FP4+ What am I missing?

The notable difference, Milpool, is when you try to significantly boost the gamma contrast of Acros. Then all bets are off. Acros is relatively limited in that respect. And you can't borrow as much real estate at the lower end as with TMax films.

Otherwise, there is something strange about your plots. In real-world usage I've found Acros unable to handle 11 stop ranges without resorting to compression development, which flattens midtone values. There's still too much of a toe to it, although the new II is a little more capable in that respect. I have abundant experience with the difference. In the deep woods under open sunlight, I often encounter 11-12 stop lighting ranges. The only fine-grain roll films which can handle the full scope are TMX100 and the late great Ekfe 25. With larger grain sheet films, the now extinct Bergger 200 was wonderful, and Super XX before that; today the closest thing is TMY400 (I omit Foma "200" due to its difficulty handling long exposures).

The problem with TMax developer is that the correct version for sheet film was TMaxRS, no longer made. And to get the best straight line with that, you had to use it full strength - expensive!

Can I just throw this link into the mix ?
It's fascinating, I've been looking through it all afternoon.
To save time figuring it out, the two pictures default to TMax developer first, but you can click the tabs at the top on one or other of them, to do comparisons.

DREW WILEY said:

Lots of questionable generalizations. I don't know who came up with the finer the grain, the better the tonality, or whatever. How is that notion justified?

Click to expand...

Justified by evidence of almost 100 years: If you ask medium format and large format photographers why they are using their bigger formats instead of 35mm film, the majority will say that one of the reasons is better tonality.
Because for the wanted final format, final print size these bigger negatives need less enlargement.
Less enlargement means finer grain, as the grain clusters are less "torn apart", less disrupted. And when the grain clusters remain close together, the finer tonal values are recorded much better.

And the same works if you look at one format, lets say 135:
Make two enlargements, one from Fomapan 100, FP4+ oder Adox CHS 100 II.
And the other one from much much finer grained films like PanF+, Delta 100, T-Max 100 or Acros.
Make for example 30x40 centimeter prints: The prints from the finer grained films will have finer tonal graduation.

That is one of the reasons why I prefer the finer grained films, especially with 35mm film. The difference is very visible and very important for me.
Also one of the reasons why I like tabular grain films: In 135 format they bring me closer in performance to what I normally get with classic films in medium format.
And using them in medium format brings me closer in quality to large format. With them the former quality gaps between formats have become narrower.

T-Max 100 was introduced in 1986. If you would have presented in 1985 a 30x40 centimeter print from 35mm T-max 100 to medium format photographers who were using FP4, AP 100 or Plus-X in a blind test, none of these photographers would have thought that the print is from 35mm film.

I've been shooting large format for almost 50 years. Topics like grain clustering shouldn't be generalized either. I already mentioned how HP5 - a rather large grained film - can be turned into a "watercolor grain" film with almost no visible grain in the print, yet very high edge acutance giving the appearance of sharpness. Yet there have been films which show conspicuous grain even in a contact print, but with wonderful tonality. Tonality and grain size are unrelated. The printmaker's personal skill has way more to do with it.

I shoot TMax 100 and 400 in every format category from 35mm to 8x10. I shot it when it was first introduced. But you're exaggerating when you seem to equate its 35mm performance to MF results from other medium speed films.
I think I understand enlarging too. When I refer to a 30X40 print, I mean 30X40 inches, not centimeters.

Your postulate that finer grain films equate to better tonality doesn't make any sense at all. Pan F can be a lovely film under certain conditions, but its contrast range is so limited, and its development malleability so constricted, that you don't have a whole lot of tools to expand microtonality with.

Then there were those Kodak Tech Pan BS ads back then telling people they could get 4X5 quality from a 35mm camera if they used Tech Pan. But Tech Pan is exactly that - an extremely fine-grained technical film with miserable tonality. I used it clear up to 8x10 size for forensic purposes, like detecting fraudulent paintings. Most of those extremely fine-grain films have wretched tonality, even using special developers.

DREW WILEY said:

(Some text deleted).

Then there were those Kodak Tech Pan BS ads back then telling people they could get 4X5 quality from a 35mm camera if they used Tech Pan. But Tech Pan is exactly that - an extremely fine-grained technical film with miserable tonality. I used it clear up to 8x10 size for forensic purposes, like detecting fraudulent paintings. Most of those extremely fine-grain films have wretched tonality, even using special developers.

Click to expand...

Precisely. I was using Adox KB-14 a lot in the late 60s and early 70s, and no matter what I tried, I could not get good results with it (I used a lot of Neofin Blue and Acutol). Same with Pan-F+. Panatomic-X, which I hardly ever used, was better.

The films with the best tonality are probably the better mid-speed films, such as FP4, Acros, Delta 100, and T-Max 100. T-Max 400 is very good also.

The reason that extremely fine-grained copy/lith films have poor tonality is because the grains are all similar in size. Continuous-tone films have a mix of grain sizes.

But in today's world, Tmax etc. are available in sheet formats. If they were capable of medium format performance in 1990, they can do even better in large format in 2024.
TM100 in 4X5 - I can't even find the grain with my enlarger loupe. I look for a sharp edge and focus on that.

DREW WILEY said:

I already mentioned how HP5 - a rather large grained film - can be turned into a "watercolor grain" film with almost no visible grain in the print, yet very high edge acutance giving the appearance of sharpness.

Click to expand...

Take HP5+ in format 135, and take T-Max 400 in 135. Photograph the same subject. And then make larger prints, 30x40cm or 40x50cm. No matter what you do with HP5+, the grain will be much coarser compared to T-Max, and the tonal graduations and nuances will be finer with T-Max. Because of T-Max finer grain, more 'data' recorded on the same area.

DREW WILEY said:

I shoot TMax 100 and 400 in every format category from 35mm to 8x10. I shot it when it was first introduced. But you're exaggerating when you seem to equate its 35mm performance to MF results from other medium speed films.

Click to expand...

Please read what I've written: My reference was to the time before T-Max was introduced, and the former films at that time (Fp4, Agfapan 100 etc.). Films on a lower tech level compared to their successors we have today.

DREW WILEY said:

I think I understand enlarging too. When I refer to a 30X40 print, I mean 30X40 inches, not centimeters.

Click to expand...

Maybe you have heard about the fact that there exists a world outside North America . And in that world the metric systems is used. I live in that world, and therefore I am using centimeters to describe my print sizes .

DREW WILEY said:

Your postulate that finer grain films equate to better tonality doesn't make any sense at all.

Click to expand...

O.k. then all the film manufacturers have been doing it wrong for more than 100 years. Because their R&D for finer grained films have been driven also by the aim to improve the tonal transitions and graduations. Every time when I talked to the film staffs at the biggest photo fair (Photokina), they explained that that is an important factor for their work.
And I am seeing exactly that in my prints for decades.

DREW WILEY said:

Pan F can be a lovely film under certain conditions, but its contrast range is so limited, and its development malleability so constricted, that you don't have a whole lot of tools to expand microtonality with.

Click to expand...

1) Using anecdotal evidence by taking just one film as example is generally not a valid argument to falsify something. Or in other words: If something is true and works in 98% of the cases, the 2% of cases in which it does not work are just some exceptions, but it does not falsify the other 98%.
2) My results with PanF+ are different to yours: I've got excellent tonality with it. It is a matter of using the right exposure, developer, dev. time and agitation rhythm.

DREW WILEY said:

Then there were those Kodak Tech Pan BS ads back then telling people they could get 4X5 quality from a 35mm camera if they used Tech Pan. But Tech Pan is exactly that - an extremely fine-grained technical film with miserable tonality.

Click to expand...

I've used Tech Pan, too. I've got quite good tonality with my used developer (Tetenal Neofin Doku). I agree that this film did not offer excellent tonality. But that has nothing to do with its grain structure, but the fact that this film was not developed, not designed to be a film for pictorial, artistic use. It was designed for technical applications, with different spectral sensitivity and different curve shape.

takilmaboxer said:

But in today's world, Tmax etc. are available in sheet formats. If they were capable of medium format performance in 1990, they can do even better in large format in 2024.
TM100 in 4X5 - I can't even find the grain with my enlarger loupe. I look for a sharp edge and focus on that.

Click to expand...

Of course. The finer grained, and higher resolving tabular type grain films have moved the limits upwards:
- 35mm film's performance with tabular grain films have come nearer (= less difference) to medium format performance with traditional type films
- medium format performance have come nearer to 4x5" classic film type performance
- and with tabular grain film types in 4x5" you come nearer to 8x10" traditional film type performance.

Film-Niko said:

Because their R&D for finer grained films have been driven also by the aim to improve the tonal transitions and graduations. Every time when I talked to the film staffs at the biggest photo fair (Photokina), they explained that that is an important factor for their work.
And I am seeing exactly that in my prints for decades.

Click to expand...

I can confirm that.
As I have had the great luck and privilege to visit 5 different film manufacturers, and talk there also with the emulsion chemists: Finer grain generally has a positive effect on recording grey tones and tonal gradations / tonal values in a more precise way. Finer graded / phased.
The technical background is that there are more silver-halide crystals per unit of area. That generally enhances the capability to render fine(r) or subtle tonal gradations, as more information can be recorded.
The same effect is working when we are using bigger formats: We all know of the general advantages concerning tonality bigger formats offer: Because for the final, given print size a bigger format needs less magnification. So in comparison to the smaller format, and looking at the same print size for both the smaller and the bigger format, the bigger format with less magnification has more silver-halide crystals per unit of area in relation to that print size. Which enhances rendering of tonal gradations.
Everyone who works with different formats knows this effect.

This effect can also be very easily demonstrated with a simple test:
We take a reletively grainy film like Kentmere 400 or Fomapan 400 in 35mm format: We first make a small print of e.g. 13x18 centimeter (about 5x7"). We will have very good quality, very fine grain and fine tonal values, fine tonal gradations.
And then we make a much bigger print, 50x60cm (16x20"): The grain is very coarse and visible, and especially in even areas, like the sky, or other homogenous areas like parts of buildings, e.g., the "empty space" between the grain clusters become visible.
Because of the huge magnification the empty space between grains / grain clusters is very heavily "stretched".
No silver-halide crystals anymore (related to the print size) in some areas because of the huge magnification = no information recording possible = negative effect on recording of tonal gradation / values.
In German fine-art printers use the term "die Flächen reißen auf". Well, my English translation is probably bad: "The areas / surfaces are ripped / torn open."

That is one factor which has influence on tonality. As I have explained above in one of my posts, curve shape of the characteristic curve and spectral sensitivity are two other relevant factors on the film side.
For example the straight, perfectly linear curve shape of FP4+ in DD-X results in a very different tonality compared to the very strong S-shaped curves of Agfa Aviphot Pan aerial films.

And then you have also factors on the print / paper side, like the CC of the paper(s). And the impression of tonality is also a dependent on subjective, individual assessments and preferences of the photographer.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning Serger said:

This effect can also be very easily demonstrated with a simple test:
We take a reletively grainy film like Kentmere 400 or Fomapan 400 in 35mm format: We first make a small print of e.g. 13x18 centimeter (about 5x7"). We will have very good quality, very fine grain and fine tonal values, fine tonal gradations.
And then we make a much bigger print, 50x60cm (16x20"): The grain is very coarse and visible, and especially in even areas, like the sky, or other homogenous areas like parts of buildings, e.g., the "empty space" between the grain clusters become visible.
Because of the huge magnification the empty space between grains / grain clusters is very heavily "stretched".
No silver-halide crystals anymore (related to the print size) in some areas because of the huge magnification = no information recording possible = negative effect on recording of tonal gradation / values.

Click to expand...

this is a very good description of the problem, which can be seen as well if we go to extreme scan resolutions (20'000ppi+).

at increasing resolution, smooth surfaces become grainy (obviously).
if we keep increasing the resolution, the grain starts to become cloudy, with empty areas between the grain clusters.
if we further increase resolution, even the grain clusters start to separate and we get a lot of black dots and empty film in between.
at this level, the film basically is very similar to a halftone pattern effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone ).

also, each film/developer combo has a different structure of these the grain clusters, and depending on taste they will look more suitable for certain subjects and magnifications.

as an example:
I kinda like Fomapan 400 in XTOL for Medium format for moody portraits, but if enlargements go over 50x50cm the grain structure starts to bother me, and I prefer Tri-X 400 in XTOL.
T-Max 400 (TMY-2) in XTOL has significantly smaller grain, but I don't like how it interacts with the skin texture, it feels to technical, so even on big enlargements I prefer Tri-X despite of the larger grain clusters for portraits.
for architecture, I usually prefer TMY-2 over Tri-X though.

All I can say is that there is a very novel use of the term, "tonality" going on here which has little resemblance to customary usage. IF a given film has the capacity, the internal curve tonality and microtonality can be user adjusted by the degree of development, exactly where key values are metered, choice of developer, etc. Grain structure is a comparatively minor factor.

"Tone" can mean different things between a musician and a visual artist, and even carries different connotations between b&w photography and color theory. Something seems to be lost in translation in this case. Perhaps an explanation of it as "textural value" or "textural tonality" might make things clearer.

Of course, if you're going to limit this discussion to only 35mm film, you're going to have some distinct enlargement limitations before grain visibility becomes an issue. But that is still a different topic from tonality. You're talking about detail capacity, or micro-detail, instead. But yeah, I get your point, about stretching the balloon. But that's just a symptom of unrealistic expectations from a piece of film not much bigger than a postage stamp.

Sometimes there is simply no substitute for scaling up the surface area of capture. Going finer and finer grained at a certain point just means that tiny little coating flaws and emulsion idiosyncrasies become more of a plague. Gosh knows how many BB gun holes I've seen in the skies of shooters addicted to ultra-fine grain 35mm films.

I do shoot 35mm film too, and get excellent tonality whether it's TMX100 or Delta 3200, simply because I print 35mm shots small. Pan F has the worst S-curve out there when it comes to conventional films, but I know how to get excellent tonality out of that too because I understand its limitations when it comes to contrast range. One chooses a shoe size to fit the foot, and not the other way around.

Then you have the issue of acutance - TMax 100 might have tremendous detail capacity, but in most developers (not all), it has relatively poor edge definition. That itself affect the impression of micro transitions.

There are all kinds of tools out there to balance things out. I have used masking for many films.

And I think I know what a fine print is, and how to visually balance highlights and shadows as well as anyone else in the world when it comes to silver printing. This is the visual space I live in. I frequently have to include medium format (6X7 and 6X9 cm) film prints into the same portfolios as prints from 4x5 and 8x10 film. That's a tall task; but I know how to do it. I even sometimes include 35mm enlargements with 8X10 contact prints. There are all kinds of ways to convey fine tonality unless one is just going big for sake of big - a disappointing trend these days!

And yes, Film Nikko, I am aware that much of the world operates using the metric system. I once sold precision tools and fasteners to machinists and quite a number of import car dealers, and surmised just how much easier things would be if Napoleon had won at Waterloo. In my own shop I have a Mitutoyo digital caliper which conveniently switches from metric to English readings with a push of a button. My precision squares have interchangeable English and metric reading blades, my tape rules have both metric and English. I even have a calculator that works not only in metric and decimel English, but will output the result in English fractions. My darkroom graduates are marked in milliliters as well as both American and British fluid oz units. I am personally convinced that the whole Brit measurement system is based on how far a Druid priest drunken on mead could throw the head of an ox.

Henning Serger said:

I can confirm that.
As I have had the great luck and privilege to visit 5 different film manufacturers, and talk there also with the emulsion chemists: Finer grain generally has a positive effect on recording grey tones and tonal gradations / tonal values in a more precise way. Finer graded / phased.
The technical background is that there are more silver-halide crystals per unit of area. That generally enhances the capability to render fine(r) or subtle tonal gradations, as more information can be recorded.
The same effect is working when we are using bigger formats: We all know of the general advantages concerning tonality bigger formats offer: Because for the final, given print size a bigger format needs less magnification. So in comparison to the smaller format, and looking at the same print size for both the smaller and the bigger format, the bigger format with less magnification has more silver-halide crystals per unit of area in relation to that print size. Which enhances rendering of tonal gradations.
Everyone who works with different formats knows this effect.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the additional information!
So the information you've got directly from the emulsionists and photo engineers is to 100% confirming what the film experts from Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, Fuji, Foma, Konica have explained to me at the Photokina fairs over all the years.
Of course not surprising at all, but nevertheless good to know.

Henning Serger said:

This effect can also be very easily demonstrated with a simple test:
We take a reletively grainy film like Kentmere 400 or Fomapan 400 in 35mm format: We first make a small print of e.g. 13x18 centimeter (about 5x7"). We will have very good quality, very fine grain and fine tonal values, fine tonal gradations.
And then we make a much bigger print, 50x60cm (16x20"): The grain is very coarse and visible, and especially in even areas, like the sky, or other homogenous areas like parts of buildings, e.g., the "empty space" between the grain clusters become visible.
Because of the huge magnification the empty space between grains / grain clusters is very heavily "stretched".
No silver-halide crystals anymore (related to the print size) in some areas because of the huge magnification = no information recording possible = negative effect on recording of tonal gradation / values.
In German fine-art printers use the term "die Flächen reißen auf". Well, my English translation is probably bad: "The areas / surfaces are ripped / torn open."

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly.

dokko said:

this is a very good description of the problem, which can be seen as well if we go to extreme scan resolutions (20'000ppi+).

at increasing resolution, smooth surfaces become grainy (obviously).
if we keep increasing the resolution, the grain starts to become cloudy, with empty areas between the grain clusters.
if we further increase resolution, even the grain clusters start to separate and we get a lot of black dots and empty film in between.
at this level, the film basically is very similar to a halftone pattern effect ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone ).

Click to expand...

Thank you for adding your experience with high resolution scans. Confirms again that fineness of grain plays a significant role in tonality.

Introducing the subject of scanning in this context simply complicates it. Yes, in practical terms, the smaller the image, the higher the quality of scanning required to maintain things like tonality, as well as hue accuracy in color images. This is because you're dealing with small sampling sizes, regardless of the film grain structure involved.

So introducing evidential claims of film performance or tonality based on scanning might simply reflect the limitations and idiosyncrasies of your scanning method itself, and not accurately represent what the film itself can do printed optically and directly. Then speaking in DPI terms just confuses the dialog problem more.

The interaction of film grain etc with actual printing paper is what it is - you can't always accurately predict it either by a scan or even by looking at grain structure under a microscope, unless, perhaps, you're an expert at that kind of thing. It isn't that simple. And halftone processes are something entirely different. Way too many generic presumptions on this thread.

And Niko - how many engineers and chemists actually show up at trade fairs? Those are salesmen kinds of venues, who might or might not know what they are talking about. I dealt with both categories for decades. One kind you listen to with a grain of salt, the other kind you call and have a long conversation with, of meet with in person, to get to the truth. But even that doesn't mean they themselves know how to take and print compelling photographs with excellent tonal value.

DREW WILEY said:

All I can say is that there is a very novel use of the term, "tonality" going on here which has little resemblance to customary usage.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here: Tonality is a term that describes in BW photography the rendition of different grey tones, grey values. Including the differentiation and graduation of fine steps and nuances in these grey tones. And all that in the range from full black to brillant white (Zone system).
And that usage of the term tonality has been standard in photographic literature for decades. I have a small photographic library here at home, and I cannot find a different description of this technical term.

But it looks that your usage of that term is quite different.

Maybe you should ask yourself why the fine-art-photographers / printers in their huge majority prefer either finer grained films, and / or bigger formats, which results in much finer grained prints. Well, they do it because fine tonality is very important for them. There is a reason why e.g. T-Max 3200 and Delta 3200, or pushed Kentmere 400 or Fomapan 400 are very rarely used in that genre.

But I think we should stop here: You have made your standpoint very clear, that the film emulsion engineers are wrong.
I think they are completely right. My experience and that of countless of other photographers prove me they are right.
You and me, we agree to disagree.

Yes Niko, I think I'm in the majority with you here !

DREW WILEY said:

And Niko - how many engineers and chemists actually show up at trade fairs? Those are salesmen kinds of venues, who might or might not know what they are talking about.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I cannot let that stand that way, because it is extremely arrogant und unfair concerning the experts I have talked to. Have you ever been at the Photokina? Probably not. It has been by far the biggest photo fair in the world for decades, and it has been mainly a B2B fair. Not only with "salespersons", but with lots of real experts, including engineers and chemists.
And no, I have not talked to salespersons there, but to experts who really have known their stuff, and being passionate photographers and printers by themselves.

Mark J said:

Can I just throw this link into the mix ?
It's fascinating, I've been looking through it all afternoon.
To save time figuring it out, the two pictures default to TMax developer first, but you can click the tabs at the top on one or other of them, to do comparisons.

filmFP4

Fremkallertabell for Ilford FP4 film

fotoimport.no

Click to expand...

And which did you like best?

I spent a lot of time at Photokina in 1998 and can confirm that it has both breadth and depth of interest. I remember taking several visits to the Bergger stand, looking at the superb prints from 5x7" negs that they were showing. Shame that most of those products have now disappeared. However I think that the one that impressed me most was from FP4+ printed on the Bergger paper.

I AM a "fine art" printer, Niko, and am not ashamed to place my own prints side by side besides those of anyone in the world, living or dead, at least as far as b&w silver gelatin and color prints are concerned (I don't do UV processes). Been there, done that. I can legitimately state that I am a master of tonality. And I use all kinds of films just like an artist might choose between different kinds of pigment or painting surfaces to achieve a specific look. Don't tell me which genre a particular film applies to, and which it does not. If 35mm Delta 3200 is appropriate to the image, that is what I choose; if it's TMax 8x10 sheet film applies, then I use that. One's own set of eyes is the ultimate arbiter of all this - a WAY more important factor than mere grain structure, which I am in fact nitpicky about, far more than most, but only in a secondary manner.

I have a significant arsenal of expensive masking gear and specialized densitometers on hand if I need it, to very precisely control repro values, including very fine nuances of microtonality and grain appearance. I have the finest of enlargers and enlarging lenses. But in the end, what the print actually looks like determines everything.

And I AM speaking about gray scale nuances top to bottom. But a whole lot more goes into the impression of tonality than that. I left the Zone System behind in kindergarten decades ago. And I have even worked side by side with an optical engineers who was himself a lousy photographer! Lets put some things in perspective. Here we are in fact talking technical details, but that is not the end game. And one doesn't necessarily improve that by making loose generic statements about film grain in relation to tonality. You must think that every camera image taken prior to 1980 lacked good tonality. But some of the best I've even seen came from the 19th Century!

The whole push for finer and finer grained films was tied to the advent of smaller cameras, not tonal reproduction per se.
Yes film quality control improved, film speeds got better, and even someone like me appreciates lighter weight camera gear as I get older. I can now get far crisper results with 120 roll film, for instances, than I could three or four decades ago.
But still, when it comes to tonality, I wish the old classics like Super XX were still around, even if that meant 8x10 film usage only. The proof is in the pudding, not in some manifesto mentality that generically preaches that fineness of grain solves the whole issue.

Anyway, this has actually been a fun conversation. I do think we need a little more specialized vocabulary, however.

Mark J said:

I spent a lot of time at Photokina in 1998 and can confirm that it has both breadth and depth of interest. I remember taking several visits to the Bergger stand, looking at the superb prints from 5x7" negs that they were showing. Shame that most of those products have now disappeared. However I think that the one that impressed me most was from FP4+ printed on the Bergger paper.

Click to expand...

Forte papers were excellent. I still have some Polywarmtone left, best paper ever made.

Ian

DREW WILEY said:

I AM a "fine art" printer, Niko, and am not ashamed to place my own prints side by side besides those of anyone in the world, living or dead, at least as far as b&w silver gelatin and color prints are concerned (I don't do UV processes). Been there, done that. I can legitimately state that I am a master of tonality. And I use all kinds of films just like an artist might choose between different kinds of pigment or painting surfaces to achieve a specific look. Don't tell me which genre a particular film applies to, and which it does not. If 35mm Delta 3200 is appropriate to the image, that is what I choose; if it's TMax 8x10 sheet film applies, then I use that. One's own set of eyes is the ultimate arbiter of all this - a WAY more important factor than mere grain structure, which I am in fact nitpicky about, far more than most, but only in a secondary manner.

I have a significant arsenal of expensive masking gear and specialized densitometers on hand if I need it, to very precisely controls repro values, including very fine nuances of microtonality and grain appearance. I have the finest of enlargers and enlarging lenses. But in the end, what the print actually looks like determines everything.

And I AM speaking about gray scale nuances top to bottom. But a whole lot more goes into the impression of tonality than that. I left the Zone System behind in kindergarten decades ago. And I have even worked side by side with an optical engineers who was himself a lousy photographer! Lets put some things in perspective. Here we are in fact talking technical details, but that not the end game. And one doesn't necessarily improve that by making loose generic statements about film grain in relation to tonality. You must think that every camera image taken prior to 1980 lacked good tonality. But some of the best I've even seen came from the 19th Century!

Click to expand...

I have to say, Drew, I full agree with all you are saying in this thread.

Ian

Ryeman said:

And which did you like best?

Click to expand...

On that selection, it's tough to split it between D76 1+1 and TMax 1+4 , if you want a linear curve. Very impressive actually.
However in practice I have used Pyro PMK since '98 with FP4+
I recently tried WD2H ( John Wimberley ) , because that's what he used almost exclusively with FP4+ for years in LF, however I couldn't get it to give the required neg density .. so far ... ( see a thread on LF Photography forum ) .

If you look through all of the films and all of the developer combinations, it's clear that TMax comes out best overall on conventional measures like straight response, limited toe, film speed and grain. With HP5+ for instance, it looks significantly better than XTol if you want good highlight separation.

Mark J said:

On that selection, it's tough to split it between D76 1+1 and TMax 1+4 , if you want a linear curve. Very impressive actually.
However in practice I have used Pyro PMK since '98 with FP4+
I recently tried WD2H ( John Wimberley ) , because that's what he used almost exclusively with FP4+ for years in LF, however I couldn't get it to give the required neg density .. so far ... ( see a thread on LF Photography forum ) .

If you look through all of the films and all of the developer combinations, it's clear that TMax comes out best overall on conventional measures like straight response, limited toe, film speed and grain. With HP5+ for instance, it looks significantly better than XTol if you want good highlight separation.

Click to expand...

Yes, D76 1+1 looked very good to me too. Pity they didn't show it at 1+2 or 1+3, where I know from experience it is even better. And a pity they didn't show Perceptol. 35mm Fp4 looks absolutely wonderful in Perceptol 1+3. Sharp, crisp, lovely bright mid-tones. Peaches and cream!