Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper.

[Rollei-Film]

Don't forget to mention that Agfa Copex Rapid is not available as perforated 35mm films since years. If you don't believe this call some microfilm dealers and ask them for perforated 35mm Copex. They will tell you just that: it's not available as a new, fresh product. If you don't believe that call Agfa, they will confirm this.

Whatever is in the market must be old stock that is being marketed aggressively. How long will supplies last? Nobody knows.

The statement of Mr Molinari is completely wrong and has nothing to do with the real situation.
Fact ist that all Agfa Copex Rapid film and all Rollei ATP film is fresh stock currently produced by Agfa-Gevaert in Belgium.
The pancakes of fresh film are continuously cut, perforated and spooled in 135 cartridges at specialised company Tura/Photostar near Cologne, Germany.
Tura is cooperating with Agfa for decades.
Their machinery is original Agfa equipment, too.

Kind regards,
Sebastian Junghans

 

[David Goldstein]

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?

I think the finest grained B&W film these days is T-Max 100. I am unclear what you mean by resolution, but I have the feeling you are thinking of digital type resolution. I will throw out an opinion in that regard - I shoot lots of T-Max 400 and I scan those negatives at 4800 DPI;that yields an effective 31.5 megapixel file which is more than big enough for anything I ever print, (16x24).

Just a perspective,

 

[Sparky]

The highest resolving power film is any film in an 8x10 camera... how about them apples?

 

[Leigh B]

Until somebody shows up with a 20" x 24" camera... How about them pumpkins.

- Leigh

 

[cmo]

One little correction. An old friend asked me to report that fresh perforated Copex is available, not by Agfa but if you ask specialized companies to cut the big 'pancake' rolls and perforate the stripes.

 

[Henning Serger]

Helllo David,

I think the finest grained B&W film these days is T-Max 100.

don't only think but just try some other films, then you will see there are other options with much finer grain .

We've done that, shot all these films under exact same conditions (scientific workflow), analysed them under a microscope, printed them with optical enlargers, scanned them with drum scanners.

Ranking for finest grain:

1. Adox CMS 20 (developed in the dedicated different Spur developers and the old Adotech developer)
2. Rollei ATP (developed in dedicated ATP DC developer)
3. Rollei Retro 80S (developed in CG512/RLS, HRX-3, DD-X, Perceptol)
4. Agfa Copex Rapid (developed in dedicated Spur Modular UR New)
5. Efke 25 (developed in CG512/RLS, HRX-3, DD-X, Perceptol)
6. Fuji Neopan Acros 100, TMX, Ilford Pan F+ (developed in CG512/RLS, HRX-3, DD-X, Perceptol); the difference between these three films is very small and not worth to discuss, and dependent on the developer the ranking can change a little bit.

But that is only the ranking for finest grain. As I have said in an earlier post, ranking for highest resolution is a bit different (e.g. ranking of 80S is then significantly lower, similar to TMX; and Acros 100, Pan F+ resolution is lower than TMX).

I am unclear what you mean by resolution, but I have the feeling you are thinking of digital type resolution. I will throw out an opinion in that regard - I shoot lots of T-Max 400 and I scan those negatives at 4800 DPI;that yields an effective 31.5 megapixel file which is more than big enough for anything I ever print, (16x24).

Just a perspective,

With scanning, especially with 4800 ppi, you loose resolution compared to optical printing. In our tests we've got best resolution with optical enlarging with APO enlarging lenses, better than with Imacon X5 and ICG 370 drum scanners.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

One little correction. An old friend asked me to report that fresh perforated Copex is available, not by Agfa but if you ask specialized companies to cut the big 'pancake' rolls and perforate the stripes.

That is no news. This information has been available for a long time.

35mm Agfa Copex Rapid is continuously produced from fresh stock by Photostar (former Tura) in Germany. They cut and perforate the film, and spool it into 135 cassetes. Their machines are made by Agfa, and there is a long history of partnership between Tura / Photostar and Agfa (more than 40 years).
Lots of other film types from different manufacturers are cut and perforated there, too.
As well as huge amounts of photographic paper.
I've been there and visited the factory (know the manager).

Same with Adox CMS 20. That is also fresh film from Agfa. Mirko had invited me to visit his new Adox factory in Bad Saarow. Saw all the machines there for film and paper cutting and converting, and his labs.

No matter whether you buy Adox CMS 20, Agfa Copex Rapid or Rollei ATP, it is all fresh film from Agfa-Gevaert.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[georg16nik]

Henning, thanks for sharing!
You are a lucky man!

I can confirm that Rollei Retro 80S is indeed a very interesting and quite impressive film, as I wrote earlier in this thread - it is adorable.
At very hight altitude mountain ranges + filters, hood and all... then in TETENAL Ultrafin liquid or Neofin Blau. It sings on Baryta tru the Focomat V35

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pan F resolution is way higher than TMX, at least with the same film dev I use. I have certainly printed enough of each to know that beyond doubt. But right now, I have five rolls of Rollei Pan 25 120 film
sitting on my desk, getting ready to compare it to Pan F and Efke R25. The curve shape will probably
lie somewhere between the other two, but no way to know if I really like it until I test. Headed for the
Sierras above timberline where the contrast levels can be pretty high.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Guess I should have qualified that last post. Since people don't view my images via the negative on a
microscope, but in final print form on the wall, that is the standard of reference which is relevant to me.
Things like mackie line effect which might look like a detriment under high magnification of the negative
will conversely often produce higher detail acutance in an actual print, and Pan F distinctly has way more of this "wire sharpness" than TMX. The rules of the game can change somewhat with unusual degrees of enlargement, or with added tweaks like unsharp masking, but for garden-variety use, the
superior detail ability of Pan F is known by many.

 

[Henning Serger]

Pan F resolution is way higher than TMX, at least with the same film dev I use.

Hello Drew,

I believe that you have achieved such results. I am using Pan F+ as well and like this film.
To make my short statement in the posting above more precise: Pan F+ and TMX are very close in resolution, the difference is small, and the difference is dependant on the developer. In our tests TMX and Delta 100 resolution was a bit higher, difference was in the 5-10% range, dependant on the developer.
We are talking here about the range of 115 - 135 clearly seperated linepairs per millimeter at an object contrast of 1:4.
That is excellent resolution. You can see the differences under the microscope.
Or at big enlargements from 35mm.

But when you make 16x20" prints from 120 film you won't see such differences.

A factor which has to be considered is that the lenses we used are diffraction limited. With not so good lenses the differences can be even smaller.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

My personal interest in this is somewhat academic. I rarely shoot 35mm except handheld with high speed
films, and print small. When I want big I shoot big negatives with a view camera. It's when I have to work in the middle, with a medium format camera or a roll film back, that this subject becomes paramount. For now, I'll bounce around between Pan F, Efke 25, and Rollei Pan 25, since all of these are
plenty fine-grained for a 16x20. Off-season I'll probably experiment with some of the more extreme options, because I have a friend who shoots exclusively 35mm and 6x6 and enlarges up to 20x24 with
these small negs. So I'll do a little homework for him, and for my general background knowledge. So thanks for all the excellent input, Henning.

 

[Top-Cat]

An 8 by 10 film would have the same resolving power as a 35mm film, it's the resolution of the finished image that would be different.

Anyway, just because the camera's bigger doesn't make it better, not even for making images with higher resolving power. In my experience, convenience is more important a lot of the time - for example, I get sharper and better images with a Mamiya 645 and modern lenses than I do with old folding cameras even though they give me twice the size on the negative. And I usually get even sharper and better images working with digital aps-c and studio strobes. Why? Because I can control the focus, better control the composition of the image (because of the SLR mechanism) and because a lot of other technical things don't get in the way. I still use old stuff, but it's usually just for fun and experimentation, and not because I think it will get me a higher and better technical result.

 

[David Goldstein]

don't only think but just try some other films, then you will see there are other options with much finer grain .

Henning,

On a weekly basis, I shoot Tmax, TriX and HP5-Plus, depending on what I am trying to achieve in image appearance. To be frank, grain is low on my list of priorities when I shoot film; if I want a grainless appearance, I shoot my D200.

Regards

 

[georg16nik]

Henning,

On a weekly basis, I shoot Tmax, TriX and HP5-Plus, depending on what I am trying to achieve in image appearance. To be frank, grain is low on my list of priorities when I shoot film; if I want a grainless appearance, I shoot my D200.

Regards

In order to fully understand this thread (especially in the 135 format context), You need to print optically, B&W, on a weekly basis ( for at least a few years ), using the best tools and resources.

Scanning Tmax or TriX at whatever dpi won't help You understand what we are talking about in this thread, it won't even get You close.

 

[David Goldstein]

In order to fully understand this thread (especially in the 135 format context), You need to print optically, B&W, on a weekly basis ( for at least a few years ), using the best tools and resources.

Scanning Tmax or TriX at whatever dpi won't help You understand what we are talking about in this thread, it won't even get You close.

I used the scanning comparison, because I read the OP's original question to be about resolution in a somewhat digital sense, so hence my comment - I most likely misread his intent - mea culpa.

Just to be clear, I have been shooting film for over 43 years, so I have some sense of what it can do in enlargers.

 

[georg16nik]

David, You might be right, especially after OP's last post...
Scanning film or print is a tradeoff, since the digital intermediate systems are bellow primitive when it comes to data processing and storage.
On top of that, how many folks manually adjust their scanners for each roll of film (measure density, lock exposure etc) and what about scanning from paper? Let alone other tech stuff in regards to scanning..
There is a huge difference between shooting film then, develop, optical print that Yourself and "just" shooting film, then scan.
The situation gets even more complex, when we talk about 135 format B&W high res. film and its tight tolerances.

 

[cmo]

The situation gets even more complex, when we talk about 135 format B&W high res. film and its tight tolerances.

It's the same as with cars, lenses, art and many more things: if you want to achieve 90% of what is technically possible you pay normal prices. If you want to achieve more you pay and work much more.

Let's have a look at the first post:

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.

I think Top-Cat wants a 90% solution, not 99.9%

 

[Top-Cat]

I think Top-Cat wants a 90% solution, not 99.9%

You're absolutely right, I was simply asking what I should use to get the best possible resolution in a BW film image, but in a way and an effort you could expect a "normal" person to go through with, seeing as resolution is just a small part of it all, and the fact that most of the time, a "normal" person doesn't really go through with absolutely every little factor you need to go through with for a technically perfect image, most of the time (at least for me) it's about practice, experimentation and hoping for a good result, not about setting the largest camera possible with the lowest ISO on a big tripod and spending half an hour for every little shot, then processing it with the same amount of perfectionism etc. etc. .

To me, larger format photography is about getting the largest format you're still able to walk around with and work with, seeing as finding an interesting subject is far more important.

 

[Роберт]

for example, I get sharper and better images with a Mamiya 645 and modern lenses than I do with old folding cameras even though they give me twice the size on the negative.

You can also try a new modern folder camera. I am working with a C.V. Bessa III 667 and I have a M645 pro but in this case the C.V. is an absolute winner. Further the camera is small, not bulky and only 1000g in weight.

It can handle 6x6cm and 6x7cm 120/220 roll film so back to your 90% average: Just take this kind of camera and a medium speed film, e.g. Acros 100 (Fuji) or for landscape Retro 100 TONAL (Rollei) and in case you want to go out with a tripod: Efke 25.

You won't see the difference (iso 100) with a H.R. film (iso 25-32) when using these type of cameras even not when using a Leica-M with Copex film. However an M is very fast in shooting, wide aperture lenses available and when doing carefull the development with the right H.R. developer indeed about the same quality.

 

[JerryWo]

As a returnee to B&W (was active in the 1970's with medium format) and now using 35mm, I've got to say that this thread has been an education, and an interesting one at that. My prints have been missing that "tonality" that comes with good resolution and fine grain. That word seemed to come up quite often in this thread. I shot some FP4+ this weekend (EI = 50) and developed it in Perceptol (an off-the-shelf solution) and was stunned at the results. The negatives were dense and printed beautifully on normal contrast paper. Despite concerns, I found shooting at an EI of 50 was not very restrictive with my f1.5 lens.

In the other direction, I shot some Fomapan 400 (EI200) and developed it in Rodinal! Sharp & grainy....a very interesting look.

Thanks!
Jerry W
Warrenton, VA