Low-grain 100/125 ISO film choice

also -- if you are experimenting with different films/developers and looking for low grain. i would be interested in hearing about the adox cms 20 in their adotech developer -- they make some pretty remarkable claims on grain and resolution on their website: grain free enlargements up to 2.5 meters diagonally. over 5 feet from a 35mm negative? freestyle has it for $3.99 i think -- i plan to get some with my next order and give it a try.

If the grain you are getting from Tri-X makes it "unusable" at times, I think something is wrong. I am in the same boat you are...I love developing my negatives and controlling the output but I do not have the ability to print for now. I use 400TX a lot and I buy it from the 100 ft roll; grain has never been a problem for me. Only in Rodinal would I call it "grainy" but even then it looks quite nice. I even shoot it all the way up to 3200 and fine the grain very nice. Even at 1600 it is noticeably less grainy than the so-called high speed films like T-Max 3200 and Neopan 1600.

I've read all this stuff about the quality of scanner and I think to a degree it is true, but also to a degree the results will not be visible to the eye without extreme enlargement. I use an OLD Epson 2450 that we had laying around when I got into analog photography, and I get very usable results from that for both 120 film and 35mm. Sure, it's not the best, but it's just as good as any lab that I've had do it (without paying several dollars per scan). If you ever need a negative scanned to enlarge it beyond what is normal, you can go pay for a scan. Otherwise a flatbed will probably do just fine. I scan my TX with this old scanner and the results are fantastic! That's why I think something else is wrong. What developers have you tried? You can't go wrong with D-76 and 400TX.

Using a 100 ASA film for grain purposes does limit you, and that's one reason Kodak revamped T-MAX 400 (TMY). It is a 400 speed film that literally has the grain and sharpness of most 100 speed films, and it is extremely versatile. I just bought a 100' roll of it to do a bunch of testing. Even developed in Rodinal it looks more like a 100 speed film than a 400. I suggest you may want to give TMY-2 a try. It sounds like a T-Grain film will fit your bill better than a traditional film, and TMY-2 is a brand-new emulsion. Right now I even prefer it over T-Max 100, even if I have the light. If you need a lower speed you can rate it at 200 and pull it, or if you need higher you can rate it at 1600 and push it, all with exceptional results, IMO of course.

Objective grain, RMS granularity. Obviously not the whole story (exposure, developer, etc.) , but it's a "best case" starting point of comparison.

TMX 8
Plus-X 10
TMY 10 and two stops speed gain over Plus-X!
Foma 100 13.5
Foma 200 14....is this a no brainer over the 100?
Tri-X 17

It takes about a 15% difference in RSMG for the human eye to notice a "just barely" difference. So the difference between PX and Foma 100 is quite noticeable.

Hope this takes some subjectivity out of the equation.

the trouble with cheap scacnning is that they are not ccapable to handle the b/w film... not enough dynamic range, the software is adjusted to color negatives films, and the sharpening is brutal (which means - lots of grain when it scans b/w film, much more than u would imagine in good scanner or darkroom even with condenser lamp)... try to avoid it as much as possible anyway ... even if u put tmax100 or even finer grain film, still, the scanner will do a brutal work even if it appears less grainy.

optimal solutions ... get a better service with scanning, or simply buy a nice scanner and sofware with it (silverfast for example) and do it yourself. then plus-x-125 will look amazing even if not darkroom-printed

luckycharms said:

On a side note, how bad of an investment is a $75 Epson film-enabled scanner? I mean, I know it won't be perfect, but at least I'd be able to turn off image correction and get scans without blobs and blotches right? Or am I better off taking my $75, collecting it in a pile, and burning it?

Click to expand...

You will be much better off looking for a good used 35mm film scanner. They come up on Ebay all the time for $75 or less. Be prepared to learn how to use VueScan and set up SCSI devices. If you want more advice PM me and I can give you a few models to look for (this isn't really the forum for this).

Again, thank you for the flood of good advice. Looking more closely at my scans, I have gotten a good number of Agfapan scans with 400 rated at 400 that work for me.The one-stop pushes are rough but sometimes salvageable, while the two-stops are, well, rough. I'm going to see what the TMX100 looks like (hopefully by the end of the weekend), and the next roll after that will be TMX400, so I should be getting some experience with some very low grain film. We'll see what commercial scans of these look like. I'll also throw some Plus-X (Arista Premium, right?) in with my next Freestyle order, since it seems to have a rabid following, along with maybe some more TX400 (Arista Premium 400? Gotta love Freestyle).

I am looking into my negative scanner options as well.

kodachrome64 said:

If the grain you are getting from Tri-X makes it "unusable" at times, I think something is wrong. I am in the same boat you are...I love developing my negatives and controlling the output but I do not have the ability to print for now. I use 400TX a lot and I buy it from the 100 ft roll; grain has never been a problem for me. Only in Rodinal would I call it "grainy" but even then it looks quite nice. I even shoot it all the way up to 3200 and fine the grain very nice. Even at 1600 it is noticeably less grainy than the so-called high speed films like T-Max 3200 and Neopan 1600.

Click to expand...

Well, "unusable" may have been an overstatement- they are grainy for sure, but in some contexts it looks good.The biggest issue is that it's been inconsistent from frame to frame. I really do need to shoot some more of it- I plan on ordering a few rolls in the next week or so from Freestyle, so we'll see what those look like. I guess what I meant was it's not something I can see using for all purposes.

domaz said:

You will be much better off looking for a good used 35mm film scanner. They come up on Ebay all the time for $75 or less. Be prepared to learn how to use VueScan and set up SCSI devices. If you want more advice PM me and I can give you a few models to look for (this isn't really the forum for this).

Click to expand...

Yes, $75 for SCSI scanners, 5 times that for USB 2.0 of 2400 dpi or greater.

The mere fact that many people no longer even use a desktop of either PC or Mac genes eliminates that option. Yes, there is aUSB to SCSI adaptor, but when I investigated that a couple of years ago it was USB 1.0. I could never even get USB to parallel port adapters to work correctly. If you have an old Mac with SCSI you are in luck. If you use a PC, you better make sure the scanner comes with cables, PCI card, and all drivers.

SCSI is effectively in the dust bin of computer history.

vic vic said:

optimal solutions ... get a better service with scanning, or simply buy a nice scanner and sofware with it (silverfast for example) and do it yourself. then plus-x-125 will look amazing even if not darkroom-printed

Click to expand...

I have to agree with this and what other people have said about scanning, a decent scanner WILL make any BW negative shine. On this webpage:

http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_optimalscanningresolution.htm

you will find a 100% view sample of Plus X scanned at 3000 ppi on a professional Imacon Flextight 949. I think it will show you what a good scanner is capable of with BW film... a second hand film scanner like a Nikon should be comparable.

But in the end, nothing beats the feel of your own prints coming out the developing baths...

Paul Verizzo said:

Yes, $75 for SCSI scanners, 5 times that for USB 2.0 of 2400 dpi or greater.

The mere fact that many people no longer even use a desktop of either PC or Mac genes eliminates that option. Yes, there is aUSB to SCSI adaptor, but when I investigated that a couple of years ago it was USB 1.0. I could never even get USB to parallel port adapters to work correctly. If you have an old Mac with SCSI you are in luck. If you use a PC, you better make sure the scanner comes with cables, PCI card, and all drivers.

SCSI is effectively in the dust bin of computer history.

Click to expand...

Firewire-SCSI adapter exist now as do USB 2.0-SCSI adapters. It's not hard to find PCI SCSI cards for very little money, and drivers aren't an issue if you get a scanner that can work with VueScan. SCSI is still used widely in server hardware so it's not in the dustbin of history. It's a simple case of if you have the patience to setup a SCSI scanner you reap the benefits. If you don't spend hundreds more on a new USB flatbed that has worse quality.

domaz said:

Firewire-SCSI adapter exist now as do USB 2.0-SCSI adapters. It's not hard to find PCI SCSI cards for very little money, and drivers aren't an issue if you get a scanner that can work with VueScan. SCSI is still used widely in server hardware so it's not in the dustbin of history. It's a simple case of if you have the patience to setup a SCSI scanner you reap the benefits. If you don't spend hundreds more on a new USB flatbed that has worse quality.

Click to expand...

We aren't in disagreement. I was looking at SCSI from a typical home computer user's perspective. I have found USB-Whatever adapters hit and miss, some work fine all of the time, some work some of the time, some not at all. Those results rotate with the specific computer and how cooperative the USB system wants to be. I try to avoid adapters.

You are right about Firewire as an alternative, I didn't think of that, nor do I recall pricing on FW scanners. What little I recall puts it with USB 2.0.

I have fallen in love with Kodak T-max film. I have heard many recommendations for other 100 speed films as well as T-Max 100. Right now I only shoot T-Max 100 and 400 and love them both for their extremely fine grain, sharp image, and great tonal qualities. I have enlarged a T-Max 100 (TMX) 6x4.5 negative to 20x24 and compared it to a T-Max 400 (TMY-2) 6x4.5 at 8x10 and found the grain to look about the same, which for both, was incredible. I have also heard great things about Fuji Acros 100 and Ilford FP-4 125. I think you would be very pleased with any of these. See if any local camera shops near you have a darkroom. I lucked out immensely when I moved to Savannah, Georgia and was checking out local camera shops. One I visited had a full darkroom and I told the owner I wanted to learn how to print B/W since I had recently started developing myself. She graciously told me I could use their darkroom any time the store was open for no charge, and since hardly anyone brings traditional black and white film in anymore for darkroom printing, that I would have it all to myself. I am so grateful because I have learned so much in the last 5 months and I am addicted. The owner even gives me paper and chemicals to get me going. It's good business for them too, as I purchase much more from them than if I wasn't ever there. You never know, you may luck out as I have, so it's definitely worth checking out.

What a great arrangement you lucked into with the shop owner, I'm very envious. As a recent "returnee" to film, I too am limiting myself to TMAX 100 and 400 for both 35mm and the 4x5, which is entirely new to me. Very happy with both. Sometime I might experiment with other film, but I suspect it will be by choice rather than feeling I need something better.

I've been experimenting of late with Acros 100 developed in Ilford's DDX at standard time with only 2 inversions/min.

The results have been quite satisfactory as far as scanning goes: very small, unobtrusive and easily removed grain at even 4000 on a nikon coolscan V ED. In fact in some cases I'm not even removing it!
And the smooth range with this developer/time/agitation combo is really working well for me.

Can't recommend any flatbed scanner: my experiences with epson 4990 and v700 have not been satisfactory at all with 35mm.

Update:

Finshed off the 100TMX earlier this afternoon. Developed it in F76+ 1+19 for 12 minutes as per the chart. The negatives look great to me, but the negatives aren't the issue. They should be dry in time to get a few 4x6s done at CVS downtown tonight (maybe tomorrow morning is more realistic) and see the results of my little experiment. I bracketed most of the shots 0, -1 because I'd like to see some darker tonalities. Bad idea? Probably. We'll see tomorrow.

The T-Max development process was less intimidating than I expected it to be. The initial rinse and developer came out a little pink, the fixer came out bright pink (Clearfix Neutral 1+4 for 10 minutes), and the first few washes after the fix may have been just a little bit pink. Plenty of rinses and the negatives look fine. I was expecting a little more of a disaster, but it went fine.