Is anything finer grained than TMX?

I know that TMX and Acros (and probably Delta 100) all have nearly invisible grain at common enlargement sizes. But they are all 100 speed films. That's medium speed. Wouldn't a TMAX 25 have even finer grain? Would there be any point?

Kodak Plus-X but that is ISO 125 for traditional grain.

Steve

I don't have evidence for it, but the ADOX CMS 20, for example, would be finer grained.
I view it as a special application film, however, and among the 'standard' films out there, I think TMX / Acros / Delta 100 are tough to beat. Ilford was contemplating a Delta 25 for a while; Simon Galley was asking questions here on APUG about it, but I think the demand and interest was simply too low.
It might be good to check out MTF for a film like Ilford Pan-F+ as well. Probably as fine grained as the films above, but I doubt it has resolution to match.

I hope my limited reply helps.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I don't have evidence for it, but the ADOX CMS 20, for example, would be finer grained.

Click to expand...

I have evidence. CMS20 developed in Adotech has to be enlarged to 40*60cm for the same apparent grain as Delta 100 developed in XTOL enlarged to 18*24cm.

That said my experience is that if you want to get significantly finer grain that with the modern 100 ASA gang you have to pay a price. Special and expensive developer, really low speed, exposure latitude very low.

Tech Pan, RIP

If it wasn't for digital there would be at least one 25 ASA mainstream film. Alas.

BTW, Rollei Retro 80s is not as specialized as some believe. It's about 50 ASA and finer grained than delta 100/acros/tmx. No APX 25 but a good alternative nonetheless.

How about the Rollei ATP that's advertised as a Tech Pan replacement?

I can't help wondering what the point and market is, though. In the days when MF gear was expensive I understood the appeal of a 35mm film that could make big prints. But now, if you want finer grained big prints than you can get from the best 100 speed films in 35mm, just go to MF. If you want finer grain than you can get in a MF negative from the best 100 speed films, well you could go LF but if you need a fairly fast working hand held camera that's not very workable. Sure you can use a Graphic or the like handheld but you give up the faster lenses you can use with MF and even the quickest is still going to be slower than a handheld MF camera, so maybe there's some use for a finer grained film in 120. That would take a pretty big print to run into grain issues with TMX in 6x7 though.

Rollei ATP is wonderful, developed with Rodinal 1:300. Fine grain (more like no grain) for sure but tonalities are not always my cup of tea. Efke 25 is a beauty though.

I agree I would rather have 4x5 D3200 than 35mm TMX 25.

I have also made enlargements from TMX and the grain is so fine that you start seeing the lens resolution, camera shake, microscopic dust particles, and you still can't resolve fine detail the way larger formats do...I think it has to do with the thickness of 35mm film base+emulsion versus the image dimension.

Roger Cole said:

How about the Rollei ATP that's advertised as a Tech Pan replacement?

Click to expand...

That is the ticket. Develop it with POTA to make it look somewhat normal. It is slow this way, of course. But finer in grain and higher in resolution than anything I have ever used.

This being said, do you really need it? T-Max is great stuff, and it is a more convenient speed.

I also don't understand why one would bother with Rollei ATP for grain alone when Acros or TMX is so fine-grained. Tonality would probably make more sense. TP had a nice extended red. Is this true with Rollei? I've used TP several times and found that diluted Microphen worked great. TP had somewhat digital tonality and all the blemishes of technique were glaringly obvious. Things that one would assume should have been in focus weren't.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/TechPan/techpan.html

Another alternative is to TP is Kodak Imagelink.

Pan F has finer grain than Tmax 100, so does EFKE/Adox 25 but it has its own unique look & feel.

Pan F in Perceptol is effectively the finest fine grain film available, although Agfa's AP25 & later APX25 were better but they've been long discontinued.

Sure Technical Pan and other technical/microfilms have (or had) finer grain but tonality and ease of use is compromised.

When I first used EFKE KB14 (the old DIN name now called KB25 - the ASA/ISO name) in the early 70's it was streets ahead of any other film and a 35mm neg was close in terms of grain to a 5"x4" 100 ASA neg with the same developer, so was tonality and sharpness but you needed to use a tripod or flash. I used a lot of microfilms as well but then speeds were more like 6 ASA so no use for hand held work.

If Pan F was available as a sheet film I'd use it, I want a film that allows me to shoot at f22 and slow shutter speeds, and I would prefer the same films available as 120 and 25mm as well.

Ian

2F/2F said:

That is the ticket. Develop it with POTA to make it look somewhat normal. It is slow this way, of course. But finer in grain and higher in resolution than anything I have ever used.

This being said, do you really need it? T-Max is great stuff, and it is a more convenient speed.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on not needing it. I don't print larger than 11x14 from 35mm, and only hope to go up to 16x20 from MF and 4x5 if I ever buy an easel that will accommodate that paper size. I'm quite happy with the grain of modern 100 speed films (and even conventional 400 speed films for that matter, feeling that for spontaneous shooting hand held "grain is the brushstroke of photography" anyway, and where I want invisible grain I'm using the 4x5 on a tripod and even 400 films appear grainless at 4x and less enlargement.

But YMMV. If you really want to make the finest grain 30x40" or whatever giant sized prints possible from 35mm, have at the really slow films.

finer grained than TMX

ACROS developed in Fuji Microfine has finer grain than TMX. Imagelink FS and HQ films also have finer grain than TMX. Of the slow films I miss Panatomic-X the most.

I remember seeing a former photo professor made an absolutely grainless 16x20 from a 35mm neg. The image was shot on H&W control from Porter's camera. It was over 20 years ago and I don't know if they even make the stuff any more.

dynachrome said:

ACROS developed in Fuji Microfine has finer grain than TMX. Imagelink FS and HQ films also have finer grain than TMX. Of the slow films I miss Panatomic-X the most.

Click to expand...

Is Fuji Microfine currently available in the US?

I am not sure if this is off topic, but I will have a go as I think it is relevant.
What is the closest modern age available film to APX 25? I have searched the archives on apug, and the discussions are all pretty old or bordering on argumentative. I am a relative newby to film, having only gotten serious in the last year or so. When APX 25 comes up it seems to get religious levels of passionate debate.

I have a nice supply of APX 100 thanks to Ultrafine Online and about 100 feet of APX 400 off a fellow APUGer. I have recently seen several eBay auctions pop up with old stock of APX25 and PanatomicX that has God knows what kind of storage history selling for extremely high cost (to me at least).

Now I have been able to stash about 300 feet of TechPan away in my freezer. So far my results have been pretty impressive using P. Formulary TD3 for souping. I also have about 50 rolls of rollei ATP 1.1 in 120 format stashed away. Tests with it have been good, but my scanner quality for anything other than 35mm is lacking, so really my 35mm and 120 scans wind up being pretty close in quality. At this point in my life a real darkroom and enlarger setup is just outside my means for space/storage.

I have developed some Imagelink HQ, HSU, and copex microfilms in 16mm and minox formats, but that seems to be the only size I can actually source. I do also have a couple rolls of CMS20 in 35mm in my bag waiting to be shot.

I guess ultimately i feel like I want to be able to say i have at least expeienced all or most of the iconic films of recent history. So, given all my existing low speed stock that seems to be in the same asa range, am I going to get some sort of experience to match what I might have seen with the real APX25? Or should I bite the auction bullet and risk it on some of the real thing? FWIW, I have considered some of the Rollei 25 and Efke 25 that is available at Freestyle or B&H.

I kind of look at it like being able to shoot Kodachrome before time ran out. I don't have any iconic favorite keeper slides. However, I did get to fire off 4 rolls of K25, and I feel like I did get a little glimpse of nostalgia/history because of that. And before someone reminds me to focus on mastering one particular emulsion before branching out, keep in mind that (at least partially for this instance) my motivation is not only to make great final images. I really am trying to get these emulsions while I still can find them on the market. I also don't feel as bad about stashing away the low ISO B&W films for years to come. My Tech Pan bulk rolls are many many years out of date and still have virtually no fog.

TP and APX 25 are very close. Use your TP. One thing I hated about TP is the ridiculous polyester base. It has a very strong curl, prone to dirt and dust. Hard to work with. In any case TMX or Acros are much easier to work with, and their slightly higher graininness is a tradeoff I wouldn't mind at all.

So what 120 film tends to produce the most contrast?

Vaughn said:

So what 120 film tends to produce the most contrast?

Click to expand...

In a regular developer? Document films.

...and in any case, we're really splitting hairs on this one. TMX is about as good as it gets on the grain issue. We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but in the end the grain in the final print from a TMX negative is so fine that tou can't see it from normal viewing distance. Like the man said, "If you can't see it, it's not there."

If you want to address the tonal qualities of a film, that's a whole different ball game.

Michael R 1974 said:

1. TMX is finer grained than PanF.

Click to expand...

That depends on processing, yes they are closer than when Tmax 100 was first released. APX100 was on a par with Tmax 100 but had the advantage of being a stop faster, Kodak recommended using Tmax 100 at 50EI for good tonality (so did John Sexton in his reports & evaluations).

Having used APX100 (@ 100EI) and Tmax 100 (@ 50EI) in all formats including 35mm the results were virtually indistinguishable, APX100 just had an edge in terms of fine grain/sharpness & tonality. APX25 was even better still but at 25EI less practical for hand held work so I never used it in 35mm where I never use a tripod instead using it in a 6x9 back with my LF camera.

If someone takes the trouble to learn how to use PanF and tame it's slight inherrent contrast with something like dilute Perceptol (1+2 is a good starting point) then they'll achieve outstanding results in terms of exceptionally fine grain, tonality & sharpness.

Ian

The finest grain I have ever seen was on an Efke 25 - which apparently is the same as Rollei Pan 25.
As for ISO 100, the finest I have experienced so far was Across developed in Spur HRX-II/III - although it only has about ISO 50-80 in HRX.

hirokun said:

The finest grain I have ever seen was on an Efke 25 - which apparently is the same as Rollei Pan 25.
As for ISO 100, the finest I have experienced so far was Across developed in Spur HRX-II/III - although it only has about ISO 50-80 in HRX.

Click to expand...

No, Rollei Pan 25 is not EFKE25. Pan25 is from Filmotec in Germany.

TMX and EFKE25 are close in grain, with EFKE25 possibly being a bit finer. But EEFKE25 can be a bit harder to handle. Several microfilms and high contrast special films have finer grain, and many of them can be developed to near normal contrast in POTA-like developers. They all have very low speeds. Kodak Ektar Professional film has finer grain than TMX (by a bit) and 100 speed, But it is a color film.