Grain, Acutance, Contrast, Scanability with 100 and 400 asa film - How to get?

[heinrich voelkel]

Hello,

I haven't been shooting B/W for some years and didn't develop film a lot myself in the recent time, but I want to return to this beautyful material and the darkroom for a upcoming personal project.

I did some reading on the web and in the APUG archive as well, but somehow can't find an appropiate combination for what I'm looking for.

I want:

-grain (but not too bad)
-high acutance (really important to me)
-contrast (rather on the high side)
-scanability ( the film should print well, but also scan well on a Imacon )
-use of 100 up to 400/800 iso
-the project will be shot on 35, 120 and 4x5 and I would rather opt for some classical material then modern emulsions (or am I wrong with this approach?)
-consistency in approach over the entire range of material

As I rather overexpose, by 1 up to 2 stops, this should be considered as well.

So far I looked into FX-1 and FX-2 and just can't see the difference (okay I know the difference, but...). Will they work with higher iso's as well. I found the FX-2 quite interesting, because of what it does to the highlights and the midtones, but what happens to the shadows?
I looked at Neofin blau and Calbe R09 as well, and from the specs they look good as well.

I know, all the above is a lot to ask for.

I'm not afraid of mixing my own developer, as I did it for before, with good results and I'm not afraid of standing development without agitation.

I will do my own testing soon, but would like to ask others for their experience and knowledge first, so I don't have to start from below zero.

Thank you in advance for helping me back onto the train or boat,

Heinrich Voelkel

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Heinrich,

Scanability = Ilford XP2 Super.

Rather than lavish praise on it, I'll just say:

Try a roll.

Don't overexpose too much, or sharpness (and resolution) will fall too far. But grain will become even finer...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Alan Johnson]

For high acutance printing Neofin Blue etc. is OK.
For scanning a smaller smooth grain is important in in smaller formats and can be sharpened electronically.Neofin etc. is not the best.
The two together seem to involve a compromise,eg medium acutance compensating developer D76 1+1, 1+3.There are others of medium acutance of course.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

If you`re scanning negatives to produce prints via an inkjet printer instead of making good ol` silver gelatin prints, consider scanning moderate contrast colour negative films instead. e.g. Fuji Reala, NPC or Kodak 160 NC and then converting to B&W in Photoshop.
Sorry to mention D.I. methods on this forum. ( cough, spit.)

 

[heinrich voelkel]

Thank you so far, I will try a roll of XP2.

The scanabitlity is actually rather low on my list. I'm in for a certain look.

But still thanks for the suggestions.

 

[heinrich voelkel]

And just thought of it. Developing for example, with TX-2, printing on fiber and then scanning, will I run into problems?

 

[Neal]

Dear Heinrich,

Please understand that I am in no way trying to insult you here, but your request is too general. Your variation in format from 35mm to 4x5 will affect grain an acutance at least as much as film and developer. Contrast is controlled by development for general purpose films. You seem to prefer "traditional" emulsions but you don't seem to know why.

Why not go back to some of your old favorites (or equivalents if they do not exist) and do a bit of testing. Once you get back into the swing of things you should be able to produce high quality images with any of the mainstream products out there.

Neal Wydra

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here's a guide to the scanning part of it:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00D9XM

 

[heinrich voelkel]

Neal, thank you for your thoughts and I don't feel insulted.

For using b/w, I know how to get evenly balanced, nice midtone, white to black perfect negative, which will even scan well and look good on magazine pages.
But that's not what I'm looking for. I' rather interested in a certain style or idea about what is possible with b/w. I mean mood and expression.
Thats the reason why I'm interested in TX-2 and -1 or Neofin blue.
and i like the "feel" of the grain in the rather classical materials. Delta 100 or 400 is good for using it on a job, too get what you expect or others expect from you.
As for the various formats, I just what to use it, like I do with color. Horses for courses. But in the end the pics are made by me.

The different iso is just a need, natural to my work. My question was rather, if using 400 iso film can I recreate the look the 125 iso FP4 developed in TX-2 will have, or is this just plain impossible.

As I said before, I'm looking for some ideas and receipes, to start with. I will test for my own.

Keep it coming

 

[heinrich voelkel]

Thanks Alan, I did read it before. But I don't want to compromise on the acutance or the certain look to it. May be I have to go via scanning prints.

 

[Neal]

Dear Heinrich,

Now I think I understand, but never having used TX-2 developer I can give no educated opinion. However, I will give one anyway. ;>) Let's see, you're looking for a sharp photograph with a "classic" look: HP5 or Tri-X in ID-11/D-76 diluted 1:1.

Neal Wydra

 

[Videbaek]

So you'll be using an Imacon... sounds like in scanning B&W film you really want the grain to come through, be visible in the scan -- it's an important part of the "film look" after all. In my experience, only true drum scans dig down deep into the film and bring out the grain structure (why some people dislike this is beyond me) of very fine-grain films like Delta 100, Pan-F25, Tmax 100 etc. I've had a few Imacon scans of these films and it does dig down somewhat into the grain, but nothing like a drum scanner. With grainier 400 films like Tri-X, an Imacon will bring out the grain nicely. Sharpness in a negative isn't crucial if scanning is the goal: a little unsharp mask in Photoshop does the trick. Pro drum scans done by a skilled operator are the best -- but very expensive needless to say. And the quality isn't really needed for ordinary A4 magazine work. No easy solutions here, it's all a compromise.

 

[heinrich voelkel]

I see, digital seems to be around the corner. A lot of you seem to know a lot about scanning b/w negatives. Maybe I have to repost my questions and leave the scanability out, so it doesn't block the view on my other questions.

Regrds
Heinrich

 

[Alan Johnson]

Regarding the question if it is possible to recreate the look of FP4 in T-FX2 with 400 ISO film,the recommended developer for traditional films is FX-2 not T-FX2.The latter omits the sensitising dye which improves sharpness with traditional films.
By convention FX-2 would be better for this test.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

Don't let people scare you away from scanning real b&w. The differences btwn real black and white film and c-41 when scanning are just as apparent as if you were printing them in a darkroom. It is tricky though, scanning. It took me around 3 years to figure out a system on my own.

With that, from your criteria, in 35mm I'm going to suggest 2 things:

1) Tri-x in one of the classic developers, maybe hc-110 for a bit of grain.

2) Neopan 1600 shot at, say, 800. In x-tol or d-76. It has beautiful grain structure.

Other than 35mm I don't know. To me your wants suggests 35mm.

 

[mcfactor]

Putting the scanning part aside, beutler's high acutance developer is really really sharp and the grain isnt too bad at all. It is really easy to mix (just three ingredients). The fiber prints I make beautiful with this stuff. I use it with both delta 100 and 'traditional' emultion films like fp4 and plus-x.