High contrast fine grain 35mm film?

[darinwc]

For these overcast days, what do you recommend for a high contrast 35mm film but not super grainy? Some grain sure.
Attached image is one of mine from my sony in "high contrast BW" mode. This is what I would like on film.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Svema FN-64

 

[blee1996]

From the film stocks I personally used for high contrast and fine grain:

Traditional film: Adox HR-50, Rollei RPX 25, and to lesser extent Ilford Pan F+.

Microfilm: Agfa Copex Rapid

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

As a rule, the finer the grain the higher the contrast.

I would only add Adox CMS-20 to blee1996's list.

 

[retina_restoration]

Adox HR-50, or — better yet — CMS20.
If you can find a source for it, Astrum MZ-3, which is a kind of copy film IIRC, and an ASA of 3. Inherently contrasty, sharp, and practically grainless.

 

[Craig]

I'd give Ilford Ortho a try.

 

[koraks]

This is what I would like on film.

Use any film and print/edit to your desire.

 

[Sanug]

For overcast days, ISO 50 or lower will require a triopd. For handheld photography and high contrast, I can recommend instead:

Kodak Double-X
Kentmere 200
Foma Ortho 400

Developed in Xtol/XT-3 1+1, these films have fine but visible grain.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

For overcast days, ISO 50 or lower will require a tripod.

Oh, dear, how quickly the days when Kodachrome 25 was considered a normal every day film have passed.

ASA 25 films were why quality consumer cameras until the early 70's had f1.4-f2.0 lenses: Minolta HiMatics, Canon Cannonets, Yashica Electro-Xs... These lenses weren't for 'bokeh' - which at the time was considered to be a bad spelling of an Italian bowling game.

"Sunny-16" for an ASA 25 film shows it to be eminently hand-holdable:

Even an f4.0 lens is usable for hand-held outdoor shooting.

But then, I consider Technical Pan at EI 12 to be a good snapshot film.

 

[Don_ih]

For these overcast days, what do you recommend for a high contrast 35mm film but not super grainy?

Any of the Aviphot films can fit the bill. But mostly what @koraks said is true. You can make pretty much any film generate a high contrast print - you just need to figure out the best way to do it. There are options: overdevelopment, underexposure + overdevelopment, normal development + image manipulation (on a computer), enlarging to a high contrast grade, using masking and burning/dodging while enlarging.

 

[MattKing]

Oh, dear, how quickly the days when Kodachrome 25 was considered a normal every day film have passed.

That is for youngsters. What about Kodachrome II ?
Whenever I see people wondering why Canon made the AE-1 with shutter preferred auto-exposure instead of aperture preferred auto-exposure, I know they either weren't around or have forgotten when ASA 64 was considered a fast slide film.

I would recommend T-Max 100, in an appropriate developer.

 

[gealto2]

For these overcast days, what do you recommend for a high contrast 35mm film but not super grainy? Some grain sure.
Attached image is one of mine from my sony in "high contrast BW" mode. This is what I would like on film.
View attachment 414973

My strong recomendation is Kentmere 100. This is a standard type film with no tricks that is sharper than TMX. Overdevelop a stop or two for high contrast. Use a red or orange filter to boost contrast as well.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Acros II, Delta 100, Tmax 100, FP4+, Kentmere 100, Foma 100! Any of these will work with slight under exposure and a little more over development. Also, any of the Aviphot films mentioned above. I think the main thing to think about, for what you want, is the amount of under exposure and the amount of over exposure you need to get you to where you want to be.

 

[retina_restoration]

My strong recomendation is Kentmere 100. This is a standard type film with no tricks that is sharper than TMX.

I'm pretty certain it's the other way 'round.

 

[Paul Howell]

Assuming that you are printing in a dark room, I would think about ILford Pan F, box speed develop in DDX or Rodinal with 10% additional time in the developer. Other option would be Tmax 100 in Tmax developer or Rodinal box speed with 10% additional time. It take even more time in the developer to meet your needs, so you will need to shoot a few rolls to find your preferred time. Or shoot one long roll, low contrast scene then cut the film into 3 lentghs, develop one at normal, then one +1 second +2.

 

[gealto2]

I'm pretty certain it's the other way 'round.

TMX is a notoriously low acutance film. It likely resolves better, but looks very dull when processed in nonsolvent acutance developers. I've shot a few hundred feet of it over the years, and never could get much acutance from it. Most recently, I used Ryugi Suzuki's ds2 developer, which he designed for that film, and I am still not impressed. It's also likely the most expensive film on the planet. Personal preference is for standard grained medium speed emulsions.

 

[retina_restoration]

TMX is a notoriously low acutance film. It likely resolves better, but looks very dull when processed in nonsolvent acutance developers. I've shot a few hundred feet of it over the years, and never could get much acutance from it. Most recently, I used Ryugi Suzuki's ds2 developer, which he designed for that film, and I am still not impressed. It's also likely the most expensive film on the planet. Personal preference is for standard grained medium speed emulsions.

That may be, but I've used the Kentmere Pan 100 enough to know that it's not sharper than TMX, nor does it have better acutance. In fact, it's got less acutance. Does this photo lack acutance?? I think the whole "TMX lacks acutance" thing has become an oft-quoted meme that lacks substantive evidence. I think Matt gets it right: it's the lack of visible grain that leads some to perceive it as lacking acutance/sharpness.

 

[GregY]

Ilford Pan F works like a charm & can be developed to quite high contrast

 

[Paul Howell]

TMX is a notoriously low acutance film. It likely resolves better, but looks very dull when processed in nonsolvent acutance developers. I've shot a few hundred feet of it over the years, and never could get much acutance from it. Most recently, I used Ryugi Suzuki's ds2 developer, which he designed for that film, and I am still not impressed. It's also likely the most expensive film on the planet. Personal preference is for standard grained medium speed emulsions.

I usually shoot Tmax 400 which high acutance, but with MCM 100 Tmax 100 is sharp, not as sharp as Tmax 400 but sharper than with Clayton F76+ or D76. In Tmax developer or DDX it is also sharper than in D76.

 

[MattKing]

In my experience, the reason that TMX may sometimes appear to have somewhat lower apparent sharpness isn't due to a lack of acutance, but rather a lack of visible grain.
Without some grain to create the edges we can see, the subjective response to what we see is often mistaken for a lack of objective sharpness.

 

[MCB18]

If you can get perforated microfilm, it will be some of the finest grain film you will ever shoot, and although you can tame the contrast with special developers, if you are simply looking for high contrast this stuff absolutely has you covered.

A few films I have that I think would fit the bill:

• Aviphot 80 (I use FN64)
• Astrum Foto-32 (Probably ORWO TF-12d, possibly the same as Washi S)
• Imagelink HQ (extremely similar to Adox CMS 20)
• Techpan

My recommendation is Aviphot 80, it’s sold by a lot of brands and is easily accessible. But, if you’re willing to look around, and aren’t afraid of experimenting with old film, you can absolutely find other stocks.

I might be selling some of that HQ in the near future, so keep an eye out.

 

[albireo]

There's no such thing as a "high contrast" or "low contrast" film, in general. Contrast is a function of film+development+post-processing. You can develop any two mainstream films to the same Gamma level.

One option is to play with post processing like other people recommended (e.g. modify contrast in printing or by editing your scans in Photoshop).

Another option is to act earlier, and decide contrast index primarily during film development.

Use Kentmere 100 as recommended before, and follow the official pdf found here (page 2, see table)

Kentmere 100 tech sheet

Expose at 200. Develop in HC110 or Ilfotec HC for 8 minutes (see "200 EI" column).

If you have D76 or ID11, dilute it 1+1, and develop for 15 minutes and 30 seconds.

One advantage of doing this instead of exposing and developing box speed and then postprocessing that contrast in, is that you will be able to use slightly faster shutter speeds which might or might not help you in getting a sharp image in the gloomy conditions you're looking to shoot in.

One disadvantage is that you will get slightly less shadow detail and slightly higher grain. Also, deciding contrast at exposure+development time means you're committing the entire roll to it, whereas you can adjust contrast for each individual image if you play with Photoshop or printing.

Pick your technique and stick to it.

 

[loccdor]

If you're comfortable shooting at f/5.6 and 1/125, you can shoot ISO 50 film just fine handheld on a bright overcast day with EV13 conditions. It's easier to do on half frame or with a wide angle lens as the extra depth of field helps for landscape.

Adox CMS 20 II has been discontinued. I tried it and it was too grainless for my taste.

Copex Rapid can work for overcast but I don't like using it in directional light.

Ilford Pan F+ is a classic and very nice but it's expensive and lower resolution compared to the other options.

I second/third the recommendation of Adox Scala 50/Adox HR-50 which is the same film. It can also do infrared.

Here's an example of Scala 50 as negative in Rodinal in overcast conditions. Contrast could be further increased if needed. On my setup it takes up about double the histogram space as a similar shot on Tri-X 400.

In fact, I have a comparison shot in sunny conditions on some Double-X:

As you can see the contrast looks quite a bit lower even though the lighting conditions were harsher and even though a high contrast modern lens was used vs. a vintage Sonnar in the first shot.

 

[gealto2]

That may be, but I've used the Kentmere Pan 100 enough to know that it's not sharper than TMX, nor does it have better acutance. In fact, it's got less acutance. Does this photo lack acutance??

Yes, that photo lacks acutance since it was developed in the solvent developer xtol. I see very weak to nonexistant mackie lines. Looks grainy for tmx 2 1/4.

I think the whole "TMX lacks acutance" thing has become an oft-quoted meme that lacks substantive evidence.

Yeah, since all you have to do is look at it and go bleah. Guess I need a fourier analysis to look at it.

I think Matt gets it right: it's the lack of visible grain that leads some to perceive it as lacking acutance/sharpness.

T grained or core grained films do not respond to acutance development well due to their physics. These are designed to look grainless, which some people think is good. Others disagree. It's a matter of education and taste.

 

[retina_restoration]

That may be, but I've used the Kentmere Pan 100 quite a bit and it's not sharper than TMX, nor does it have better acutance.

Yes, that photo lacks acutance since it was developed in the solvent developer xtol. I see very weak to nonexistant mackie lines. Looks grainy for tmx 2 1/4.


Yeah, since all you have to do is look at it and go bleah. Guess I need a fourier analysis to look at it.

T grained or core grained films do not respond to acutance development well due to their physics. These are designed to look grainless, which some people think is good. Others disagree. It's a matter of education and taste.

Mackie lines do not define acutance or the lack thereof. If you want your work to look like oversharpened iPhone pics, that’s your prerogative.