Is anything finer grained than TMX?

Of course, if you want to take the grain issue out of the equation, contact print any film bigger than 4x5. Tri-X push-processed in Rodinal 1:10 run hot would still be grainless in an 8x10 contact print.

ath said:

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

Click to expand...

Ditto. Efke 25 is far different from Rollei Pan 25. And I would not call the Efke particularly fine grained for a film that slow. What I mean is that it is fine grained, but not when compared to other low-speed films.

2F/2F said:

Ditto. Efke 25 is far different from Rollei Pan 25.

Click to expand...

Now that's weird, because I was told by the producers of the Rollei Pan 25 that it is

den 1:1 identischen Rollei Pan 25

Click to expand...

(translated from German) "1:1 identical".

Why would the Rollei guy lie about it?

hirokun said:

Now that's weird, because I was told by the producers of the Rollei Pan 25 that it is



(translated from German) "1:1 identical".

Why would the Rollei guy lie about it?

Click to expand...

Do you have a link for this? Or was it an email? In that case please post the complete sentence.

Pan F is great, but for speed T-Max 400 is not too bad.

Jeff

ath said:

Do you have a link for this? Or was it an email? In that case please post the complete sentence.

Click to expand...

It was an email. However, I found the same statement on a website:

This version Efkepan 25 is 1:1 identical to Rollei Pan 25 .

Click to expand...

source: http://www.macodirect.de/efke-r-25-120-p-391.html?language=en

Thanks, that's interesting. The same statement (vice versa) is given for Rollei Pan25 and the german version says the same. I guess they are serious.
But I'm not sure what this means. I'm quite sure that they were different films a few years ago.

edit: I found this statement from Maco (there was a url link here which no longer exists):

Rollei-Film said:

[...]
Pan 25 never changed since 20 years. Now Maco is selling out this film as 35mm and is now selling the Efke Pan 25.
[...]
Sebastian Junghans
s.junghans@mahn.net

Click to expand...

Whatever this means...

Since there have been claims that the Rollei Pan 25 and Ekfe KB25 is not the same film, I find it very reassuring to see such evidence of the contrary. It makes me wonder what they saw that was different.

BetterSense said:

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?

Click to expand...

T-Max anything has no space in my fridge, camera, life. It's a complete farce (to my eyes).


For absolute fine grain, try Rollei Ortho25, even Rollei 400S is finer grained than the Deltas (ugh) and Plus-X. These especially are if you're working in 120. For 35, the AMS20 is the absolute finest grained film on the planet. I've seen images taken with it, and the clarity & detail are so sharp, it's difficult to believe it's not MF.


When it comes to fine-grained film, just leave American/Japanese film out of it, and except for Pan F, the British as well. Ya gotta go with the Europeans. They know what they're doing better than anyone else on the planet.

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that Tmax is a farce?

Michael's reply makes a lot of sense. I toyed with the idea of trying some of those exotic films a while back, but hastily decided against it after reading about a lot of development issues, from people that I trust to have sound methods of processing film.

As a user of fabricated grain films (TMax 400, Acros, and Delta 3200), I can honestly say that for my use, those films just give me a better print. That doesn't make it superior to traditional grain films, but different.
So there's no sense in categorizing them as a farce, because one man's ceiling is another man's floor. We all like different things.

As a user friendly solution to the original question, I recommend, without any hesitation, Kodak TMax 100 / Fuji Acros / Ilford Delta 100 as some of the highest quality, fine grain, high resolution, and sharp films out there that are also practical to use. They are very 'malleable' in how they respond to development and exposure changes, giving you the ability to create almost any tone curve you want. That is important. And it is, like Michael points out, important that results are repeatable, reliable, and from an emulsion that is of extremely high quality, having passed through a very rigorous quality control.

If you NEED finer grain than those films, then it's time to explore options, which could potentially be something like CMS20, but be prepared for some pretty severe limitations in how useful they are.

I concur, but I'd say if you need finer grain than those, what you really need is a bigger negative.

BetterSense said:

Just out of curiosity, why do you think that Tmax is a farce?

Click to expand...

In the over 20 years I've tried it (even some freebie new TMY-2.....which I will admit to being better than the original TMY) it wasn't until TMY-2 I was able to come up with negatives from the T-Mudd group, which were barely acceptable. And this was using HC-110 1:50 (dil H).


But those do not compare to the results made with: Rollei ORTHO25, Rollei 80s, Rolleipan 200, Rollei 400S. Since when is Belgium considered "Eastern Europe"?


The R&D of Agfa is what fuels the new Rollei films. So one can clearly expect the legendary Agfa stamp of excellence which is sorely missed in the photographic world.


Rollei ATP1.1 has replaced/surpassed EK's Tech Pan (which was also prone to manufacturing disasters, and required its own special developer). There is also Rollei IR400, and a Rollei ATO2.1 Advanced Technical Ortho Supergraphic, which going by name alone, HAS to be finer grained than anything the competition has to offer. However, upon inspection, the details are: Orthochromatic 25 ISO b&w film with extremely fine grain, excellent tonality, and controllable contrast. Available in 35, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 formats.


This is a film I plan on trying. Slower speeds do not hinder nor scare me. Quite the opposite, they excite me, as something which has been severely lacking in film choice for quite sometime. The available formats seem to indicate this film is intended for the more experienced photographer, by including the LF sizes as standard fare.


Shooting in either my Rolleis or Mamiya 645 ProTL, the results I've had from the Rollei films tell me they're the best for me (especially making up for the non-Zeiss-ness of the Mamiya lenses), Rollei gives the best results of anything since the APX series died out.


On a separate note, tried the Rollei CN200 in a ContaxG with Zeiss lens, and it seemed to closest to the classic color of the '30s/'40s. Almost a quasi-Kodachrome effect to the color. i hope Rollei is able to come out with a viable replacement for Kodachrome. The 1 EK product I could always count on.

Michael R 1974 said:

.

Regarding leaving American/Japanese behind and favouring non-Ilford European films, that is ridiculous. First, what evidence is there that eastern European films are better? How are they better exactly? Because they are so-called old style emulsions? Second, in some cases we don't even know what these films are. Quality control and consistency are important, and in this respect, Ilford, Kodak and Fuji are by far the most reliable.

Lastly, it bears repeating that CMS20 is not the answer. There is more to a film than fine grain. Of course CMS20 is finer grained than TMX. It is a document film. It is also of inconsistent quality, has a very limited tonal scale, extremely low speed, and is almost guaranteed to develop unevenly in its "matched" Adotech developer.

Click to expand...

See latest reply. Also responds to your accusations.

Rolleijoe said:

See latest reply. Also responds to your accusations.

Click to expand...

Dear Rolleijoe,

I have a problem.

You categorically and unequivocally dismiss all of the fabricated grain film as 'T-mudd'. At the same time, I am having the best results I have ever had, in my prints, from the same films. They are crisp, they are clear, they are sharp, and they are virtually grain free to 16x20" print size from 35mm. I am comparing to films like APX 100, which I used a lot in the past.

To you, your Rollei films work best. But you haven't described a single aspect of WHY they are your favorites. What is it about them that stands out so much? What makes them that much better? Please be specific and it would be educational if you had some way to relate that to more commonly available materials.

Educate us.

Please.

Rolleijoe said:

In the over 20 years I've tried it (even some freebie new TMY-2.....which I will admit to being better than the original TMY) it wasn't until TMY-2 I was able to come up with negatives from the T-Mudd group, which were barely acceptable. And this was using HC-110 1:50 (dil H).


But those do not compare to the results made with: Rollei ORTHO25, Rollei 80s, Rolleipan 200, Rollei 400S. Since when is Belgium considered "Eastern Europe"?


The R&D of Agfa is what fuels the new Rollei films. So one can clearly expect the legendary Agfa stamp of excellence which is sorely missed in the photographic world.


Rollei ATP1.1 has replaced/surpassed EK's Tech Pan (which was also prone to manufacturing disasters, and required its own special developer). There is also Rollei IR400, and a Rollei ATO2.1 Advanced Technical Ortho Supergraphic, which going by name alone, HAS to be finer grained than anything the competition has to offer. However, upon inspection, the details are: Orthochromatic 25 ISO b&w film with extremely fine grain, excellent tonality, and controllable contrast. Available in 35, 120, 4x5, and 8x10 formats.


This is a film I plan on trying. Slower speeds do not hinder nor scare me. Quite the opposite, they excite me, as something which has been severely lacking in film choice for quite sometime. The available formats seem to indicate this film is intended for the more experienced photographer, by including the LF sizes as standard fare.


Shooting in either my Rolleis or Mamiya 645 ProTL, the results I've had from the Rollei films tell me they're the best for me (especially making up for the non-Zeiss-ness of the Mamiya lenses), Rollei gives the best results of anything since the APX series died out.


On a separate note, tried the Rollei CN200 in a ContaxG with Zeiss lens, and it seemed to closest to the classic color of the '30s/'40s. Almost a quasi-Kodachrome effect to the color. i hope Rollei is able to come out with a viable replacement for Kodachrome. The 1 EK product I could always count on.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's me, but I don't quite get this discussion: why are you even comparing emulsions like TMY to Rollei ATP, Ortho, etc? Aside from grain, comparisons are totally futile. You may not like TMY and the likes but go try to make a decent landscape image with ATP or Ortho and let me know how it goes. They do have their application, albeit rather limited, such as still life, some portraiture, abstracts but, aside from that, I find little need to use them. Rollei Pan 25 may be one exception but again, TMX, TMY and Acros, certainly in medium or large format, can pretty cover all the bases when it comes to latitude, grain, and most of all, tonality.

bwrules said:

In a regular developer? Document films.

Click to expand...

Sorry for coming back so late. I am not quite sure what "document films" are.

To be more specific, I was wondering what film(s) would produce the highest contrast, yet keep the full tonal range. The application would be for landscapes of average to high SBR for the use directly for carbon printing, or perhaps a little less contrast for platinum printing without the use of contrast agents.

Thank you.

I wrote up my own observations of most of these films last year (MF starts here). Suffice to say that I have not been able to find a better, currently available, fine grained roll film than Rollei 25 (Maco 25 ?), considering all aspects important to my particular style and subjects – although I am always looking for better (APX 25 R.I.P.)!

It's fair enough to say you don't like tabular grain films for your own use. It's another thing to dismiss them as a farce. I shoot a fair amount of Tri-X in 35mm because I like the results in Diafine at 1200-1600, and have found no other film/developer combination that gives me results I like as well at that speed. So when I want one film for any light down to a bright living room but don't need to shoot by firelight or a dim living room (which calls for TMZ) that's what I use. And I often but not always shoot Tri-X or FP4+ (and curse the discontinuance of Plux-X in 120, and thinking about buying up some while I can off the 'bay) in 120; that's because they are easier to get good results with and fine grained enough for me in medium format. But if I want the best results I can get in medium format, it's TMX or TMY-2. In 4x5 I shoot TMY-2 mainly. If I have the LF up on a tripod and spot meter out I'm taking my time anyway, and I get superb results.

I find the new films excellent, but they do take more care. Sometimes I use that. Sometimes when I want to shoot fast and wing exposures I use older films that are good enough and more forgiving. But that's ME. Use what works for you. The idea that they are "a farce" or "T-mudd" is absurd. Rather than muddy, if anything they are prone to building too much contrast if I'm not careful.

Vaughn said:

Sorry for coming back so late. I am not quite sure what "document films" are.


Thank you.

Click to expand...

Tech Pan, Imagelink, Rollei ATP.

Vaughn said:

Sorry for coming back so late. I am not quite sure what "document films" are.

To be more specific, I was wondering what film(s) would produce the highest contrast, yet keep the full tonal range. The application would be for landscapes of average to high SBR for the use directly for carbon printing, or perhaps a little less contrast for platinum printing without the use of contrast agents.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

Hi Vaughn,

My experience with document films is limited. Essentially they are extremely fine grain films, exhibiting very high contrast and ultra high resolution.
I'm fairly certain they got their name for their suitability to document things like text, for example, where a lot of grayscale isn't necessary, but you only really need black or white, with very little in between. I also seem to remember that reciprocity characteristics for this film was outstanding, meaning that it enabled things like astrophotography with reasonable exposure times when it's dark.

Anybody knowing more about document films, please chime in.

- Thomas

Michael R 1974 said:

What specific characteristics made your TMY negatives "unacceptable", and your TMY2 negatives "barely acceptable"?

What specifically makes these "Rollei" films the best?

Click to expand...

Thomas Bertilsson said:

Dear Rolleijoe,

I have a problem.

You categorically and unequivocally dismiss all of the fabricated grain film as 'T-mudd'.

Click to expand...

For some reason I get the feeling that Rolleijoe would be a great salesman for Rollei products. It's a shame he lives in Belgium and not in Germany.

I wouldn't take his posts too seriously. Obviously, they are very emotional (with all the italic & bold fonts) and it comes down to just a matter of taste.

While I have to admit that (in b&w) I have been mostly shooting Rollei films recently (well, for the past 3 years), I wouldn't describe Rollei films in general superior to Kodak/Ilford/Fuji films (in general) - or vice versa. Every film is difficult, so it's hard to speak in general for a whole brand. Each film has its characteristics which come in handy for certain situations/scenes, while the same advantageous characteristics can come as a handicap in other situations.

For example the Rollei Superpan 200. When processing as a b&w negative, I never quite liked it. Only when I started processing b&w slides I came to appreciate the Superpan. In b&w (negative) I frequently shoot Fuji Neopan Acros, Kodak T-MAX 400, Efke 25. b&w slides, however, I only shoot with Rollei films (Superpan & 80s).

In addition to each film being different and therefore not being able to reduce them to one brand, comes that all film respond differently to different developers. Acros in Spur HRX III cannot be compared to Acros in Rodinal. Neither can Superpan in HRX be compared to Superpan in Rollei RHS. While HRX3 is my preferred choice for Acros, I won't ever use it again with Superpan.

I never had any problem with Adox CMS 20. I develop it in adotech developer or in technidol, it is consistent with quality, and develop perfectly.

hirokun said:

While I have to admit that (in b&w) I have been mostly shooting Rollei films recently (well, for the past 3 years), I wouldn't describe Rollei films in general superior to Kodak/Ilford/Fuji films (in general) - or vice versa. Every film is difficult, so it's hard to speak in general for a whole brand. Each film has its characteristics which come in handy for certain situations/scenes, while the same advantageous characteristics can come as a handicap in other situations.

For example the Rollei Superpan 200. When processing as a b&w negative, I never quite liked it. Only when I started processing b&w slides I came to appreciate the Superpan.

Click to expand...

I have never tried any of the Rollei films, so I will not judge them. I am aware that they are available to me, and some day I probably will try them.

But, and this is a very big 'but', I always fail to see the logic behind certain films being 'difficult' in certain situations. (I am not including specialty films, like document films here, because their application is specific).
My experience is that ANY lighting scenario can be overcome with good technique, using one single emulsion. It is true that I personally use two emulsions. But that is mostly so that I can cover my ass if one of them are not manufactured anymore. But I would get by just fine, for everything, with just one emulsion. Fine results in every up-thinkable lighting scenario. Just tweak exposure and development, even with just one single developer. And it isn't even difficult. In high contrast lighting, I shoot at box speed, and process while agitating every 3 minutes. In medium contrast I shoot at box speed, and maybe one stop less than box speed, depending on what I want, and agitate either every minute or every two minutes, also depending on what I want. In flat lighting, I shoot at one or two stops less than box speed, and process agitating every 30s, 1m, or 2m depending on what I want from the film. I am adjusting the films shadow detail with developing time, while placing the mid-tones with exposure, and adjusting the highlights with agitation. All that with one single film and one developer.

So I get back to your post. What is it, in particular, that you don't like when you process Superpan as a negative? What is it, in your final prints, that you don't like? And what is it that you like about it so much more when you use it as a positive? Be specific, please. I am sure you can help us out with more detail than 'I don't like it'. What is different, in your final prints, between HRX3 and Rodinal derived Acros negatives? HOW do they differ?

Thomas Bertilsson said:

But, and this is a very big 'but', I always fail to see the logic behind certain films being 'difficult' in certain situations.

Click to expand...

For starters: try to google panchromatic, superpanchromatic, orthochromatic, orthopan and infrared....
Those film characteristics alone have an impact on the image / subject.
Next would be film speed, but I guess you were aware of that. Try shooting a smooth waterfall with long exposure on a bright, sunny summer day with ISO 400 or even 100. Unless you have a really dark ND filter with you, good luck exposing for several seconds. Pull processing won't help (enough) either.

As I wrote before, it often is really a matter of taste. Of course there are ways to measure grain, density and what not. But in the end it's every single photographer's eye (and heart) that decides whether the picture (and film characteristic) is a 'yes' or a 'no' for that particular situation.

But, to get back to your questions:
I generally like smooth pictures with little visible grain, at least for my photography. Only in very few situations I like to have visible grain. That's why I got to use the combination of Acros + HRX3 so much. Produces very fine grain, yet a nice, sharp, crispy image.
Superpan (in RHS) on the other hand needs much longer processing. Way too long for me (and my patience/arms). In HRX3 it won't get a crisp as the Acros. I use HRX3 for TMY, too. Superpan, however, I only use when reverse processing.

As an end note:
I am curious - why do you say that you don't believe in films being difficult (or good) in certain situations, when in the same sentence you exclude "specialty" and "document" films? To me, that's a contradiction and proves that films in fact have different characteristics. Document or "specialty" films, of course, are extremes. But why - in your logic - would different characteristics not exist for all other films then? Why would a single manufacturer produce various films with the same speed if they all can handle the same situations and even achieve the same look when processed longer/shorter (or agitated more/less often) like you suggest?