Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper.

[Top-Cat]

This might just be a queston that's been asked before, but I'll have a go anyway and hope I don't annoy anyone here with asking it again.

I just read on wikipedia that Velvia 50 has an especially high resolving power for color slides - this made me think about something.

Personally, I don't really use analog for color (at least not yet), but I've been playing around with B&W for a while, and especially with medium format (I just love my 645 system, as well as my little 50s folding camera). So I thought, maybe there's a B&W film with especially high resolving power, and so I searched wikipedia for the same without any good answer (only Maco).

So I'm asking, what film, still available for sale in major stores (such as Tri-X, T-Max, Delta, Efke or APX) has the highest resolving power? Same goes for chemistry, and paper.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If you are using MF then the resolving power of the film you use really is not a concern. Once resolving power is removed from the table the next concern is tonality.

Papers are of little concern.

The best resolution for small format films is by using a document film and special developers. However, such combinations usually exhibit poor tonality.

 

[photophil]

I dont know if it's the most extreme around but I think it will be one of the best

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX Films/Premium/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

You can also get it as 120 medium format film now

I will try it soon in my Mamiya 645

PHILIP

 

[Athiril]

Velvia is not the highest in colour... Vision Print Film in 35mm.. over 220 lp/mm at 1.6:! and over 500 at 1000:1.. but that's simply so that the print film doesn't influence the image when making a movie print, and that's for copying film not for pictorial stuff.

And the curves on neg film look better than the MTF curves on Velvia given by manufacturers.

In any case, there is CMS as stated above, but the spectral sensitivity and high contrast may not suit you.

There are other choices like Rollei Pan 25 or Rollei ATP (superpanchromatic + high contrast that needs taming), there is also Rollei Retro 80s. ATP and 80s having extended spectral sensitivity to offer something more than just resolving power.

Don't judge a film's resolving power by it's 1000:1 contrast statement from the manufacturer (like many people do with TMX) it is frankly not useful for pictorial photography, if anything judge by the given number for 1.6:1 only, or better yet look at the MTF curve.

 

[Diapositivo]

This very well done document, which I recently quoted in another thread, will give you some resolution values for various colour and B&W films (lp/mm and dpi, page 11 and page 14) and, most interestingly, will give you "cross" values for film and lens, given film resolution and lens resolution (page 16).

For instance, considering using Fuji Velvia RVP (80 lp/mm) with an exceptionally good 35mm lens with a resolution of 135 lp/mm you end up with a resolution of 51 lp/mm. Those data are on page 16.

Film Grain, Resolution and Fundamental Film Particles, by Tim Vitale, 2007.

http://cool.conservation-us.org/coo...itale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

(link opens PDF of around 4,3MB).

Good reading
Fabrizio

 

[holmburgers]

This film, Bluefire Police Film, rarely gets mentioned but certainly looks intriguing.

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/catBluefire.htm

 

[Athiril]

I don't agree with the usage of the inverse linear as opposed to inverse squared (Kodak) equation (given as EQ3 on page 13 in that document).

He also severely overrates flatbed scanners.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Among typical panchromatic roll films (versus microfilms or ortho films), from a practical standpoint,
Efke R25 is going to have the highest acutance, with Ilford Pan F plus just a tad behind. Actually,
it's orthopan rather than pan, but still works well with a red filter if needed. I'm speaking from a darkroom
standpoint. There might be other films which scan with better resolution, depending on the exact equipment. Even though the now-discontinued Tech Pan had finer grain than these, the perceived
acutance was generally less due to inferior edge effect.

 

[ic-racer]

If you are using MF then the resolving power of the film you use really is not a concern. Once resolving power is removed from the table the next concern is tonality.

Papers are of little concern.

The best resolution for small format films is by using a document film and special developers. However, such combinations usually exhibit poor tonality.

My thoughts exactly. If you are interested in pictures rather than tests, Tmax 100 is great, but there are certainly other choices as good.

I was going through a Lewis Baltz phase a few years ago and I was using EI 12 Agfa Copex 35mm microfilm and a tripood. But getting good tonality with high contrast scenes was near impossible. In retrospect T-max 100 would have been much better.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Efke 25 is a lot sharper than TMax 100, and has a wider exposure range too - up to twelve stops without
resorting to "minus" development which would sacrifice midtone differentiation. So the tonality is fabulous.
It does tend to have more manufacturing flaws per quality control, however.

 

[nworth]

Resolving power doesn't tell the whole story. You have to look at the characteristic curve and the subject matter as well. Many extremely high resolving power films are also extreme contrast films, not suitable for pictorial work. When processed for low contrast, they often lose much of their resolving power but still retain higher contrast than desired or show other poor characteristics. What you are really looking for is a film that gives the best looking pictures for the kind of subjects you photograph. There are a lot of candidates, several of them designed especially for small grain and high sharpness. But your pictures may look better on some other film. Try a few with some more or less controlled tests and find out. Among the films designed for sharpness, the venerable EFKE 25 (nee KB-14 or R-14) has a pretty awesome reputation. I've used it a fair amount, and it works well, although it is a bit contrasty. Its big problem is its low speed, which requires a tripod and non-moving subjects. TMX (Kodak TMax 100) also has an excellent reputation and a somewhat more usable speed.

 

[Top-Cat]

Seems like I was already working with good films from the start.

Here in Norway I usually just buy Kodak B&W films (either T-max or Tri-X), but I also sometimes buy from an importer in Trondheim that sells Efke (either 100 or 25).

Seems like I should just go from 400 down to 100 and use a tripod or good lighting with medium format and just focus on what's important.

A lot of the time I prefer Kodak because they give high contrast at developing times around 5-6 minutes and I end up getting a pretty colorless film (most of the time somewhere in the blueish tint area).

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Kodalith film, low ISO 6-12, extreme contrast

 

[2F/2F]

Rollei ATP 1.1 in any developer will likely outresolve any lens you put in front of it in the camera, or below it in the enlarger, not to mention having it's capabilities wasted by less-than-perfect technique or equipment (slightly shaky tripod, slightly out of calibration enlarger, slightly bowed film in the neg carrier, etc.) In other words, the film's maximum resolution will simply never be realized in the real world by 99 percent of users. For most people, the film is not the major limiting factor for resolution. So I'm not sure how much more useful it is than T-Max 100.

I have developed it in POTA developer for continuous tone. You must down rate a couple of stops from it's "box" EI of 32 to give the darker areas enough meat on the negative, so it is a very slow film in practice. You don't need to go to all that trouble to get extremely detailed pictures. If you want to do so, it does look great, and it allows you to take resolution to the absolute max that your "imaging chain" will allow. But T-Max 100 is much more user friendly, and will look just as good to most people, and be more versatile. (E.g. you can hand hold with it easily.)

 

[kram]

The ATP 1.1 is a great film, I have 2 negative strips drying as I type. This is my 'summer film for 35mm'. It is a pain to get prints because - I develop the film (SPUR DC developer so I can rate it a 40ASA), and then send the negs away to get commercially processed 8x12. I am waiting to get back a 120 roll of Rollei 80S (all processed commercially, some shot at 80 other shots at 64 ASA. If it turns out better than Delta 100, I will use this as my slow medium format film. Hope this will same me on developing costs.

For a standard fine film at other time of the year ilford Delta 100 (However, I can't see any real difference between this film and Fuji ACROS or Kodak T-max 100).

 

[ricardo12458]

This film, Bluefire Police Film, rarely gets mentioned but certainly looks intriguing.

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/catBluefire.htm

You do realise that Bluefire is some division of Adox Filmwerke in Canada?

Bluefire Police film might even be rebadged ADOX CMS 20.........

 

[michaelbsc]

You do realise that Bluefire is some division of Adox Filmwerke in Canada?

Bluefire Police film might even be rebadged ADOX CMS 20.........

Somewhere around here is a thread that the person who owns Bluefire says who packages it for them and what emulsion it is.

 

[cmo]

Please, have a look at this chart:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

The best lens resolution in medium format is achieved by two lenses. One is the Rolleiflex 2.8E Model 1 with an 80mm f/2.8 Schneider Xenotar, stopped down to 5.6 - and only in the center of the image: 120 lines per millimeter. The Mamiya 80mm f/4 - made for a rangefinder, not for a TLR or SLR - is even better and has that resolution not only in the center but also in the middle (not in the corners). Both lenses do not fit your camera.

The typical resolution of medium format lenses is much lower. Of course, you only achieve these results if the camera is mounted on a tripod with the mirror locked up - skip that mirror lockup if you own a Rolleiflex TLR or a Mamiya rangefinder ;-)

In that test you can read that they used "Kodak's TMax100 film, processed in D-76". It has a resolution of 125 lines per millimeter which is obviously more than sufficient for the center of the image taken with the best lens you can get at the best aperture, and only if the camera is on a tripod. T-MAX 400 has comes with 100 lp/mm, and even T-MAX P3200 has 85 lp/mm, more than enough for 95% of all medium format lenses.

So, what do you think you will achieve with films that have a higher resolution?

Some films, of course, come with a higher contrast, that might look slightly sharper (and might be harder to print).

 

[Alan Johnson]

The aerial resolution of MF lenses needs to be tested with microfilm like Agfaortho25 used by Dr Kornelius Fleisher (see below).It can be over 250lppm.
Very few lens tests have been reported with microfilm, often T-Max was used. While this may represent practical conditions only microfilm can show how good the lenses are.
http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/000X2t?start=10

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Resolving power just does not matter that much, within limits. Go for a film you can get easily and that has first rate quality control and at a reasonable price. If you need the speed, try Tmax 400 (the new variant is amazingly fine grained) and in slow films use just about anything you want: Delta 100, Acros, Tmax 100, Pan-F, FP4+ etc

If you go barking up the 'Ultra-high resolution Tree of Obsession' (yes, it has that name), you will be in good company, but also missing out on the things that matter IMHO. You''' waste years of time on things that just dont matter a damn. Go see some really good work first hand and you won't care about grain so much after that. Truth be told, its far harder to accept that making spectacular prints has everything to do with much more mercurial issues than high resolution, but when you make the leap, your B&W work will come on leaps and bounds. Monochrome is a different beast.

Earlier I posted a thread on Roman Loranc. He shoots 5x4 TriX developed in PMK Pyro. You'll easily get similar grain out of 645 Delta 100 negs developed in Xtol, but his 20x24 level 4 prints sell for $10,000 each... and there's a reason for that.

 

[Jesper]

Some writers above have touched on the subject, but I think you have to ask if the question is about resolution or grain?
As stated above, many films have a higher resolution than the lens being used so it really doesn't matter that much which film is used as long as it is exposed and devleloped correctly (there is a reason for the "stick to one film and one developer" advice that you find in many posts).

If a high resolution, grain free picture is what is desired it might be better to use a larger format than testing different films and developers chasing the silver bullet.
In the end it is the image that matters.

 

[EdSawyer]

Kodak tech pan is among the best of the high res films, if you can find some.

 

[Leigh B]

Fuji Acros has a published resolution of 200 lines/mm (100 lp/mm) @ 1000:1.

It's an absolutely superb film. I shoot it in 120 and 4x5.

- Leigh

 

[2F/2F]

Kodak tech pan is among the best of the high res films, if you can find some.

ATP 1.1 is a good replacement without having to track down expired film.

I believe the data sheet claims it is capable of 300 lp/mm.

 

[Leigh B]

I believe the data sheet claims it is capable of 300 lp/mm.

lp/mm or lines/mm??? Big difference (as in 2x). :munch:

- Leigh