I could. There is no further image fiddling. With more digital fiddling, much of the grain, lack of DOF, and so on in this image could be re-rendered to look nearly perfect.

 

[Vaughn]

FP4+ is my go-to sheet film -- Ilford Universal PQ developer was recommended to me years ago, especially for Platinum printing. All my work is contact printed...can't say grain has been a major factor in my decision-making.

Viewing distance, sharpness, tonality, focus (varying degrees of image sharpness), paper surface (if paper is involved), and all that, are elements to consider when creating an image. Many of the elements will have an impact on other elements. All fun.

 

[DREW WILEY]

For other than lab applications (like masking or color separation work), I began developing FP4 in PMK pyro a long time ago, and never looked back. Soooo much easier to print with excellent highlight gradation than back in my D76, D23, Perceptol, etc, initial learning curve. But I'm strictly a silver printer. Don't confuse this with what Vaughn needs for his UV printing work.

It's hard to go wrong with FP4 unless you need more speed on a windy day (and wind around here can be relentless), or have a very harsh scene brightness range (something I encounter a lot too). I'm down to my last 8x10 sheet of it at the moment, but have a decent amount of TMY400 on hand, so no worries.

"Fine" grained, blah blah, should always be taken in its historical context. I have a number of old Kodak film manual and spec sheets from different decades. What was once classified as "fine grain" would now be classified as either buckshot or shrapnel.

If Kodak calls TMZ 3200 "fine-grained" (its actually about 1000), that's marketing talk, informing you that, by comparison, it's much finer-grained than their old Recording Film sold to detectives. But compared to TMX100 or even TMY400, it's blatant shrapnel.

 

[Film-Niko]

That is not what @Film-Niko was trying to say. His point was that modern t-grain emulsions improve on granularity so much that a 35mm t-grain negative begins to approach a 6x4.5 classic emulsion negative such as Kentmere 100. The Kentmere is certainly a great example as it's one of the roughest classic emulsions on the market, I can easily see how a 35mm T-Max 100 can be compared to a 6x4.5 Kentmere.

Thanks Steven, yes, that is what I had meant. As explained, my judgement was based on real tests, and not on opinions.
And the difference is not only in grain, but also in resolution (and sharpness). In my resolution test I got almost double the value with T-Max compared to Kentmere 100 and Fomapan 100.

By the way, Kentmere 100 reminds me of the old FP4 (without plus) in the eighties. I think everyone here would agree that photos of that time on FP4 with 4.5x6 or 6x6 from a technical point of view were really very good and everyone would consider them as "real medium format quality".
Due to technological progress we can get today a similar technical quality also with 35mm by using films like TMX, Acros, Delta 100.
Especially when in addition also the much improved current 35mm format lenses are used (in medium format we unfortunately haven't seen new, improved lenses for film cameras in the last 20 years).

 

[GregY]

Film-niko "in medium format we unfortunately haven't seen new, improved lenses for film cameras in the last 20 years)."
What is the need for better MF lenses. Fuji 6x9, Hasselblad Zeiss, Mamiya 6 & 7, & Pentax lenses are superb....& many of us still like old Tessars on Rolleiflex. Making sharper lenses will only make images look like over-processed digital HD images. What's the purpose as well since who is even making MF film cameras?

 

[MattKing]

The progression of terms used to describe film grain made more sense historically, and within a single film brand.
Part of that was because of the relative similarities between films within a brand, part was because films tended to stay around for a long time, and part was due to the lower availability of purely objective measures of grain.
A regular user of Kodak films in the 1940s would be much more likely to understand and relate to the various references to grain in my 1940 vintage Kodak Handbook than a current user reading those descriptions now - particularly because they would have mostly been referencing much larger negatives.

 

[grain elevator]

Film-niko "in medium format we unfortunately haven't seen new, improved lenses for film cameras in the last 20 years)."
What is the need for better MF lenses. Fuji 6x9, Hasselblad Zeiss, Mamiya 6 & 7, & Pentax lenses are superb....& many of us still like old Tessars on Rolleiflex. Making sharper lenses will only make images look like over-processed digital HD images. What's the purpose as well since who is even making MF film cameras?

Don't better lenses mostly mean you get the sharpness you might get only in the centre or stopped further down from a lesser lens into the corners and wider open?