Thanks for posting that reminder.Scanners, especially cheap(er) amateur scanners, are indeed increasing the impression of a coarser grain. Real drum scanners e.g. don't have that problem in direct comparison.
But for a general evaluation you also have be aware of your benchmarks: "Fineness of grain" is also a quite subjective thing (for one person a certain level of grain might be fine, but a different person says it is coarse grain).
I have tested over the years about 95% of all films in market in my photo research lab. And when you evaluate grain with 50x and 100X enlargement factors, you really see all differences.
And HP5+ does not belong to the fine(r) grained ISO 400/27° BW films. The ranking in "fineness of grain" is the following:
1. Kodak TMY-2.
2. Ilford XP2 400.
3. Ilford Delta 400.
4. Kodak Tri-X.
5. Ilford HP5+.
And the other films of that class follow behind with coarser grain.
So it is just important to have realistic expectations as well.
Best regards,
Henning
Or is there some chemisty that might affect the grain of one film more than the others
We'll mark the response to your post for a double-blind peer review. Please hold as we assemble a team of reviewers and hone our acceptance criteria.
I believe radiant's response to koraks' comment better reflects the "tongue in cheek" tone intended (by koraks, or so I believe).
But we cannot assemble the team. It would bias the result and completely void the research, writing and publishing the papers! Oh the horror!
Thanks for posting that reminder.
Can we say with any confidence that the order of ranking does not change if we change the developer? That is, do various chemistries tend to affect the grain of most films more-or-less equally? Or is there some chemisty that might affect the grain of one film more than the others, enough to move that film up or down in the ranking?
I believe radiant's response to koraks' comment better reflects the "tongue in cheek" tone intended (by koraks, or so I believe).
Thanks for posting that reminder.
Can we say with any confidence that the order of ranking does not change if we change the developer? That is, do various chemistries tend to affect the grain of most films more-or-less equally? Or is there some chemisty that might affect the grain of one film more than the others, enough to move that film up or down in the ranking?
If one doesn't want grain simply don't use 35mm format.
Rigour is difficult to attain in something as variegated as scanning. Typically, someone shows a scan and not a picture of a negative. That scan could have been done with a camera or flatbed or drum scanner. That scan could have been done by a lab or the person posting. The person posting may or may not have the negative. The person posting may or may not have applied some automated "fixing" to the scan and may or may not know it. Or perhaps the lab did and the the person posting doesn't know. The scan resolution may or may not be high enough but we can't tell because the image has to meet the requirements of the forum (the image may have been mushed when converted). All of these scans are generally jpg files that are encoded at unknown quality.
expose the fact that some contributors are not overly familiar with the subject.
Adox CMS 20, ADOX Scala 50 are two examples of emulsion not intended for pictorial photography. The first being a technical film, the second an aerial one. Adox CMS 20 for best results asks for a dedicated developer, Adox Scala 50 is tricky to be developed as a negative at best
The only "normal" films (those I was talking about) that in 35mm truly deliver much less grain than the usual are Kodak T-Max 100, Ferrania 80 and Ferrania Orto.
Ilford PanF+ is problematic because of the latent image stability issue.
Certainly medium format surpasses 35mm in every aspect, laws of physics play important roles here.
... Did one of my film blind test there, too. Delta 100 in 35mm ...
Pretty grainy, and quite lovely.
EMBRACE THE GRAIN, PEOPLE !!! EMBRACE THE GRAIN !!!
Henning,It looks like you have not used these films by yourself. I am using them for years, and you can create amazing pictorial images with them. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and you get perfect results when you know them.
But that is also true for every other films on the market, no matter whether it is FP4+, Tri-X, one of the Fomapans.....etc.
Sorry, but that is wrong.
1. Your statement was a general "If one doesn't want grain simply don't use 35mm format." You did not make any further specifications.
2. All the other films I have mentioned above do have such fine grain so that big high quality enlargements from 35mm film are possible.
3. Delta 100, Acros 100 II, PanF+ plus all the other above mentioned have extremely fine grain.
Our topic here was grain! I have used PanF+ for years, and when you develop it in between three months (which is normally more than enough time) after exposure as recommend by Ilford, you won't have a problem.
Yes, laws of physics: The best lenses for 35mm significantly surpass the best lenses for medium format. And besides these physical factors like image circle diameter (the smaller the higher the resolution), in the last 20 years enormous successful efforts have been made in improving optical and mechanical performance of lenses for 35mm format. But in the same period no new lenses for our Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Bronicas, Rolleiflex etc.
We've got oustanding new, much improved 35mm format lenses with 1.4 open aperture. With excellent performance already at open aperture, and the "sweet spot" already at f2.8 to f4.
With medium format most of our lenses are f2.8 or slower, and sweet spot at f5.6 to f8.
Which means that in daily photography we can often use an ISO 100/21° film in 35mm, when in medium format an ISO 400/27° is needed. And the better optical performance of the 35mm lens plus the much higher quality lower speed film results in often minor / negligible differences between the results of 35mm to 4.5x6 / 6x6 medium format.
So the real world of photography just needs more differentiation and a wider horizont than fundamentalistic "medium format is always better" statements. The photo world is more complex.
Just an example: I held film photography workshops in China before the pandemic. Students have been photo professors, professional photographers and passionate enthusiasts. Did one of my film blind test there, too. Delta 100 in 35mm vs. FP4+ in 6x6. Almost all thought the Delta photo was medium format. Better film and lens in 35mm made the difference.
I am running an independent, non-profit scientific photography test lab for many, many years. Test of films, developers, lenses, sensors included. Have more than 10.000 test shots concerning detail rendition of films alone. Film manufacturers told me that that is probably the biggest test archive of that kind worldwide.
Best regards,
Henning
It looks like you have not used these films by yourself. I am using them for years, and you can create amazing pictorial images with them. Each has its strengths and weaknesses, and you get perfect results when you know them.
But that is also true for every other films on the market, no matter whether it is FP4+, Tri-X, one of the Fomapans.....etc.
Sorry, but that is wrong.
1. Your statement was a general "If one doesn't want grain simply don't use 35mm format." You did not make any further specifications.
2. All the other films I have mentioned above do have such fine grain so that big high quality enlargements from 35mm film are possible.
3. Delta 100, Acros 100 II, PanF+ plus all the other above mentioned have extremely fine grain.
Our topic here was grain! I have used PanF+ for years, and when you develop it in between three months (which is normally more than enough time) after exposure as recommend by Ilford, you won't have a problem.
Yes, laws of physics: The best lenses for 35mm significantly surpass the best lenses for medium format. And besides these physical factors like image circle diameter (the smaller the higher the resolution), in the last 20 years enormous successful efforts have been made in improving optical and mechanical performance of lenses for 35mm format. But in the same period no new lenses for our Hasselblads, Mamiyas, Bronicas, Rolleiflex etc.
We've got oustanding new, much improved 35mm format lenses with 1.4 open aperture. With excellent performance already at open aperture, and the "sweet spot" already at f2.8 to f4.
With medium format most of our lenses are f2.8 or slower, and sweet spot at f5.6 to f8.
Which means that in daily photography we can often use an ISO 100/21° film in 35mm, when in medium format an ISO 400/27° is needed. And the better optical performance of the 35mm lens plus the much higher quality lower speed film results in often minor / negligible differences between the results of 35mm to 4.5x6 / 6x6 medium format.
So the real world of photography just needs more differentiation and a wider horizont than fundamentalistic "medium format is always better" statements. The photo world is more complex.
Just an example: I held film photography workshops in China before the pandemic. Students have been photo professors, professional photographers and passionate enthusiasts. Did one of my film blind test there, too. Delta 100 in 35mm vs. FP4+ in 6x6. Almost all thought the Delta photo was medium format. Better film and lens in 35mm made the difference.
I am running an independent, non-profit scientific photography test lab for many, many years. Test of films, developers, lenses, sensors included. Have more than 10.000 test shots concerning detail rendition of films alone. Film manufacturers told me that that is probably the biggest test archive of that kind worldwide.
Best regards,
Henning
+1Thank you Henning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?