Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper.

[Роберт]

I've tested Pan F+, Efke 25 and some other slow speed films as well, but it was not added on my list above simply because I wanted to keep my already quite long posting as short as possible.
Efke 25 is a very good film. Compared to Agfa Copex Rapid in Spur Modular UR New the Agfa gives better shadow detail, better characteristic curve, higher resolution, better sharpness and 2/3 to one stop higher speed (dependant on the developer you are using with Efke 25).
And the production quality / QC of Agfa is better than Fotokemika.
That are the reasons why I prefer the Agfa / Spur combination.
Efke 25 gives a unique look due to it's sensitisation, which I like for some applications.

I use the Efke 25 mainly for my landscape photography so it normally can be repeated in case I should have a "bad" batch of Efke. But I think it's mainly exagerated the Q.C. from Croatia but I agree that Agfa (Gevaert) has a much more modern factory with a better Q.C. system. The fact Efke 25 is Orthopan gives it a special look, like the new Rollei Retro 100 TONAL but then in iso 100. Efke 25 in Beutler for N=0 is normally exactly iso 32. And the log D curve is pretty ideal. I doubt about the better shadow detail, but indeed in sharpness and resolution the ATP1.1 should be better. But the difference in 35mm or 6x7cm roll film is significant. And of course the development of a (more or less standard) roll film is less tricky then the H.R. films.

But maybe I have to find it out myself what is working best for me. At least thank you for the provided information.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Clemems,

Alright, I use Tmax 100 and 400, I paid 3,10 per film. My standard developer is XTol, purchased for 7,90 per 5l package. The way I use it - 1:1 - I can develop 50 films with it.
That's 0,27 Euros for one shot 6x6cm.

and I pay 0,18€ for one shot with the Agfa Copex Rapid / Spur Modular UR New.
So even with a bit lower price for the 120 film, a huge price difference remains.

For the cost calculation you chose a relatively expensive FP4...

Because it has been my main film for a very long time.
And because it has been the standard 120 film for decades (more popular than your TMX for example, higher sales numbers), a very very popular film.
Most photographers know this film and have used it.
Therefore this film is a good benchmark.

For the quality comparison you chose a relatively grainy FP4. You better compare results with an obvious choice, a state-of-the-art t-grain film like Tmax 100, Delta 100 or Acros. Comparing high-resolution films with traditional films shows that your test results are based on a comparison of apples and oranges.

I have compared Agfa Copex Rapid with
- FP4+ 120
- APX 100 120
- RPX 100 120.

Popular films with classic cubic crystals. Agfa CoRa 35mm surpassed all three films in 120 significantly.
Test results: With this film / developer in 35mm I achieve a picture quality even better than conventional (no T-Grain) films in 120 6x6.

That is what I said.
I have never said that CoRa 35mm is always better than all 120 films.

If you were satiesfied with the quality level of FP4+ etc. in 120, then you can now achieve a visible better quality with 35mm.
You can combine medium format quality (conventional films) with the advantages of the 35mm system.

With Delta 100 and TMX in 120 you can get a bit better quality than CoRa 35mm.
I have tested this as well.

From the datasheet:
..........

First of all: Your quotes are from the wrong datasheet. Outdated. A former version of the developer.
I have always said I am referring to Spur Modular UR New.

1. Light piping effect:
I am using PET films for more than 25 years now. I've never got my first 4 frames ruined by light piping.
Loading film in a room with normal room light is without problems. Outside with bright sun turn your back to the sun, load the film in your body shape and it will be fine.
That is not rocket science.

2. PET film base:
Lot's of films from different manufacturers (most of the 120 films by the way) are coated on PET.
It has by far the best long term stability. Best material for archiving pictures. No problems at all with vinegar syndrom, which can effect triazetate films.
The clear base makes it much easier to jugde the negatives. And it is very good for reversal processing. Agfa CoRa works quite good in the Scala reversal process.
Professional Scala lab Photostudio 13 has calibrated the film for Scala processing.

There is no free lunch: Both film bases have their advantages and disadvantages.

But your fundamentalist bashing of PET-films in general......no comment necessary.

3. Storage:
In the right datasheet (not the wrong one you have quoted) there is no recommendation of storing in a fridge.
Recommend is a normal cool storarge.
Cool storage of developers is absolutely normal and also recommended by all other developer manufacturers.

Further it is recommend to fill the developer in glas bottles for best long term storage.
Also absolutely normal. We are doing this with our standard developers as well, because we all know that storing in glas bottles is much better than storing in PE bottles, because PE is not completely gas-tight long term.
Most developer bottles are PE bottles, independant from the manufacturer.
So if you critizse Spur for using PE bottles, then you have to critizise Champion/Kodak, Ilford, Tetenal etc. as well.

PE bottles are industry standard.

Shelf life of Modular UR New in glas bottles is about 3 years, much better than most other standard developers stored in glas bottles.

4. Contrast and development times:

In contradiction to the nonsense you have written, changing the contrast is no problem with this developer.
In the datasheet development times, agitation and dilution for diffusor enlargers, condensor enlargers and mixed systems (condensor and diffusor) are listed.
It is very detailed information and much better than lots of other datasheets from other manufacturers.
If the development times in the datasheet are too long or short for your set-up, than you can get the optimal contrast easily by shortening or extending the development time. It is the same as with standard developers.
I have done it in my process to get optimal results for my enlarging system.
With changing the dilution relationsship between Part A1 and B you even have more possibilities.
More creative range. That is an advantage.

It is all easy. I know, because I have done it.
You don't know, because you have never used this developer.

5. Deionised water, tap water.
I have always used normal tap water with excellent results.
Even if I had to use deionised water it is not problem at all.
It costs almost nothing, is available in every drugstore and I get a canister for my used fixer free.

6. Uneven development: I have made very intensive tests in different conditions to evaluate that. With soft agitation as recommended I have always got a perfect even development of the whole frame.
Better and more even than with some conventional film / developer combinations (some are definitesly not free from such effects).
Absolutely no density variations at the sprocket holes. Not with one film in the Jobo 1510 tank, and not with two films in the Jobo 1520 tank.
I am extremely satiesfied with the results.

This film and developer is not for the average Joe, but it makes some experts happy.

Wrong. It is definitely not rocket science.
All you have to do is reading the instrction and following it. That's it.
Perhaps, like all other standard developers too, for best results you have to change the developing time a bit, depending on your enlarging system.
I know some beginners working with this film / developer combi and they have no problems at all.

If it works for you and some other guys, fine. But, please, don't evangelize,

Completely nonsense.
The discussion here started with questions about high resolving films.
I have adressed the questions of the OP and gave resolution figures from my test results.
I have reported from a 25 year experience with these films and developers.
You have bashed the higher resolving films and developers, whereas you have never used them.
You have no experinece with this material, but you are nevertheless permanently bashing them and attacking photographers, who are using them successfully, with a quite fundamentalistic attitude.

That is evangelizing.

don't compare apples with oranges and don't tell half the truth.

You are comparing apples with oranges and spreading misinformation with wrong quotation and perverting the facts.

Regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

The inescapeable fact is that films like Agfa Copex and other document films were never designed for making continuous tone negatives. Yes, you can fiddle with special developers but the results are never completely satisfactory. There is more to a fine print than the absence of grain, there is also tonality, something which these films lack.

Hello Gerald,

I suppose your experience is with Kodak Technical Pan and Technidol or Tetenal Neofin Doku, TD-3 or Pota-type developers, right?

For these combinations I agree with you and Drew.

But I am reporting here from my experiences and detailed tests with Agfa Copex Rapid, ATP and CMS 20 in the dedicated new Spur developers.
And that is a different story compared to Kodak TP and the Kodak based developers.
For my work excellent tonality is essential.
With Agfa Copex Rapid in Spur Modular UR New for example I get excellent tonality. Even a bit better compared to some standard film developer combinations.
That is one main reason why I am using it.
If I were not satiesfied with the tonality, I would immediately stop using these materials.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Film-Niko]

@ the original poster:

I have done some tests in the past. Worked with different object contrasts.

To make things short:
My results were almost the same as the Zeiss results for object contrast of 1:32.
And with object contrast of about 1:5 I achieved resolution values in the range Mr Serger has posted here.

I can confirm the Zeiss results and the ones from Mr Serger.
The original poster can take the list Mr serger has posted, then he has excellent data.

In the last years I have exposed hundreds of films of the high resolution type: Adox CMS 20, Rollei Ortho 25, Adox Ortho 25, Agfa Copex Rapid, Rollei ATP.
I have used TD-3 and POTA developer, Rollei RLC, diluted Rodinal, and all the Spur Developers including the Spur made Adotech.
I can't recommend TD-3 and POTA. I was not satiesfied with characteristic curve and tonality.
Same with RLC.
Diluted Rodinal was a bit better with Agfa Copex Rapid, but speed was a bit too low with ISO 10-12.
Much better results I have got with the different Spur developers: Nanospeed, Nanospeed UR, Nano Grain, Nano Edge, ATP DC, Dynamicspeed 32 and 64, Modular.
The best picture quality for CMS 20 and Agfa Copex Rapid I have got with the current, the latest version from Spur:
Spur Modular UR New.
CMS 20 with Modular UR New (part A2 + part B):
Very good tonality, outstanding detail rendition. Brutally sharp (for some subjects a bit too sharp). Highlight separation is not so good, the curve is flattening a bit.
Speed for sufficient shadow detail: ISO 4 - 6.
It is a film for tripod use.

Agfa Copex Rapid developed in Spur Modular UR New (part A1 + part B):
Outstanding tonality, better shadow detail than with conventional films, top highlight separation.
Very easy to print. It's a joy using in wet darkroom.
Detail rendition is excellent (much better than T-Max, Acros, Efke 25, Pan F+).
It is medium format quality with 35mm film.
High speed of ISO 40.

Development is easy. From time to time I am teaching darkroom work to younger photographers. These unexperienced photographers have no problems developing these films with the new Spur developer.

From my own experience with hundreds of rolls with these films I can completely confirm what Mr Serger has written in this thread.

And honestly I was very shocked by the rude postings and attacks of Mr 'cmo': He has admitted that he has not worked with these films and developers, neither with the Kodak nor the Agfa stuff, not with all the dedicated developers.
He has no experience in this field at all. Never took a photograph with this stuff.
But he is saying it is all junk.
What a riduculous and stupid behavier. In his words is so much hate and ignorance.
Such postings do no favour at all for the apug community. It is poison for open minded talk about real experience, and real photographs taken.

 

[Leigh B]

Now I know why there are no motor drives for 8x10" cameras

WoW! You just gave me an idea for a new invention.

I'll start work on it immediately. :munch:

- Leigh

 

[cmo]

WoW! You just gave me an idea for a new invention.

I'll start work on it immediately. :munch:

- Leigh

Wait.

Henning will soon prove that with the new-newer-newest developer some kind of Agfa Copex at 80 ASA outperforms your 8x10" negatives (provided you use Fortepan 100 @6400 ASA and develop it in lukewarm Rodinal). You will soon be able to do everything you do in 8x10" with a half-frame Olympus Pen

 

[Leigh B]

You will soon be able to do everything you do in 8x10" with a half-frame Olympus Pen

Why would I want to change cameras???

I already have a Tessina (half-frame 35mm). It has a motor drive, so no need to invent one.

- Leigh

 

[cmo]

He has no experience in this field at all. Never took a photograph with this stuff.
But he is saying it is all junk.

I don't say it's junk. I say it's for experts, not for average users and beginners. It's not for me though I use films and develop them on my own since 34 years.

Again, if it's right for you and other experts, have fun with it.

But you compared apples with oranges to exaggerate the advantages, downplay the disadvantages and 'prove' that a method that is right for you is unproblematic and safe for everyone. It isn't. But to what end do you do that? Get real.

And do I really need to buy and eat oranges that you and some other orange lovers prefer to show that they are not the same as apples if that is visible at first glance? Forgive me that I am not enough of a nerd to lust after a long learning curve for a method I don't need. I saw many prints from high-resolution methods and know the typical look.

Obviously you keep on comparing apples and oranges. Comparing an FP4 with high-resolution films is like comparing the gas mileage of a 63 ft roadtrain with the mileage of a hybrid car without mentioning the payload. It's like saying that chocolate tastes sweeter than authentic Texas chili. An FP4 is not made to deliver the highest possible resolution, the finest grain or the highest sharpness. It's an outstanding and extremely robust and forgiving film. Mr. Galley will probably shake his head about this comparison, or he would reverse the viewing point: compare the admirable tonality of an FP4 with an artificially tenderized high-contrast document film and say goodbye to a castle in the air.

The t-grain films are made to deliver the highest possible resolution, the finest grain or the highest sharpness, but it's obvious that they are easy to use, easy to process, and today they are almost foolproof. But you don't provide proof or information based on a comparison with those films.

Why?

Maybe because such a comparison would show that results from modern, foolproof films and developers on one side and your preferred method with specialty films and custom chemistry on the other side might show that the difference between the results is not big enough for your taste?

Now, is that a correct way of helping other analog photographers?

Comparing apples with oranges and denying obvious disadvantages, risks and potential problems, is that fair? In my eyes you do a disservice to other photographers as you want to convince them to use a method that fits your needs though they have different needs.

Please, remember that the main purpose of apug and other analog forums is to help like-minded people.

In his words is so much hate and ignorance.

Well, I hate ducktales, especially if people want to prove their nonsense by telling me that chocolate is sweeter than Texas chili. Sorry, I can't ignore that.

I said that I recommend not to convince everyone that your favourite method is the holy grail and a no-brainer in one, and I showed that half of your tale is a fairytale. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, amen!

Such postings do no favour at all for the apug community. It is poison for open minded talk about real experience, and real photographs taken.

So, saying the truth and pulling fairytales apart is 'poison for open-minded people'?

Give me a break... are we in North Korea? :confused: Get a life.

(By the way, the datasheet quotes I used were taken from a datasheet that was labeled for the "NEW" developer.)

 

[cmo]

Why would I want to change cameras???

I already have a Tessina (half-frame 35mm). It has a motor drive, so no need to invent one.

- Leigh

I think that a motorized, fully automatic 64-card changer could be a bestseller in the digital world because DLSR users do not know that they can take their fingers off the release button before they purchase the next better, faster camera model half a year later

Here is the scientific proof:

http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson425.jpg

By the way, why do you - and many others - use FP4? Don't you need a higher resolution?

 

[Leigh B]

By the way, why do you - and many others - use FP4? Don't you need a higher resolution?

I get it, using my own proprietary developer. My wife developed it. She's a bio-chemist.

Conservatively I get around 10,000 lp/mm at 1:4 contrast. Not bad considering.

Of course, I need a scanning electron microscope to make the resolution measurements.

- Leigh

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Hello Gerald,

I suppose your experience is with Kodak Technical Pan and Technidol or Tetenal Neofin Doku, TD-3 or Pota-type developers, right?
...
With Agfa Copex Rapid in Spur Modular UR New for example I get excellent tonality.

Hi Henning,

I have quite a bit of Copex Rapid in my freezer. Maybe I will spool up some and try again. You are right I have never tried the new Spur developers.

How is the latitude with the new developers. When I tried Copex there was none. Exposure had to be spot on.

 

[cmo]

I get it, using my own proprietary developer. My wife developed it. She's a bio-chemist.

Conservatively I get around 10,000 lp/mm at 1:4 contrast. Not bad considering.

Of course, I need a scanning electron microscope to make the resolution measurements.

- Leigh

Of course, I need a scanning electron microscope to make the resolution measurements.

In that case, can you do me a favor and scan a resolution from the UN security council? I would really like to know how many lines per mm it has

 

[Роберт]

Maybe I will spool up some and try again. You are right I have never tried the new Spur developers.

I am just testing the new SPUR/Rollei ATP-DC A(1)/B on the ATP1.1 35mm version in my Leica.

Compared to Rodinal 1+150, RLC (low contrast document developer) I am really amazed now how the curve fitting is going.

I was a bit disappointed about the SPUR Modular (version 1) developer and ATP1.1 but this new version ATP-DC A/B is really good.
Best in comparision is to make a split grade enlargement of 40x50cm in my Jobo drum. But you seems to be right: Much, much better then previous old low contrast receipts.

Just have a look how it will be compared to my Efke 25 film in 6x7cm roll film format.

Greetz,

Роберт

 

[DREW WILEY]

Henning - thank you for the additional clarifications. I'll admit that my choice of Efke 25 or Pan F for
smaller cameras is their compatibility with my "standard" PMK pyro developer. Since I'm mainly a sheet film user, having the same developer is convenient. The quality control of Efke is not ideal. The
emulsion has been very reliable and predictable; but sometimes little specks of stuff are embedded in it. I've opened new rolls just to be certain it wasn't something I had done.

 

[piu58]

Dear photographers,

I read some discussion here in using microfilms and SPUR developers.

I used some rolls of these film, did some experiments and eventually decided to use for a travel only Agfa Copex Rapid.

The polyester base causes light piping, that is right. But it is sufficient to load the film relatively fast in the shadow. If you take more time or you are in a very bright surrounding you may lose one or two shots at the start of the film. The film got 40 ASA and can used without a tripod, at least in the summer.

I read a lot about uneven development with SPUR developer. My experience bases on the older SPUR Modular UR (without new). I've never seen cloudy grey tones. The process is very simple to do, no special attention or separated tanks are necessary. I stored the developer in my relatively cold (16°C) basement and it still works - one year after buying.

I even used the Copex in 120 mm. That was cool! Never before I got such a high resolution! Of course I used the very sharp Planar of my Rolleiflex.

If you pay a special attention to high resolution (which is not the only thing for a good photo) I recommend giving the Copex rapid a try. It seems to be expansive compared to other 35 mm films. But if you compare it to 120, the costs are comparable. You may be amazed, which amount of detail you get form your 35 mm lenses. At least if you use a fixed focal length.

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

I'm a little surprised at the vehemence against the newer - shall we call the "Techpan replacement" - films.
I am by no means a B&W expert, and certainly a darkroom newbie by any stretch of the imagination. This is because I fell in love with slide film about 5 years ago and haven't shot much else since.

However, I will tell you from first hand experience, I tested T-Max 100 in Xtol, Acros 100 in Perceptol, Plus-X in Xtol and D76, Delta 100 in Xtol, PanF Plus @ 50 ISO ... all vs Adox CMS 20 in their special soup. Don't remember the dev name right this sec, but it's the one you get with the film from Freestyle Photo.
Anyway, I can tell you flat out, if your goal is to capture a scene in B&W; that is to say, to faithfully render the detail which the eye can see, and not make up some argument about "grain being pretty or artsy" and all that (which is valid in a different context than this)...if that is your goal, then you cannot hope to beat out the CMS 20. Period, end of story, there is not even a contest. The new developers also show impressive tonal range if shot at like 12 ISO. On a tripod, this works pretty good.
To put it this way, CMS 20 makes T-Max 100 look like an old school 400 ISO film in comparison. Ask my wife, I amwill a detail nut - if I was a dig-snaper I would be the pixel peeper. I made cropped prints optically out if what would have been enormous prints from a 35mm neg, and could never see the grain. Conversely, I could easily see the grain showing in just a 16x20 print from 35mma T-Max 100. It's time to get comfortable with the fact that technology and time marches on, and we now have even better films than ever for recording detail in a scene. And, the new products are so simple to use, I cannot see how one could get lost. If you develop any film at all, you will be able to develop your first roll of CMS 20 in

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

...the supplied soup easily enough.

Now, I'm not advocating these films for every situation, that would be nonsense. Sometimes you want big grain. Sometimes you want funky tones or whatever...that's cool, it's art for crying out loud!
But, for those times you would just shoot say T-Max 100 or equivalent on a tripod with MLU and cable release to get the best quality reproduction of a scene ... I can't see why so many pass by the new stuff. Perhaps it is from bad first experiences with the older microfilms and old developers? I know first impressions are hard to put down...maybe that is where the stigma came from?

I don't know, and I shoot mostly color myself, but after having shot some of this stuff, I am really miffed why more don't at least try it...?

 

[Jedidiah Smith]

Sorry for all the typos, those were posted from my phone and my thick thumbs seem to always generate stupid typos and other errors with this touch screen! *sigh*

 

[Naples]

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

The link provided by Fabrizio shows, in the images on page 9, what I have been noticing (at least in the 35mm films I have developed by pro labs): that Tri-X is sharper, or at least appears to be sharper, than T-Max 400.

The crop of the violin image on page 9 - in particular the pointed right side - is noticeably sharper in Tri-X than in T-Max 400. The T-Max has a softer, more "washed out" look, with less detail.

I understand this article is from 2007, but still ...

 

[Роберт]

Now, I'm not advocating these films for every situation, that would be nonsense. Sometimes you want big grain. Sometimes you want funky tones or whatever...that's cool, it's art for crying out loud!

Exactly where arguments stops and just follow the type of film you like (or not). I am just finished the curve fitting of ATP1.1 in the special ATP-DC A/B developer which is simply excellent and due to the tonal range I must say it's indeed good. But to be honest I like the tonal range of Efke 25 just a tick more and this is where arguments stops and the opinion is of course not objective any more.

Maybe because ATP1.1 is Red extended and Efke is Orthopan (just the other way around) for my landscape photography. In resolution and sharpness I think ATP (35mm) is close to Efke in 6x7cm roll film format but to prove it you should do some scientific tests with the right reference cards. For me not important because, as said I have other reasons to use the film or not.

About handling: Both films went without any problems in a standard (Jobo) reel development. Just I followed all guidelines (also for Efke), no rocket science at all!

 

[Henning Serger]

Hi Henning,

I have quite a bit of Copex Rapid in my freezer. Maybe I will spool up some and try again. You are right I have never tried the new Spur developers.

How is the latitude with the new developers.

Hello Gerald,

the latitude of Copex Rapid in Spur Modular UR New is very good, same or even a bit better than conventional film-developer combinations.
I get an ideal characteristic curve.
I generally calibrate all my film-developer combinations with a densitometer to determine the characteristic curve (classic zone system technique).
For reference values I use the recommendations of Master Printer Wolfgang Moersch, that works very good for me and my enlarging system (combined double condensor / mix-box system).

In the relevant shadow zones II,5; III and IV I get about 10% higher density compared to the reference values. In the shadow zones the curve is not fully straight linear, but a little bit higher ("hogging"; don't whether it is the right word).
That results in better shadow detail compared to a complete straight curve.

From Zone V to X I get a normal linear curve. Zone VIII, IX and X are exactly on the reference values of W. Moersch. That leads to excellent highlight separation.

Because of the bit higher density in the shadow zones and the resulting slightly better shadow detail, you gain a little more latitude compared to some conventional film-developer combinations.

I have used this film-developer combination in very high contrast scenes and the results are excellent. Captured all the details in shadows and highlights.
Printing the negs was easy.

Best regards,
Henning

P.S.:I use a more slow, softer agitation when developing Agfa Copex Rapid, ATP, CMS 20 (that is also recommended in the instruction).That results in the best curve shape in highlight areas.
Fixing time is short with these films: 1 minute is sufficient. No problems at all with remaining magenta casts or such things well known from TMX + Co.
Softer agitation and shorter fixing time are the only differences I have compared to developing my other conventional films. Apart from that it's the same workflow.
Everyone who can develop a TMX, Delta or FP4+ can also develop a Copex Rapid, CMS 20 or ATP.

 

[Henning Serger]

The link provided by Fabrizio shows, in the images on page 9, what I have been noticing (at least in the 35mm films I have developed by pro labs): that Tri-X is sharper, or at least appears to be sharper, than T-Max 400.

The crop of the violin image on page 9 - in particular the pointed right side - is noticeably sharper in Tri-X than in T-Max 400. The T-Max has a softer, more "washed out" look, with less detail.

I understand this article is from 2007, but still ...

To analyse whether you have real, objective contour / edge sharpness or only a subjective sharpness impression you have to take shots under the same conditions and then enlarge big or put the negs under a microscope.
Under a microscope you clearly see the differences in sharpness.
A real, objective sharp film has clear, homogenous contours and clear separated details.
Grainier films in most cases have more frazzled, unravelled contours. Objective sharpness is much lower (nevertheless there are some exceptions from this rule).

Under the microscope TMY-2 has much better contour sharpness than Tri-X. Edges are more clear, details much better separated and resolved. There is no competition,Tri-X has no chance at all.
And BW 400 CN even surpasses TMY-2 by a slight margin (only visible at extreme enlargements).

But as we all know, sometimes grainier films can subjectively look a bit sharper due to a sharp grain appearance, especially at smaller enlargements.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Johnson]

For developing these microfilm similar emulsions I have used Tom Hoskinson's TEA version of H&W Control :
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Copex Rapid had the least contrast, Rollei ATP somewhat more and CMS 20 was the most contrasty so that development time had to be adjusted accordingly.
This developer is very economical for home brewing but there was some loss of film speed compared with the Spur developers sold at that time.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Thanks Henning for the information!

 

[Film-Niko]

But you compared apples with oranges to exaggerate the advantages, downplay the disadvantages and 'prove' that a method that is right for you is unproblematic and safe for everyone. It isn't. But to what end do you do that? Get real.

I am in reality, because I have used these films for years, but you have not.
If you have had read my post attentively, then you would have seen that I have not exaggerated anything. I have just written about my experiences.

You should get real. All photographers here in this thread who really have worked with these films and new developers, Jedidiah, Henning, Uwe, Georg and me, say you are wrong with your prejudices.
We have the experience with the films and developers, you have not.
That is the fact.

I saw many prints from high-resolution methods and know the typical look.

Sorry, but that is complete BS.
Because there is no "typical look" of high resolution methods.
All high resolution films have a very different look and their own character:
- CMS 20 is orthopanchromatic
- ATP is superpanchromatic
- Copex Rapid is panchromatic

CMS 20 and ATP are almost grainless, Copex Rapid has very fine, but sharp grain (more classical film look).
ATP looks a bit softer, Copex Rapid and CMS 20 sharper.

Characteristic curves with all three films are different with the dedicated developers.

All these visible differences result in a unique look for each film. I can clearly see whether I have a print from CMS 20, ATP, Ortho 25 or Copex Rapid in front of me.

Your statement is another proof that you don't know at all what you are talking about.

An FP4 is not made to deliver the highest possible resolution, the finest grain or the highest sharpness. .

An 16x20" print from FP4+, Plus-X, APX 100 in medium format is almost grainless with very good detail and sharpness.
With high-resolution films in 35mm you can surpass this.
And high resolution films in 120 are a league of their own.

compare the admirable tonality of an FP4 with an artificially tenderized high-contrast document film and say goodbye to a castle in the air.

In contrast to you I have exactly done that lots of times, together with other photographers. Results were always the same:
The admirable tonality of Plus-X, FP4, Fomapan 100, APX 100 is not better than the excellent tonality of Agfa Copex Rapid, developed in Spur Modular UR new.
In some situations Copex even deliver a bit better tones, especially in the shadows.

Tonality of ATP, Ortho 25, CMS 20 is different, especially because of their different sensitization, but not worse.

The t-grain films are made to deliver the highest possible resolution, the finest grain or the highest sharpness,

Marketing BS.
Dozens of times it was proven, both in scientific tests and practical experience from photographers, that high-resolution films clearly surpass TMX by significant margins in this respect.
This "sharpest BW film" which is printed by Kodak on the box is an impudent marketing lie. Period.
And you are permanently repeating this marketing lie and spamming the forums with it.

O.k., Kodak T-Max is the holy grail for you, and you believe their marketing lies, I have no problems with that.
I am using T-Max as well, I know what it can and what not. And in contrast to you I have directly compared it to the higher resolution films. I know what is only marketing and what is reality.
But please don't bother us with your ridiculous bashing postings of products you have never used, with which you have no experience at all.

A forum is for sharing real experiences, not for propagating prejudices.