Resolution - a few 400 speed films under the loupe

[Tom Stanworth]

I have been doing some testing with a few films to screw down dev times under various conditions and have spent a long time staring that the negs under a 10x loupe. The testing involved shooting the same scene again and again and of course developing the film. What struck me was that the resolution difference between films of the same speed was much larger than I had expected, two in particular. I used:

TriX 400
Neopan 400
Delta 400

It was not so much the fact that delta had a far higher resolution that amazed me, but rather how poorly TriX fared compared to the Neopan. I was shooting using a Mamiya 7 handheld at between 1/250 and 1/500th with a 65mm lens at F11, leaning on a low wall. The scene had a number of small trees with well defined frond like leaves which were ideal for observing reolving power (not my original goal). There was also a fair amount of barbed wire/spiked railings at anything from 70-100m.

If one put the Delta 400 at 10, the Neopan would score 8 and the TriX 4.

This is a subjective scale, but the pattern is consistent across over a dozen rolls. Neopan 400 hammers TriX for resolution and is not embarrassed by Delta 400, although the latter does have a clearly identifiable edge in the finest detail. After looking at the neopan negs you really do wonder what is wrong with the TriX; it is clear that if just does not have nearly the same inherent resolution. Negs were put through Xtol 1+2 and DDX 1+6.5 and the result was the same.

Just another comment is how well the Delta 400 performs. It is not too 'hot' at all and is far more controllable than its 100 speed sibling. It behaves more or less like a traditional 400 speed film and after shooting some against the Afghan sun and under various conditions I am amazed at how flexible it is. If you are used to traditional films and are worried about finicky modern emulsions, this one is well worth a go. Although I have yet to test, I bet its resolution gives Fp4+ a run for the money...or more.

As for speed I get better speed in both Neopan and Delta 400 than TriX (about 1/3 stop slower than the other two). I comfortably get box speed out of D400 and Neopan, but then again I do develop about 10-20% longer than the manufacturers times because of a very soft 10x8 enlarger head and that will undoubteldy give me more speed than the usually severe cuts for condensor users (g1 on my condensor= about g4 on my colour head...)

Now I know why people like pushing TriX over Neopan too, esp when over 800. Neopan quickly keeps building highlight density with development time, whereas TriX is a lower contrast film which picks up some shadow density without going nuts in the highlights. Seems that I could add another 50% to my already long TriX times and it would still be a cinch to print. This is a seriously tolerant film, which up until now I have only used in a fairly conventional way.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'd use a lot more Delta 400 if it were available in sheet sizes. It's really a nice film.

 

[Ian Grant]

Like David I'd shoot Delta 400 in sheet film if it was available. Instead I shoot Delta 100 when using a tripod & HP5 for hand-held 5x4 work, and Delta 400 in my 6x17 again hand-held.

Ian

 

[jim appleyard]

Tom, I ownder if you introduced an unwanted variable into your test--shooting handheld. I wonder if the results would be different if you used a tripod for all exposures? All things were not equal.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think they're all great films, although I haven't used Delta 400 much. I use Tri-X when I can, because I like how it looks. In my little world, resolution is overrated. Neopan I think of as a Tri-X with less grain.
Thanks for your hard comparison work. Question, does the comparison look the same after the negatives have been printed? Just out of curiosity, that would be very useful to know. Both Neopan 400 and Delta 400 have a film base that is much clearer than Tri-X.
- Thomas

 

[psvensson]

Tom, what developer where you using? The accutance of Tri-X (and possibly the resolution) varies a great deal depending on the developer, whereas Delta 400 is much more consistent. But even in the best developers, I doubt Tri-X is as good as Delta.

Tri-X has an undeserved reputation as being a very sharp, robust film. In fact, it has low resolution and the results, in terms of grain, shadow detail and accutance, vary a great deal with the development compared to Delta 400. Of course, thhose features can be used to Tri-X advantage: the low resolution gives and old-fashioned look, and as you noted, it quickly gains shadow detail with overdeveloping in the right developer. If you want big grain, that's hard to coax out of Delta 400, but Rodinal will do it on Tri-X.

 

[OMU]

A very interesting treed.
Is it possible for you to post some examples e.g. one picture from each film in the technical gallery?

A picture could tell more than .. words 

Regards
OM

 

[Ria]

"After looking at the neopan negs you really do wonder what is wrong with the TriX..."

Of course the answer is that there is nothing "wrong" with Tri-X. As with any other film, (or paper or lens or camera, etc.) the characteristics that put off some people are the ones that other people seek.
Ria

 

[nworth]

One of the reasons people take note of Tri-X and not Neopan is familiarity. Neopan is less readily available and less known than Tri-X.

Note that Delta 400 is (more or less) a T-grain film, with characteristics more like TMY (T-Max 400) than Tri-X. Many people feel it is superior to TMY, however.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Tri-X 100 line-pairs/mm: www.cacreeks.com/films.htm
Delta 400 145 lppm: www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=005G7o

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Tom, I ownder if you introduced an unwanted variable into your test--shooting handheld. I wonder if the results would be different if you used a tripod for all exposures? All things were not equal.

At a shutter speed of 1/250-1/500 you wont see any difference between handheld and a tripod. I was also supported on a chest height sand bag wall. The frames were all of consistent sharpness on each roll too - no difference at all. I shot rolls of each film together and repeated on several different days - again, all the same with zero variation. I am very confident the results are indicative.

I am not knocking TriX - I love the film! When I say something looked wrong with it, it is simply in a comparative sense under a loupe. The resolution difference is very noticeable, but I have not tried HP5+, which is likely to be similar to TriX in this regard.

The base fog levels are lower in the Neopan (lower than the delta too) but this is not it. The difference was clearly visible in fine details: leaves, wire, distant antennae, number plates in the lot across the street. As I say, I have looked at about 40 frames from each film and the pattern is clear.

I cant print from here and suspect that the differences on a 16x12 print would be marginal if at all visible. On a 16x20 I bet that the neopan is noticeably more detailed. The difference is quitye significant.

It is not a developer thing as the grains themselves have good definition, but the detail just is not there in the image. The grains are not fuzzy and it not a perception thing either. Try it! I think it is simply that Neopan is very much finer in grain and resolution despite being traditional and the delta 400 is predictably higher in resolution.

 

[pentaxuser]

I cant print from here and suspect that the differences on a 16x12 print would be marginal if at all visible. On a 16x20 I bet that the neopan is noticeably more detailed. The difference is quitye significant.

I have followed this with interest, having never tried Neopan or Tri-X and having used D400 quite number of times but I am confused about the above reference. The differences at 16x12 prints are marginal between which of the three films you mention?

I thought that maybe the marginal comment applied to Neopan and D400 and that by 16 x 12 both had left Tri-X behind but then you go on to say that at 16x20 neopan is more detailed so is this a comparison between Tri-X and Neopan? If is what size is needed for the difference between Neopan and D400 to become apparent?

I am confused.

Thanks for clearing this up

pentaxuser

 

[Claire Senft]

Enjoy your use of the Delta 400 film. I hope that you are using a paper that matches it nicely. You might be interested in trying the new Tmax 400 which Kodak touts as the worlds sharpest 400 film...perhaps it is not available in 120 size at this time.

I believe that you are correct when you say that a 400 speed film shot with a leaf shutter at 1/500 of a sec is as good as using a tripod. If one were using a film with much higher resolving power then I believe it would be less true. I also believe that it might take a fairly large print to make it visible.

Kodak in their professional data guides has stated that gradation is the single most important characteristic of a b&w film...having a paper that is well suited to the negative is also very important.

 

[bdial]

The new Tmax 400 is available in 120, has been for some time now. I have several rolls, purchased from various sources.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

As stated earlier I am not in a position to print the negs at present. The TriX I suspect will show somewhat less fine detail on a 16x12 compared to the other two, but I wont know until I print them. Without doing direct comparisons, I noticed long before this how much more detail 35mm Neopan 400 captured compared to TriX when printed to about 10x8/9.5 x 12, but in many respects I prefer the tonal rendition of the TriX - still undecided. This post was a comment on apparent resolution and nothing more. Often I dont want fine grain....

The new TMY-2 will be interesting for sure, but I will stay with D400 until I know it well and can rely upon it. It was interesting to note that shots from Delta 100 were appreciably better in resolution than D400, but closer in this regard (at least under a 10x loupe) than D400 and TriX. D400 really is not a million miles away from its slower sibling, hence suspecting that it is up there with a conventional 100 speed film. I think it would take a more powerful loupe to really explore the magnitude of the differences because the details which one needs to look at to really see are getting really hard to see. A 10x loupe is already 70cm print (27.5 inches). Its plain impressive that delta 400 manages what it does, though I am sure the tonality is not for everyone. I will find out in the next phase - still the negs look really good in this regard - somewhere between D100 and a conventional film.

The other issue is perceived sharpness and in my subjective view, Delta 400 has greater perceived sharpness than Neopan 400, which has less edgy grain. How these things play out in larger prints I have yet to find out, but as always, I will pick the film that produces the images I 'like' the most, big grain, small grain etc. Never a bad thing to have a few on hand for when fine detail is important, or the ability to build contrast under flat light etc. Can't imagine dropping TriX as it is beautiful IMO. As is Foma 200 when it is not scratched.

 

[Claire Senft]

Just as an aside. I use very little 400 speed gilm. Although I own a Mamiya RZ67 with 4 lenses I really enjoy working with a 35mm camera. It is quite unusual for me to use my 35mm other than on my Majestic tripod with the large geared head. Yesterday, I bought a roll of the new 400 Tmax. I used it handheld. I was walking around and using my Contax RTSIII with a 200m Apo Sonnar. I had an appropriate exposure...using latensified film of 1/8000@ff2.0. I viewed the negatives with a Peak 50x Direct Viewing Microscope...really nothing more than a very nice loupe.
The negatives are very nice and sharp. There is no comparison intended here.

As a further aside there are those that will state that a heavier camera will provide better sharpness when used handheld. I imagine rhere to be some truth in the statement. I have long believed that a heavier camera will more quickly tire your arms and hands and more readily induce camera shake.

After walking and holding this combination mentioned for an hour my hands very very tired indeed.

Of course nothing I have said is to be taken as evidence of any truth at all.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

Just wanted to add that I agree with all of Tom's observations, including the sharpness of Delta 400 compared to Neopan. I think the reason Tri-X has such a big following is its flexibility as no matter what you do you end up with a usable image, however it's a so-so choice when you have things under control. Another interesting comparison is Delta 400 v. Delta 100. Tonally they seem rather different to me, with Delta 400 being of medium contrast and Delta 100 being of significantly higher contrast with wonderful highlight gradation; the Delta 100 look reminds me of Atget. Again, I agree with Tom that the difference in grain/resolution between 100 and 400 isn't as much as you might expect. In summary, it seems that Delta 400 is something of a sleeper when compared to the other 400 films.

 

[bnstein]

I think it was Roger Hicks who wrote/said to the effect of " Tri-X is the second best film for any given purpose".....it does not do any one thing superlatively, but does many many things well. I also like it, but like others if neopan 400 or delta 400 was available in sheet.......

 

[Barry S]

I think Delta 400 may possibly be the best black and white film ever made--and by best I mean of course, my favorite. I agree that Delta 100 and Delta 400 seem like very different films. The creamy tonality of Delta 400 is nothing like the much harsher Delta 100. Delta 400 was reformulated in 2001 and is a more advanced film than Delta 100. Considering the small difference in grain, I don't see the point in shooting Delta 100. In sheet film, I'm finding TMX to be a really beautiful film and I just received a couple boxes of the new TMY-2, and I have high hopes. I hate using Tri-X. Not to say I don't love the work of others using Tri-X, but I don't like that much grain and the way shadows get bunched up.

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks for the results. Resolution is only one characteristic of a film. A film having lower resolution does not mean that there is something wrong with it. It just means that it has lower resolution.....If you are after a film for its purely technical qualities, then you know what to use. However, others want a film for different reasons. I often want a film that doesn't show as much detail. In fact, I usually prefer it. I am also curious as to why you did not test HP5 or T-Max 400. I would also like to see the differences between Tri- 320 and Tri-X 400. I think 120 is the only format in which both are available.

 

[AlanC]

Tom,
Test HP5+ and prepare to be amazed. I recently tested it in 35mm against Delta 400 and 16 x 12 prints were equally sharp. I also found HP5+ to be slightly sharper than FP4, tested at the same time.
We all get obsessed with sharpness and grain, but I believe tonality is far more important. Take a step back from comparative prints and differences in sharpness and grain become difficult to see. But differences in tonality still stand out. The mid tones in my Delta 400 prints had lower values, making the prints look rather dull. The same tones in the HP5+ prints were lighter, producing brighter prints with light and glow.

Alan Clark

 

[wiltw]

Gee, Tri-X has been around a very long time, since 1954!...I had started using it 42+ years ago. One would suspect the newer emulsions were better!

 

[df cardwell]

Judging film under a loupe is valid only if you plan on exhibiting your images under a loupe.

If you want to show prints, judge the film by the prints.

Nothing that you see in your tests has any bearing on the print quality of these films.

 

[Larry Bullis]

At a shutter speed of 1/250-1/500 you wont see any difference between handheld and a tripod.

This may be true under many practical circumstances, but as a generality it won't hold up. For example, I knew someone once who suffered from MS. He shook rather violently; he had to shoot at 1/1000 and even then, his images often showed camera movement. Anyone who has shot many aerials knows that there is only one speed on the camera; the highest one it has. Also, it is dependent upon the f/l of the lens. The old rule with 35mm was that if you use a speed that matches or exceeds the f/l of your lens in mm, you have a probability of a sharp image which increases as your speed increases. Shooting 35mm with a 500 mm lens requires at very least 1/500, and there is no assurance that you are going to get a sharp image, so cover yourself by shooting more frames. As the image is magnified, so is the movement. Same thing in working close up; again, magnification.

If you photograph a slug racing toward a piece of broccoli, using 1/1000 of a second, you might think there is no motion. Wrong! It's there, but you may not be able to magnify the image on the film enough to be able to see it.

The only photographer who can hold perfectly still is a dead photographer, and most of those have stopped working. There may be a few exceptions.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Agree with df Cardwell.
+ so many developers options, so many variables...
As for handheld versus tripod, I find that debate irrelevant.
It seems that by focusing too much on the technique or on tools, you just
forget the essential point, the content of the picture.
A good picture, whatever the sharpness, grain or lack of, is a good picture.
Same for a bad one, with or without tripod.