Grain on HP5+

[runswithsizzers]

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

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?

 

[Pieter12]

An interesting resource where you can compare film and developer combinations side by side:

filmHP5

Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.

fotoimport.no

 

[Don_ih]

Or is there some chemisty that might affect the grain of one film more than the others

FX37 makes HP5 look like it's made of sand - tiny shards of glass, actually.

 

[MattKing]

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.

But we cannot assemble the team. It would bias the result and completely void the research, writing and publishing the papers! Oh the horror!

I believe radiant's response to koraks' comment better reflects the "tongue in cheek" tone intended (by koraks, or so I believe).
And yes, irony is always dangerous - it is often damnably hard to communicate.

 

[MattKing]

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?

Some developers will tend to "increase the spread". Others may tend to squeeze some of them into similarity - perhaps to the point of making the grain relatively indistinguishable, film to film. Microdol-X/Perceptol come to mind.

 

[koraks]

I believe radiant's response to koraks' comment better reflects the "tongue in cheek" tone intended (by koraks, or so I believe).

Yes, I agree.

 

[Henning Serger]

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?

You're welcome.

Well, it is a bit more complicated and we have to differentiate:
In general developers can be used (only) to "fine-tune" the characteristics of a certain film: For example with a real speed improving developer you may get 1/3 stop more real speed (= shadow detail) compared to a standard / universal developer like D-76 / ID-11 / XTOL.
With a fine grain developer you will get a bit finer grain compared to such standard / universal developers.
With a developer optimised for high resolution you will get higher resolution values compared to standard developers.
With an acutance optimised developer you will get a bit higher acutance / sharpness compared to standard developers.

But with developers you cannot fundamentally change the main characteristic of an emulsion. For example it is not possible by using a special developer with FP4+ to obtain the superior resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain of Delta 100. The performance difference of the emulsions is too big.
And it is e.g. also not possible by use of a special developer with Tri-X to reach the superior resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain of TMY-2. Again the performance difference of the emulsions is too big.
You get the picture.

But it is a bit different if you compare films which are close in their parameters/performance:
For example here in this case with HP5+: The differences in fineness of grain, resolution and sharpness of HP5+ compared to Tri-X are quite small. Much, much smaller than the differences of both films compared to TMY-2.
So considering HP5+ and Tri-X it is possible to get finer grain with HP5+ compared to Tri-X by selection of different developers.
HP5+ in a fine(st) grain developer like SPUR HRX, ADOX Atomal or Ilford Perceptol will deliver finer grain compared to Tri-X in an acutance developer like ADOX Rodinal or FX-39II for example.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

If one doesn't want grain simply don't use 35mm format.

That is not valid as a general rule.
There are lots of films which have extremely fine grain. So fine, that use in 35mm is absolutely no problem at all and huge high quality enlargements are possible.
In BW for example ADOX CMS 20 II (finest grain, highest resolution and best sharpness available; there are no enlargement limits for that film with 35mm; it is surpassing conventional films in medium format), ADOX SCALA 50 / HR-50, Ilford PanF+, Ilford Delta 100, Fujifilm Neopan Acros 100 II, Kodak T-Max 100, Aviphot Pan 80 derivates, Film Ferrania P30.

Colour transparency films: All on the market. "The sky is the limit" for enlargement. These films are projected on huge screens with several meters width and height and deliver outstanding quality.

Colour negative films: CineStill 50D, Fujicolor 100, Portra 160, Ektar.

I am using both 35mm and medium format. And from time to time I make blind tests with my local photographer community. Regularly in these blind tests photos made on 35mm with films mentioned above were considered to be made with medium format.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[albireo]

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.

@Don_ih I agree it's difficult, but not impossible. An attempt must be made. Otherwise forums full of precious content, such as this one, will slowly die as their current target readership (the one generally adamant to engaging in rational discussions on film digitalisation approaches) passes, while readers/contributors in my age group and younger (more familiar with hybrid approaches), frustrated with incorrect advice and gatekeeping, will move on to seek insight on Reddit, YouTube comments or on Instagram, which would be less than ideal.

In general I agree with you, a nuanced approach is in order if one wants to engage in troubleshooting any type of secondary film product, whether a scan or a wet print. Asking to see the negatives is a good start. Asking for details about the processing chain and equipment used is a good way to follow up. That is already very helpful in my experience.

If you read my reply up here, you'll find that what I was calling out was rather the blanket response of the kind

"you can't do [this|that]. It is well known that when scanning negatives [this|that] is impossible because a scanner can't do [this|that]."

without an ounce of evidence. This doesn't help, it only exposes the fact that some contributors are not overly familiar with the subject.

Everybody loves a little irony and sarcasm, though I find a certain flavour of ill-placed sarcasm usually signals profound insecurity or fear, in this case perhaps fear of approaches which attempt to bridge old and new and might scare some, for whatever reason (can't think of any, honestly).

 

[Don_ih]

Scanners are tools and some are better than other and some users will get more out of them than others. Like all tools, you need to know how to use it to get it to do what you want.

The problem with asking for "evidence" is that it disregards the one thing people can validly speak from on a forum: personal experience. Not providing evidence doesn't invalidate a statement made from experience, nor does it necessarily

expose the fact that some contributors are not overly familiar with the subject.

Now, if you combine both of these things I just said, you can come to the understanding that someone can believe a tool does not perform a task very well but perhaps that person has never used a good version of that tool or perhaps that person has never used the tool to its full advantage. So, once again, in a discussion such as this one, everything is reduced to "what exactly was it you did?" And that is not dealing with evidence - it's anecdotal. There is nothing to say that the description will match the reality.

Instead of asking someone else for evidence that a scanner cannot reproduce film grain, a better approach might be to provide evidence that it can. That way, you don't need to worry about anyone else's lack of rigour. And you directly refute their claim.

 

[Henning Serger]

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

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.

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.

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.

Ilford PanF+ is problematic because of the latent image stability issue.

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.

Certainly medium format surpasses 35mm in every aspect, laws of physics play important roles here.

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

 

[miha]

... Did one of my film blind test there, too. Delta 100 in 35mm ...

Developed in HRX? What E.I?

 

[bluechromis]

Pretty grainy, and quite lovely.

EMBRACE THE GRAIN, PEOPLE !!! EMBRACE THE GRAIN !!!

Well said.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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

Henning,
I'm just curious as to what developer/developers you used in your Delta 100 35mm to FP4+ 6X6 comparison. FX39II maybe?

 

[foc]

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

Hi Henning, good to see you back on Photrio.

 

[Henning Serger]

@miha
@John Wiegerink

That Delta 100 photo was developed in SPUR HRX. With an EI 100/21°. It was a portrait made in the studio under controlled lighting conditions, therefore no problems with the relatively high EI. Normally I use Delta 100, developed in HRX, with an EI of 64/19° or 50/18° in outdoor photography (depending on object contrast).

SPUR HRX was introduced about 20 years ago. It is designed as a developer delivering very fine grain and very good sharpness, at the cost of film speed. Very fine grain + very good sharpness result in very high resolution (that the "HR" stands for). That was the aim of the photo-engineer H. Schain, founder and owner of SPUR.
At the time this developer was introduced, in the German photo groups first test reports were very enthusiastic, and some users talked about "medium format quality with Delta 100 in 35mm".
I was of course curious when I read that. At that time I mostly used Rodinal and XTOL for Delta 100. But after my own tests I understood these very positive reviews.
In my standardized film resolution test I achieved about 20% higher resolution values with Delta 100 developed in HRX compared to development in XTOL 1+1. And 20% is really a lot of difference for a developer! Sometimes there are really optimal film / developer combinations for certain parameters / characteristics. And for detail rendition Delta 100 and HRX are a perfect match.
Well, it is not so surprising as H. Schain designed this developer specifically for films like Delta 100 / 400, TMX / TMY, Acros, PanF+ to fully exploit their outstanding resolution potential.

Delta 100 in HRX also works as a compensating developer with a pronounced S-shape characteristic curve. So the curve is a bit steeper in the midtones, and flattens in the highlight zones. By that the sharpness / acutance look is even emphasized by a strong midtone separation.
If you like that look - well, that is a matter of taste, or dependent on the choosen subject.

As often explained here by me, HRX is also my standard / reference developer for my film resolution tests.

@foc
Thank you very much for your appreciation!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[miha]

Thank you Henning.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thank you Henning.

+1