Resolution - a few 400 speed films under the loupe

[Larry Bullis]

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.

You are absolutely correct.

I do believe, however, that it is very important to understand the principles that one inevitably applies, either with intention or by accident. Without understanding, ultimately, we will approach the "100 monkeys with typewriters" kind of model. We should be able to choose the blur we might wish to introduce - or not - or whatever else will be a part of the image. One can be as picky or as loose as one wishes, but the proof is always in the record as seen in the print. This would include all of the issues that have been discussed in this thread, which, I have to say, is one of the more arcane if not microscopic that I've seen so far.

I may seem to be excessive in my insistence on this sort of thing within the APUG context; if I am it is probably because I've never been privileged to be a "hobbyist" (I often wish I could be - I've tried to remain an amateur even despite the professional life and am working toward a new orientation to my own work) but have had to produce images for purposes of communicating ideas or information. If your livelihood depends on it, knowing what you are doing can be kinda sorta important. This has got me in some trouble here on this venue in the past, if I seem to be disagreeing with some individuals' valid orientations toward their work, when I really might agree entirely. If I'm being a jerk, I don't mean to be, that's for sure.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I agree with both Don and Guillaume.

Question to you all: Why is it important to understand everything from a technical standpoint? That would be like saying a guitarist should understand how to make a guitar, or else he'd be no good at it.

If you know what to expect from a certain developer and film combination, or if you even know what several films and developers do, but from an experimental and experience standpoint, that should be enough. It's like the guitarist matching strings to his guitar or guitars. Whatever sounds best, right?

"It seems that by focusing too much on the technique or on tools, you just forget the essential point, the content of the picture."
My philosophy exactly.

- Thomas

 

[keithwms]

Question to you all: Why is it important to understand everything from a technical standpoint? That would be like saying a guitarist should understand how to make a guitar, or else he'd be no good at it.

Interesting analogy, but... most professional musicians do know a lot about their instruments. A lot more than the average listener, that's for sure.

Indeed, knowing how to make an instrument from scratch is a different issue, but certainly some knowledge of that would also be beneficial too, no? In any case, that is a pretty extreme comparison: this thread is about which films have higher critical sharpness as defined by direct loupe examination. It's not about how to make the t-grained films from scratch.

Anyway... as I have said in various threads, the deltas feel tonally dreamy to me, and as such I tend to associate them with certain kinds of compositions. The traditionals (my favourites being fp4+/hp5+) have more edge bite, and I seem to be using them much more than acros or the deltas lately, because of this. They are different films with different personalities and that is good to know.

Back to the musical analogy: I can name a bunch of different pianos with very different tonal personalities that piano players refer to as bright, murky, wooden, metallic, you name it. A lot of us can't stand electronic pianos at all- the personality is gone, or at best coarsely emulated. I am quite sure that similar thinking applies to guitars or any other instrument....

Of course content trumps all. But knowing how to deliver that content sure is handy.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

I concur especially with Guillaumes' and Thomas' posts. What type of prints does Tri-X make.... I would say pretty damn good from what I have seen from the good folks on here. Tri-X has many followers for a specific look the film exhibits. Especially on portraits. Film types, like cameras, lenses, developers, and printing papers, all contribute to the final image. They are all tools to be used or exploited when the need arises. Pick a la carte combinations for the effect and image you want to make. Simple as that. Saying one film type is better than another is like saying one camera is better than another. It's purely subjective and although interesting to test for those who want to. The actual print is where the rubber meets the road in my mind. The old school 400 speed films from Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji all hit the mark, some are easier to use than others, and they all have a place. Be thankful we have such a choice in times of the ever diminshing analog photography product. Use them and keep them going.

For me, films have to be consistent time over time, batch to batch. All of these 3 contenders offer that. I believe that is also what is most important. Being able to use one of the many combinations for a specific effect, or image 'look' and know that film will perform once you've mastered it. I have a view of simplifying most of my film and developer combinations so that I have fewer distractions when it comes to making images. Consistency, repeatability and learning them inside out for your particular vision is what gives your work a signature. YMMV....Enjoy.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My point was that you listen to find the best strings for your guitar, same as you look at your final prints how you like all the tools you used to get there. You don't analyze it's tonal reproduction with an oscilloscope or something to find out what you like, you use your sensory systems.
It should be enough just to use the materials to know what you like, and that with photography *I think* there is way too much emphasis on the technical aspects of it. A developer behaves the same whether you know its chemical compounds or not or whether you analyzed how it affects grain or sharpness. Either you like it or you don't. Same as the guitar or the piano.

The problem with my approach comes when a certain developer goes out of production and I have to learn how to mix it myself. I won't know how to.

- Thomas

Interesting analogy, but... most professional musicians do know a lot about their instruments. A lot more than the average listener, that's for sure.

Indeed, knowing how to make an instrument from scratch is a different issue, but certainly some knowledge of that would also be beneficial too, no? In any case, that is a pretty extreme comparison: this thread is about which films have higher critical sharpness as defined by direct loupe examination. It's not about how to make the t-grained films from scratch.

Anyway... as I have said in various threads, the deltas feel tonally dreamy to me, and as such I tend to associate them with certain kinds of compositions. The traditionals (my favourites being fp4+/hp5+) have more edge bite, and I seem to be using them much more than acros or the deltas lately, because of this. They are different films with different personalities and that is good to know.

Back to the musical analogy: I can name a bunch of different pianos with very different tonal personalities that piano players refer to as bright, murky, wooden, metallic, you name it. A lot of us can't stand electronic pianos at all- the personality is gone, or at best coarsely emulated. I am quite sure that similar thinking applies to guitars or any other instrument....

Of course content trumps all. But knowing how to deliver that content sure is handy.

 

[df cardwell]

My point was that you listen to find the best strings for your guitar...

- Thomas

You might, for instance, want the sound that only heavy strings can produce. Then, all you have to do, is learn how to PLAY the damned thing !

Many 400 films are much alike in terms of rendering detail. The differences are most clearly seen in an MTF test, which measures the contrast of an image made at a particular level of detail. While a seemingly significant distinction might be assumed between two films, which might read, for instance, 40 line pairs /mm at 50% contrast, and a second which holds 50% contrast at 50 line pairs, the distinction is too small to perceive by eye and the distinction will be absorbed by the imaging chain of film flatness, lens, aperture, and enlarger.

Far more important to the image is the color rendition of the film and the characteristic curve of the film. Compared to Tri X, which is the touchstone for neutral color, another film might have less sensitivity to blue, which would tend to rend the sky a bit darker than would Tri X, or more sensitivity to red, which would diminish the perception of red blemishes in a face. A film like Neopan 400 tends with many developers to have a more pronounced shoulder than other films, which makes it easier to exploit shadow detail in contrasty scenes. The shortcoming is that it tends to render bright details a bit flatter than Tri X. TMY has a long linear scale, which makes it possible to hold deep shadow and bright highlight at the same time. It can, however, be a handful for an inexperienced printer to interpret a long scale negative to a fully scaled print.

All the films have a specific purpose in mind, and until you have shot important images with them, learned to manage them, and evaluate the prints you've made, you can't see the difference. There really is no better way to choose a film than buy a couple hundred feet of it, a few gallons of D76, and get a notebook. And learn to print extremely well.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you, Don. When you speak, I listen very carefully. Your last two lines feel extremely important. It's how I do it. Except in my case it's 100 rolls of Plus-X and Rodinal, and I print a lot too in my attempt to knowing what goes on and how to exploit my materials to the limit.

- Thomas

 

[df cardwell]

Thank you, Don. When you speak, I listen very carefully. Your last two lines feel extremely important. It's how I do it. Except in my case it's 100 rolls of Plus-X and Rodinal, and I print a lot too in my attempt to knowing what goes on and how to exploit my materials to the limit.

- Thomas

Thomas !~ I wish you had known my teachers... I'm a poor substitute.
BUT from what you are learning, you'll have a lot to offer for a long time.

d

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

I may seem to be excessive in my insistence on this sort of thing within the APUG context; if I am it is probably because I've never been privileged to be a "hobbyist" (I often wish I could be - I've tried to remain an amateur even despite the professional life and am working toward a new orientation to my own work) but have had to produce images for purposes of communicating ideas or information. If your livelihood depends on it, knowing what you are doing can be kinda sorta important.

Bowzart,

You are not the only one, my living is of photography and there are many on APUG as well.
When I was a young photographer I had the chance to meet few of my icons. They destroyed many of my beliefs in a gentle way for some ,Robert Doisneau and Edouard Boubat, in a harsh way with HCB.
Basically, you need to know your basics very well, forget all the "gadgets", and most important educate your eye. Which ultimately decides for everything.
You need to master 1 or 2 film, knowing where you can go with them and where you can't. And you are set.

None of these men really cared for tripods. One didn't care at all of processing or printing, it was his last concern. At my agency, many of my friends don't use it or at the last resort when you cannot do it otherwise.
It's about mobility and instant, it's about speed.

When I used to do portraits for magazines in France the main issue was what the time the guy will give to me. Usually they don't give a damn and they don't have time for you. So you need to be quick, mobile and turn around them. What you need is That moment (I'm not going to say decisive...), focus or not, whatever it is, if you get it... it's good and you get magic.
I tricked them by doing 8x10 portraits and flatter their ego with that big camera and tripod. That usually worked. But now the issue is the accountant of the newspaper who doesn't want to pay for the expenses...but it's another story.
In the 80's a beautiful adventure happened with a newspaper, Liberation. The photo editor, Christian Caujolle completely changed the rules, gave enormous freedom to photographers and changed the photographic landscape for a while. These guys broke so many rules you cannot imagine and they did beauties.
This is why I wanted to become photographer, I joined them, they became my friends and Christian my boss, long time ago.

What I have learnt with any strong work than came across me is that "if your pictures have something to say" they will exist, they will be published.
This is the key point, not the type of film/paper or size of the camera. If you have all three it's even better like a cherry on the cake but if they don't "talk" the rest is irrelevant.

When I came to the US I almost dropped film for Digiboob, depressed by all these changes. Finding APUG gave me the will to continue and now I tone all my prints which I used to never do in France ! So we learn everyday !

Sorry for the novel
It's an after effect of a full day in darkroom and strong coffee !
G.

 

[dr5chrome]

...I would agree with Alans assessment, HP5.

As a film processor [B&W - negs & positives] i find The Hp5 and TXP run very close as far as quality, neopan-400 is also a very good neg film. Hp5 favors a higher speed without image loss but TXP is very unique in its tonal range.

I find the Tgrain 400's difficult at times and the D400 is more Susceptible to odd unexplained damage, TMy is the better of the 2. Its not that they are poor films they just aren't as versicle as the other films.

regards
dw

 

[Larry Bullis]

Guillaume,

What a wonderful response; I feel quite honored. I have to admit that I am hungry for substantive correspondence and find the "forum" structure pretty disappointing much of the time. The worst of it is that I KNOW there are probably dozens of folks out there who might really want the same, but the format holds us to relative trivia, and I think maybe we read and judge too quickly sometimes.

It amazes me that (is this true?) somebody thinks I'm advocating an excessively technical orientation or that I am promoting use of a tripod! I hardly ever use one! For me, photography, at its best, is a kind of a dance, and my method is essentially intuitive, my eye is quick. It's just that the intuition is not magic. It must be informed. I'm always in trouble because it seems, I say what seems to want to be said. (Hey, one of MY icons and friends was Imogen Cunningham - and she'd say anything that was right, and she'd say it right now!) If someone offers an opportunity to explore the wonderful complexity that photography offers, I just can't resist. I go. I go chemistry, I go physics, I go art history, I go philosophy, I go love, I just go.

None of these men really cared for tripods. One didn't care at all of processing or printing, it was his last concern. At my agency, many of my friends don't use it or at the last resort when you cannot do it otherwise. It's about mobility and instant, it's about speed.

.............

What I have learnt with any strong work than came across me is that "if your pictures have something to say" they will exist, they will be published. This is the key point, not the type of film/paper or size of the camera. If you have all three it's even better like a cherry on the cake but if they don't "talk" the rest is irrelevant.

Do I write so badly that what comes through is about "tripods" -- come on. I agree entirely with your conclusions. I can't believe that "tripods" is what comes through for anyone. This is very frustrating, I feel entirely misunderstood. Whatever, though, my getting in trouble often produces wonderful and unexpected result, like your response.

And if you ever want to write a novel, count on me to pay full price and read it cover to cover.

My name is Larry Bullis. I had a studio in Bow Washington; that's why I use "bowzart". Glad to meet you.

 

[df cardwell]

Momentary Hijack

If I could, I surely would... get together in person with y'all.
A lot of distance between us,
and I wish we had a better way to communicate than a threaded forum.
Still, we have this ! And those long meandering e-mails.
VOIP and those other talk-to-each-other-for-free things that I don't really understand, but I'M TRYING, friends, really !

Actually meeting.
Those times are rare, though, and
should be encouraged.

I KNOW what Larry/Bowz is saying - the more intuitive a person is,
the more it is necessary to revert to hyper-technicality when we try to share an idea.
In a forum, pointing, waving, making faces, grunting, or laughing madly just doesn't really get it.

I see, and think, in pictures. With words, I have to step way back and try to describe the picture.
It usually comes off as too technical, but it is the best I can do. I suspect there are a few others out there.

OK, back to work. Gotta soup some film, braise some red cabbage, and lay the lawn sprinklers out for Halloween.

d

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr Cardwell up at Bill Schwab's place, and boy do I wish the same thing he does - to get together in face to face discussions, or just hang out with you all for a beer, coffee, or just sharing the same air.
Guillaume - I have the honor to own one of your prints, and I know that you have the ability to translate all of what you say in discussion into art. That I respect, and knowing your results, I value your input a lot.
I really think that is the root of the problem in the forums, its imperfections - we cannot view each others' accomplishments, to see what the prints actually look like. It's hard to believe somebody's opinion on their words alone, without seeing the actual results.

Don - I like your lawn sprinkler idea...

- Thomas

 

[Lee L]

Don - I like your lawn sprinkler idea...

I thought that was just a form of Hell Night protection, but I guess that was last night.

Lee

 

[sanking]

There are many kinds of photography, and working conditions for each of them vary tremendously. Photography is not any one single thing. It should be obvious that the requirements of LF landscape photography are not the same as those of street photography with a Leica, and there are dozens of variations between these extremes.

I advocate the use of a tripod whenever possible and whenever the photograph would clearly benefit from its use. In my experience that is most of the time with the type of work I do with LF and MF landscapes.

Sandy King

It amazes me that (is this true?) somebody thinks I'm advocating an excessively technical orientation or that I am promoting use of a tripod! I hardly ever use one! For me, photography, at its best, is a kind of a dance, and my method is essentially intuitive, my eye is quick. It's just that the intuition is not magic. It must be informed. I'm always in trouble because it seems, I say what seems to want to be said. (Hey, one of MY icons and friends was Imogen Cunningham - and she'd say anything that was right, and she'd say it right now!) If someone offers an opportunity to explore the wonderful complexity that photography offers, I just can't resist. I go. I go chemistry, I go physics, I go art history, I go philosophy, I go love, I just go.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Well, I actually own several tripods, and yes, when I am using the larger formats I will haul them out. That has been less frequent in recent years, but I have in fact logged hundreds of miles packing the dang things. They are useful sometimes for whacking intrusive bears. Especially the Majestic.

I would love to meet y'all. I recently went to Newport OR for an APUG meet-up and thoroughly enjoyed it, met some really great folks and saw some wonderful work. With this thread's personnel, were such a thing to happen, I'd bring the projection microscope, since, uh, was it "resolution"?

With these threads, for me, it is not the "topic" that is the most important factor, but who's there.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Larry,
You and Don said rightly that threaded forum isn't the best way to communicate. The thing is, it's fantastic to meet/read people around the world, but it's prone to misunderstanding... For instance, I think in french There are so many times where I can't deliver the substance because I know how to tell it in french and not or badly in english (I improve with time... like wine). Another issue is when I understand something else that what is said. Power of words, their meanings, are totally different in french or english. And I can be seen as rude when I absolutely don't mean it. I have that in real life too, it's really a language and cultural difference.

If I started with one of your sentence it wasn't directed only at you and as I said, I start and many times I don't know where I end up !...
But it's a pleasure to meet and write to you. So any time !

So now we need to ask Sean to make a Live forum with video streaming !

G.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Many years ago, I discovered Neopan 400. I haven't bought a roll of Tri-X or HP-5, since. The Neopans are VERY good.

Kiron Kid

 

[Russ - SVP]

A few years ago, B&W Photography Magazine, did an informal testing of the seven 400 speed B/W negative films. The Neopan and Delta came out on top.

Kiron Kid

 

[AlanC]

They came out top because one single person, who was doing the testing, liked them better than all the others. I prefer to make my own mind up about how I want my prints to look. I don't care for the look I get with Delta, and positively dislike the look I get with Neopan, which has to be just about the last film I would choose to use. I'm not saying that it is a bad film. It may be someone else's favourite film, since we are all individuals, with different taste. The expert who did the testing obviously liked it.
But if I recall correctly, he didn't rate HP5+,( my favourite film, ) very highly because he could n't print the highlights properly.... So maybe he wasn't a real expert at all....
Alan Clark

 

[Photo Engineer]

Reading Tom's OP, I have begun to wonder about this thread. Although the site Alan has suggested has some data, there are no comparisons. Here I find no data or comparisons.

Why not scan these examples in. Identical pictures taken on 3 films, processed as the manufacturer suggests, and let us look at them for ourselves? Otherwise, this is all subjective so far. We need both objective and subjective observations to help us.

PE

 

[Russ - SVP]

It was a subjective test, and yes, just his opinion. He never claimed to be an expert. We should use whatever works for us and gives us the desired results.

KK

 

[AlanC]

KK,
Apologies if I sounded a bit gruff. My impatience was not with you but with magazines that print sub-standard articles.. A prime example is a recent one in B&W by Jerry Lebens, on exposure. Targeted at beginners, I bet they were thoroughly confused when they had read it.
You say that the author of the 400 film article didn't claim to be an expert. But he was a professional photographer and printer, and at the time wrote a monthly column in B&W, in which he regularly dished out advice like an expert.

I am all for advice of a technical nature from experts. But when it comes to matters that are more to do with aesthetic judgement, I simply prefer to make up my own mind.

Alan Clark

 

[sanking]

I would start with the notion that the resolution of films can not be tested by using a camera hand-held. In fact, even using the camera on a tripod involves focusing which is dependent on human vision.

The best way to test film resolution is by contact printing with high definition targets that can resolve 225 lines per millimeter or more. If you do this with a good point source light source, and examine the results with a microscope at 50X or more you should be able to determine the resolution of the film.

However, resolution is only one component of sharpness, the other being micro and macro contrast. So a resolution test by itself, while interesting, does not predict how sharp the film will look in a print.

And of course, sharpness itself is only one component of final image quality. The shape of the curve and look of the grain at a given magnification are probably more important to most people than sharpness.

Bottom line is that while testing will clearly show that Delta 400, Neopan and TMAX-400 are capable of higher resolution than Trix-X, the latter has been and remains one of the favorite films in the world for B&W photographers, ranging from 35mm to sheet film, probably because of the unique character of its curve shape.

Sandy King

Reading Tom's OP, I have begun to wonder about this thread. Although the site Alan has suggested has some data, there are no comparisons. Here I find no data or comparisons.

Why not scan these examples in. Identical pictures taken on 3 films, processed as the manufacturer suggests, and let us look at them for ourselves? Otherwise, this is all subjective so far. We need both objective and subjective observations to help us.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sandy;

I agree totally with everything you have said.

I think though that for practical purposes here, comparison photos would help so that we could make up our own minds or see what the OP referred to rather than rely on him stating things as if they are facts. I don't judge him, I just want to have everyone get a chance to make up their own minds even though what we see and judge may, at this point be rather subjective.

PE