How to tune a bw film for max printing !

[trendland]

Do not feed the troll!

View attachment 222056 ​

Self-portrait...??

with regards

PS : I will never say anything different like you when you will change your Avatar!!

 

[trendland]

BTW more than 70 x 100 cm can look OK with modern films of 35mm type! (100 x 140)
But the next film format from microfilms is 6 x 9 (with better lens ) for me!
with regards

 

[trendland]

.......so each photographer has its own obsession !

 

[Ian Grant]

Is there actually any serious discussion in this thread about getting the best from a film for printing large ?

What's missing is the craft, that's the skills to get the results you attire to. That means really knowing how your film choices work with developers and finding the optimum combination that suits you're way of working. Rodinal gets mentioned it's fantastic with Tmax 100 and the old genuine Agfa APX100 (or APX25), bu not really anything special with older style emulsions. There are developers to steer away from if you want to print large HC110 in particular, D76 or ID-11 unless used replenished.

Personally the highest quality 35mm B&W prints from 100 ISO film I've seen were made using APX100 developed in Rodinal (at box speed). equal in all ways but one would be Tmax 100 in Rodinal but at half box speed. Of course APX25 was even better but you'd need to use a tripod most of the time, that's why I preferred APX100 to Tmax 100. I should add my experiences matched the late Peter Goldfield who open my eyes to the quality of AP100 (later APX10) and Tmax 100 in Rodinal. My first APX100 and Rodinal prints and a very experienced photographer thought the images were MF, they were an M3 Leica & Summicron.

Now lets get realistic, it's possible to make great images with most films available today, you just have to learn to get the best out of each film, Foma films are a bit quirky but I've used hundreds of rolls/sheets with consistently high quality results. I'd add here is it needs craft/skill which has to be learnt (by practice) but that allows us/you to quickly fine tune technique with a new film.

There are no magic bullets but like with choice of a gun and ammo there's better combinations to achieve ones goals.

Ian

 

[trendland]

Is there actually any serious discussion in this thread about getting the best from a film for printing large ?

What's missing is the craft, that's the skills to get the results you attire to. That means really knowing how your film choices work with developers and finding the optimum combination that suits you're way of working. Rodinal gets mentioned it's fantastic with Tmax 100 and the old genuine Agfa APX100 (or APX25), bu not really anything special with older style emulsions. There are developers to steer away from if you want to print large HC110 in particular, D76 or ID-11 unless used replenished.

Personally the highest quality 35mm B&W prints from 100 ISO film I've seen were made using APX100 developed in Rodinal (at box speed). equal in all ways but one would be Tmax 100 in Rodinal but at half box speed. Of course APX25 was even better but you'd need to use a tripod most of the time, that's why I preferred APX100 to Tmax 100. I should add my experiences matched the late Peter Goldfield who open my eyes to the quality of AP100 (later APX10) and Tmax 100 in Rodinal. My first APX100 and Rodinal prints and a very experienced photographer thought the images were MF, they were an M3 Leica & Summicron.

Now lets get realistic, it's possible to make great images with most films available today, you just have to learn to get the best out of each film, Foma films are a bit quirky but I've used hundreds of rolls/sheets with consistently high quality results. I'd add here is it needs craft/skill which has to be learnt (by practice) but that allows us/you to quickly fine tune technique with a new film.

There are no magic bullets but like with choice of a gun and ammo there's better combinations to achieve ones goals.

Ian

Yes , thanks much for your advice - in many parts of that you are stating I agree!
BTW. I also agree with your introduction - I am waiting for a serious discussion too.
Form my point the issue with big enlargements is also a niche theme.
The issue with big enlargements from small formats is a "special niche"!
The old APX AGFA or lets better say the original Agfapan 100 is that what I call :
The every days film! It is a film of general good characteristics - but not for special use!

With one exception it is also special in regards you mentioned = resolution, fine grain relative from
workflow with some developers.
To me Agfapan25 was the long time champion (beside Ilford PanF)!
But because you mentioned : magic bullet (the bullet wich should explain dissagrements of " one shooter theory" after watching Zapruder's normal 8 Kodachrome)
So to me pull developement with some bw films of lower speed is a kind of "little magic bullet"
Other bullets are document films from type Spur DSX , CMS20, Rollei Ortho 25 a.s.o = an other
class of films.
Well Ian your love for Rodinal I will respect, to me it is a sharp developer wich is able to
make avaible more speed but I can not live with that grain ! Others like you, find the grain
aceptable also others want to have it :

No Video - just a picture = don't click in it!.....
From my point that difference is overdriven - but there is a difference of course!

Yes and for sure big prints are possible with many films today - but big is relative?
And max. size is also relative!
For me such very different opinions are caused from the normal pratice!
And normal practice for amatheuric photographers is still today a 5x7 inch print as a big
enlargement!

Ian my first prints I made around 1978 was from same format! A bit smaller (10x15, 9x13 )
in centimeters! But 4 month after beginning to print in darkroom I got my first
1meter x 10meter roll! And the first prints had 100 x 140cm from Ilford XP1!

Well and that print was fine for me for over a decade (hanging at home) later I was asked :
who is the photographer (speculation about price - I let the people illusion of highest priced
art print .... never told them it was made in own darkroom)
But the grain....Ian the grain
(35mm negative, XP1 c41 self developed, E.I. 400-600 ASA (some shots had underexposure )

with regards

PS : meanwhile iit is looking much better - AS you mentioned : a couple of films are able to offer!

 

[Ian Grant]

Well Ian your love for Rodinal I will respect, to me it is a sharp developer wich is able to
make avaible more speed but I can not live with that grain ! Others like you, find the grain
aceptable also others want to have it :

I used AP100/APX100 and Tmax 100 & 400 plus some AP25/APX25 for a number of years and the only developers I used were Rodinal and Xtol replenished. In terms of grain, contrast/tonality, sharpness etc it would be near impossible to spot a difference.

It was the late Peter Goldfield, who had assisted Paul Caponigro in New Mexico, who introduced me to Rodinal, after all it was Agfa's recommended developer for AP100/APAX100 and AP25/APX25, and Peter had been the UK importer of Agfa B&W films, paper, & chemistry for a few years when they'd pulled out of the market. When I went on my first workshop with Peter I'd guess early 1987 he only recommended using Rodinal with AP100 and AP25, however Tmax 100 had just been introduced in the UK and he felt early results ere quite similar giving excellent fine grain.

It's not a case of liking grain (usually I don't but there can be creative uses), in practice it's finding the best film/developer combination that works for you and using craft to fine tune to maximise quality in terms of fine grain, tonal range, sharpness, and also ease of printing (or scanning). This involves finding the optimal EI and development times going beyond using manufacturers published recommendations.

There are other factors, craft also means knowing how to get the best from your equipment, it's all well having a good film/developer combination and loosing sharpness through poor camera handling. An example which I found first hand was images made with my Mamiya 645 1000S on a tripod weren't quite as sharp as many hand-held shots with the same camera, even though I was using a good solid tripod the mirror action was enough to take the edge of sharpness. The issue was eliminated by using the mirror lock function. On my first Goldfield workshop the co-leader was Peter Cattrell, he spotted a couple of prints lacked critical sharpness, he mentioned it privately on a field trip and said he'd had similar problems with a Bronica on a tripod.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

http://beefalobill.com/images/IMG_8724.JPG

Here’s some APX-25 in D76 1:1 including a little detail from the 11x14 print

 

[trendland]

I have to state that Rodinal (from my point Ian - because each photographer make own experience) can give much sharpness from egde effects! You probably would agree!
So if the prefference is on sharpness (for example shots of technical stuff machines a.s.o. or for
example architecture) Rodinal from dillution1:100/1:200 and stand development is working very fine. But sharpness via edge effects is no profit for resolution ....it would be nice if it could higher resolution!
The profit from Rodinal is (just for me) in direction of economy, long life, speed increasement
yes and it is much easy to use (stand development I did 1:400 but I guess the last hour of development Rodinal was allready dead! But it was a try - not more! (max. 1:200 is recomanded)!

The difference from Xtol is there Ian - but I guess it is dependable from workflow!
I also guess here at Photrio are just a couple of photographers who may be with extreme experience like you (I am not part of that exclusive club of course !) But that is also dependable
from preferences!
Yes and the issues you mentioned concerning Tmax - I have no problem with (really not!)
Because a Tgrain film is much better in comparison of a film from conventional grain but who
would state Agfa made NO IMPROVEMENTS with their best film!
APX 100 can of course play in the higher class because Agfa (simular to Kodak) spent enourmious
sums into technology of their films (but not at the end of Agfa's history)!
So dependable from special workflow I would not wonder about your comparison between - has shown these results!
At last "mirror lock" yes of course this is not obsessionable overdriven - also with 35mm cameras!
There is a reson for that some also small cameras have it!
Kiev 66 have it not - there no tripod can help! But perhaps concrete?

Ian to me it is quite clear how to proceed from workflow with camera! So if exposure is OK,
lens is OK (modern Zeiss for example), sweetspot is best, tripod is stabile, mirrow look is done,
cable release is used, there is no dust in the air (also a factor), E.I. is the right one concerning to the used film - there has to be a thought : Is the picturial motif worthfull enough?
Is this shot a probably good shot? Often this is quite clear later!
The next question is to me can this shot max.printed? Sad if the technique then is insufficiant?
So - this is my intention (better to shot with special films and workflow than to whimper later)

But of course there are many situations - I know : this next shots have not to be printed large
therefore each film is good enough!

My preference in comparison is for example Neofin Red! (discontinued) this stuff have had
a bad reputation (I will not state that this view at Neofin Red was entitled) but in comparison
(it had very simular characteristics) Rodinal should be a better choise at last!

with regards


PS : Film developer combinations wich are working fine for real big enlargements with a taste
of the higher film format :

Ilford Delta 100 at E.I. 25 with Ilford Perceptol
Ilford PanF 50 at E.I. 12 with Ilford Perceptol
APX 25 at E.I. 12 with Ilford Perceptol
APX 25 at E.I. 12 with Neofin Blue

Rollei Retro 80s with E.I. 40. AND E.I. 25 Perceptol

alternate for Perceptol is allways Microdol-x of course and D23! All is stated from stock with recomanded times (I don't care much on published times but it has often to be a first basis)
But sometimes published times for lowest E.I. are not much correct (so it is also a first guess against times wich are looking suspicious [ that may be failures from transfers of publishment]

Film developer combinations with a guarantee of higher film format (not possible without extreme good lens and extreme correct workflow)

Adox CMS20 at E.I. 20/ 12 / 6 with recomanded developer

ROLLEI ORTHO 25 at E.I. 12 with following developers : Tetenal Neofin Doku (discontinued),
Rollei RLC, Beutler 1 + 1 + 10 (no failure +10 ),

 

[trendland]

Sorry "Kiev 88" but Kiev 60 is right :

(C) by Martin Taylor

A good coleague from the eastern Europe has this camera (possible the 88 model)
A camera without mirror lock - and this "Soviet" made camera would need it more than any other
camera....!

 

[Ian Grant]

Perhaps the first decision we make when planning to print large is choice of format and then film and that's governed by choice of subject matter and how we wish to work. As an LF and MF shooter formats I've used since the mid 1970's as well as shooting 35mm up to 12 years ago I made the decision to use 35mm and MF hand held, and LF on a tripod for my personal work in about 1986/7.

I tried the micro film options while at university (early 70's), I found the better route was actually to use EFKE Kb14 (later renamed Kb 25) which despite it's DIN name was 40 ASA in Daylight and exceptionally fine grained but with a ridiculously soft emulsion, it was capable of exceptional fine grain, sharp "high resolution" results with good tonality but that was lost if there was over-exposure.

The options you have given in Perceptol will give finer grain but not better sharpness compared to Xtol which gives you better film speed, but like EFKE KB14 you can't work hand held with these low EI's. I value practicality so would use a bigger film format where I can use a faster film if wanted.

Ian

 

[trendland]

Yes Ian that is absolute right - concerning sharpness (also contrast [tonals] ) can be a tribute
for the used of perceptol - especially with much lower E.I.s (more than that normal -1E.V. from perceptol development)!

Perhaps the first decision we make when planning to print large is choice of format and then film and that's governed by choice of subject matter and how we wish to work.
I tried the micro film options while at university (early 70's), I found the better route was actually to use EFKE Kb14 (later renamed Kb 25) which despite it's DIN name was 40 ASA in Daylight and exceptionally fine grained but with a ridiculously soft emulsion

Ian

The modern microfilms like CMS20 can operate a kind of resolution (and smallest grain) wich is
absolute increadable - but it will just work with the (more expensive) Adox special developer!
Adox secret stuff seams to be optimized perfect for this film!
I tryed alternate developers (all are working fine) but none of them can reach the characteristics
of the original - so one have to spend more money - Adox for sure is knowing what their combination is worth!
So all other kind of film developer /film combinations are just "cheaper alternates" for me!
A good Leica lens is the minimum (at sweetspot) - but my Voigtländer M-mount lenses can also
serve some resolution for this film! Best combination today Ian!

with regards

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The issue was eliminated by using the mirror lock function. On my first Goldfield workshop the co-leader was Peter Cattrell, he spotted a couple of prints lacked critical sharpness, he mentioned it privately on a field trip and said he'd had similar problems with a Bronica on a tripod.

Ian

I've been using my Bronica SQ cameras recently and can believe the mirror-lock-up story. Not had any particular issues with sharpness but the mirror does make a huge amount of noise when the shutter is fired. MLU on a tripod is a much more civilised experience.

 

[ic-racer]

T
what you can make is the following : You generally have the need of lower E.I.
(ISO 25) for example with low speed films! You can pull those films to the max.

I'd use caution over exposing rollfilms if one is interested in maximum sharpness. The exposure latitude is small for excellent prints. (See the line for "10X" on the graph).

 

[ic-racer]

On thing I found with microfilms was they were very contrasty. Or at least the ones I tested were. Large prints from 35mm looked great if the scene tonal range was not too great.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/miracle-unmarked-film-find-copex-gigabit-other.29232

 

[trendland]

I'd use caution over exposing rollfilms if one is interested in maximum sharpness. The exposure latitude is small for excellent prints. (See the line for "10X" on the graph).
View attachment 222305

OK - thanks ic-racer - not sure about to unterstand the graph correct....?
So let me ASK first : what is the log. A B C camera exposure here by values?

 

[Ian Grant]

On thing I found with microfilms was they were very contrasty. Or at least the ones I tested were. Large prints from 35mm looked great if the scene tonal range was not too great.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/miracle-unmarked-film-find-copex-gigabit-other.29232

That's always been the inherent issue with using microfilms ad is why you need a low contrast developer when processing. While it's,possible to produce large fine grain prints they can lack micro contrast which helps to give better apparent sharpness, tonality can be a bit strange and micro films aren't good at copying with different lighting conditions.

I have a film box data sheet from EFKE from the 1970's where they warn about over exposure causing a decrease in quality, and that would be a similar curve to "extended dev".

It was Hans Windisch in "Die Nue Foto Schule" also published in English who brought a new approach to exposure and processing to a wider audience. This was turning away from over exposure and over development to more precise exposure and development, essentially the way we work today. His ethos wash how to get the best quality from miniature formats 35mm and 120 hence the emphasis on "The New Photo School".

Of course Windisch was writing in a new era, advertisers were companies like Leitz, Ihagee (Eaxacta), Rollei, and more perhaps more importantly Gossen because the advent of good light meters allowed precise exposure and tailored development.

Ian