Slow, Fine Grained B&W Recommendation

[mr rusty]

I find I need to rate it at 25 when developed in Perceptol to get the look I want

Can someone explain this. If I use Pan F and meter it at 25, I've over exposed from box speed to counter the speed reduction of perceptol as several posters recommend.

Question - which times do I then use from Ilfords table? The times for 25 or the box speed of 50? And Why?

 

[polyglot]

So you have all the Pan-F recommendations and I agree it is probably the closest match for "traditional look" that you're going to find. However, both Acros and TMX are both slightly finer-grained than Pan-F and they get a more-bitey look in Rodinal without becoming really any grainier.

If you really want the slowness, e.g. because you're shooting in bright light at f/2.8 and running out of high shutter speeds, then put an ND on there. CPL is a handy two-stop ND and Green or Red both take about three stops depending on what contrast changes you want to cause.

 

[StoneNYC]

So you have all the Pan-F recommendations and I agree it is probably the closest match for "traditional look" that you're going to find. However, both Acros and TMX are both slightly finer-grained than Pan-F and they get a more-bitey look in Rodinal without becoming really any grainier.

If you really want the slowness, e.g. because you're shooting in bright light at f/2.8 and running out of high shutter speeds, then put an ND on there. CPL is a handy two-stop ND and Green or Red both take about three stops depending on what contrast changes you want to cause.

I disagree, I find PanF+ finer than Acros100, and I find Tmax100 even grainier than Acros100...

Strange how our views change.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The finest grained 'normal' film out there is TMax 100. It is also the sharpest 'normal' film.

But between it, Acros, Delta 100, and Pan-F+ the most meaningful difference is not its grain or sharpness. They all exhibit fine grain and sharpness that is enough for any practical purposes. The main difference lies in their tonality and how they react to lighting conditions and film processing. This is where they are most different. Grain? Don't worry about that.

 

[ROL]

The main difference lies in their tonality and how they react to lighting conditions and film processing.

Every time I mention anything close to this, I get skewered. So many photographic issues are solved by a basic understanding of light at the time the shutter is released. All films are good in this regard.


I know there are well known photographers who use Tmax films. I don't know how Tmax tabular grain films art classified as "normal". While I've made beautiful, tonally wonderful enlargements up to 20x24 using 120 Tmax 100, I would not say they are as "sharp" as other fine prints I've made from standard grain films. I stopped shooting sheet Tmax as it performed no better for me than any other large format films in any other way, characterizing it as mushy compared to standard grain films. That fact, as I've experienced it, limits their usefulness in maximum enlargements, if that qualifies as a "practical purpose". Pan F is not a particularly fine grained film, to be sure, but grain size is of much less importance to me than accutance, and this is where a developer like Pyro can make a difference with this film. If "practical purposes" were truly at issue, whatever those are, we'd all be shooting digital.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Can someone explain this. If I use Pan F and meter it at 25, I've over exposed from box speed to counter the speed reduction of perceptol as several posters recommend.

Question - which times do I then use from Ilfords table? The times for 25 or the box speed of 50? And Why?

You develop at the development time for 50 - I have found that while Pan F can be a more contrasty film in high contrast situation, it is not as contrasty in low contrast situations, where I prefer to use it more. So, shooting the exterior of an abandoned house, I use FP4, shooting the interior, I use Pan F because it gives me better tones although I have to deal with more reciprocity failure due to the slower speeds. However, Perceptol (in my experience) saps contrast from the negatives, giving a flatter look. Developing at 50 times gives a little more boost to the contrast and gives better tones. If I wanted to develop at 25 iso times, I would need to shoot it at an iso of 12 (with a circular polarizer, an effective iso of 2.5 - I did this once, too long of exposures and not a significant difference in grain/sharpness compared to the 50 iso development).

Maybe because you don't print them. TMax 100 is slightly finer grained than Acros. Both are finer grained than Pan F. Pan F is equivalent to Delta 100 in granularity.

That is a little harsh. I have printed with all three and find Pan F to be finer than Tmax - it could be water differences, developing processes or enlargement amounts. I agree Pan F has equal granularity to Delta 100 but the tones are different.

 

[Ian Grant]

Maybe because you don't print them. TMax 100 is slightly finer grained than Acros. Both are finer grained than Pan F. Pan F is equivalent to Delta 100 in granularity.

That is a little harsh. I have printed with all three and find Pan F to be finer than Tmax - it could be water differences, developing processes or enlargement amounts. I agree Pan F has equal granularity to Delta 100 but the tones are different.

That's been my experience Pan F is finer grained than Tmax100, APX100 & Delta100, but to get the finest grain from any film you require careful processing.

Ian

 

[mesantacruz]

I agree with the above^... although tmax has wonderful transitions, when enlarged from 35mm, due to it being TABULAR grained. part of the punch (contrast) that i like from Pan F is that it is fine grained and lends itself to very good clarity (sharpness caused by this greater contrast/ fine grain combination)... which i enjoy in my final prints... Given that tmax, has it's place as well (which might just be portraits, and what the op is looking for)... As for acros... I like it too... but something about it doesn't sit too well..

 

[mr rusty]

You develop at the development time for 50 - I have found that while Pan F can be a more contrasty film in high contrast situation, it is not as contrasty in low contrast situations, where I prefer to use it more. So, shooting the exterior of an abandoned house, I use FP4, shooting the interior, I use Pan F because it gives me better tones although I have to deal with more reciprocity failure due to the slower speeds. However, Perceptol (in my experience) saps contrast from the negatives, giving a flatter look. Developing at 50 times gives a little more boost to the contrast and gives better tones. If I wanted to develop at 25 iso times, I would need to shoot it at an iso of 12 (with a circular polarizer, an effective iso of 2.5 - I did this once, too long of exposures and not a significant difference in grain/sharpness compared to the 50 iso development).

Thanks that's helpful

 

[StoneNYC]

I think this has turned out to be another one of those "the OP should try PanF+, Tmax100, Acros100 and see which they like best themselves, everyone processes different, everyone's eye is different, some look at charts, some look at the final image etc. I seem to be the opposite of the above posters... I like...

Acros100 for contrasty Landscapes.

PanF+ for beautiful light skinned Portraits.

Tmax100 I can't say since I've only used it once on a model but had light piping issues that put strips through the film, though it wasn't particularly sharp nor fine grained and seemed to match Kodak XX, though I pushed it to 200 in Rodinal so that may be why.

Tmax400 I found very sharp and fine grained, but I've been struggling with the exposure part of it for too long and wasted too much money so I won't comment on if it's good or not because I can't decide all I know is it is NOT a 400 speed film, not even close IMNSHO, so perhaps underrating this to 100 and pulling it would actually produce fine grained results with good shadow detail? could be an option.

Again, OP ... just try each and see what's best for you, we all have different likes... oh and if you want a better opinion, post examples of the images YOU MAKE with the old film you're used to, that will help give an idea of the look you like vs. the look we like... which is subjective.

 

[jerrybro]

Yeah, TMax 400 can be tough. I found that the old emulsion in 4x5 was actually ei160 for me using D23 at 1:1. Once I was calibrated though, I found it very predicatable and easy to adjust for + and - development.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

TMax 400 tough? What are you guys doing? To me it's the most agreeable film out there. It is SO tolerant with exposure it's almost ridiculous, and it's one of the film ISO 400 films I get a full 400 out of. On top of that it is extremely flexible and takes to developing alterations very readily and predictably.
What about TMax 400 is it that's difficult?

 

[StoneNYC]

TMax 400 tough? What are you guys doing? To me it's the most agreeable film out there. It is SO tolerant with exposure it's almost ridiculous, and it's one of the film ISO 400 films I get a full 400 out of. On top of that it is extremely flexible and takes to developing alterations very readily and predictably.
What about TMax 400 is it that's difficult?

You always tout TMY, I know many people love it, especially you, we've had this discussion many times, but in no way shape or form is it ever a 400 speed film in Rodinal or HC-110(B). And that's really all I use these days, I have some left over Ilfsol 3 which I love more than most dev's but it's expensive so I don't bother, and DD-X which I would use a lot more if it weren't so expensive and if you didn't need so much per bottle, and if it didn't go off so quickly, so I save that for special occasions like shooting D3200 when you need it. I like TMY best in Rodinal as far as tones go, but it's still too damn slow, I rate it about 160 now if I plan to dev in rodinal. Which defeats the purpose. It doesn't matter as I'm entering the 4x5 market and so I think I'll just use HP5+ which actually is 400 speed, and be done with all the frustration..

End of thread jack...

 

[polyglot]

Like Thomas says, wtf!? TMY2 easily achieves 400, even 800.

HC-110 and Rodinal are both speed-reducing developers.

 

[StoneNYC]

Like Thomas says, wtf!? TMY2 easily achieves 400, even 800.

HC-110 and Rodinal are both speed-reducing developers.

Didn't realize HC-110 was. Well the reason for me to shoot TMY has more to do with price than anything, if I have to buy "expensive" or PITA powder dev in order to get good results, then I'd rather just buy Ilford film instead.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ian Grant]

Like Thomas says, wtf!? TMY2 easily achieves 400, even 800.

HC-110 and Rodinal are both speed-reducing developers.

My experience is Rodinal gives the same film speeds as Xtol, so better than ID-11/D76 and way better than HC110, and with the films I used rodinal gave exceptionally good sharpness and fine grain again similar to Xtol. My main films were APX100 & Tmax100 in all formats.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You always tout TMY, I know many people love it, especially you, we've had this discussion many times, but in no way shape or form is it ever a 400 speed film in Rodinal or HC-110(B). And that's really all I use these days, I have some left over Ilfsol 3 which I love more than most dev's but it's expensive so I don't bother, and DD-X which I would use a lot more if it weren't so expensive and if you didn't need so much per bottle, and if it didn't go off so quickly, so I save that for special occasions like shooting D3200 when you need it. I like TMY best in Rodinal as far as tones go, but it's still too damn slow, I rate it about 160 now if I plan to dev in rodinal. Which defeats the purpose. It doesn't matter as I'm entering the 4x5 market and so I think I'll just use HP5+ which actually is 400 speed, and be done with all the frustration..

End of thread jack...

No, I prefer Tri-X, Stone. I am just saying that I find it easy to work with TMax and get what I want. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. It is one of the most flexible film out there, tolerates crazy exposure latitude, and responds so well to agitation changes, to get what I need tonality wise.
I easily get 400 out of it in Rodinal. Just shoot with a nice lens with open shadows, like a Summitar, and dilute the developer 1+50, develop longer while slowing down agitation to once every two minutes. I get 800 out of it like this too, but will compromise tonality somewhat in the highs. For that I prefer Xtol.

 

[StoneNYC]

No, I prefer Tri-X, Stone. I am just saying that I find it easy to work with TMax and get what I want. Has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. It is one of the most flexible film out there, tolerates crazy exposure latitude, and responds so well to agitation changes, to get what I need tonality wise.
I easily get 400 out of it in Rodinal. Just shoot with a nice lens with open shadows, like a Summitar, and dilute the developer 1+50, develop longer while slowing down agitation to once every two minutes. I get 800 out of it like this too, but will compromise tonality somewhat in the highs. For that I prefer Xtol.

Ok I'll try 2 minute agitation, everything else is the same from all my testing, I'm concerned with streaking at 2 minute agitation but I'll do it.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ok I'll try 2 minute agitation, everything else is the same from all my testing, I'm concerned with streaking at 2 minute agitation but I'll do it.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

If you're concerned with streaking, then keep your clothes on while developing your film!

 

[StoneNYC]

If you're concerned with streaking, then keep your clothes on while developing your film!

I'm concerned with being so excited at finally getting a good image that I worry I might rip off my clothes in joy.. Lol


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ok I'll try 2 minute agitation, everything else is the same from all my testing, I'm concerned with streaking at 2 minute agitation but I'll do it.


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Do what you want to do, Stone. Most of your results is between your ears anyway; the film really shouldn't be that big of a part of the equation of making photographs. It is one of your tools.

I use Tri-X when I can afford to. But recently I traded for a mess of 120 HP5+ and somebody gave me 50 rolls of TMax 400. So I make it work. With HP5+ I find that I need to expose at box speed, not the regular 160-200 I shoot Tri-X at, in order for the shadows to 'come alive'. TMax 400 is a bit the same way, but in order to get the results that I like I have to use a developer that is efficient in the shadows - Xtol.

All I'm saying with my remarks is that you make your materials work for you and your process. They can pretty much all be molded to fit. The amount of control we have with film exposure, filter use, and film developing tools like agitation, it's possible to get almost any tonality you want - they are not necessarily qualities of the film itself.

Grain and sharpness are much more constant, and less affected by developer choice and technique.

Basically - pick a film that has grain and sharpness that you like, and has a speed you can work with. Then go make it behave the way you want it to.

 

[StoneNYC]

Do what you want to do, Stone. Most of your results is between your ears anyway; the film really shouldn't be that big of a part of the equation of making photographs. It is one of your tools.

I use Tri-X when I can afford to. But recently I traded for a mess of 120 HP5+ and somebody gave me 50 rolls of TMax 400. So I make it work. With HP5+ I find that I need to expose at box speed, not the regular 160-200 I shoot Tri-X at, in order for the shadows to 'come alive'. TMax 400 is a bit the same way, but in order to get the results that I like I have to use a developer that is efficient in the shadows - Xtol.

All I'm saying with my remarks is that you make your materials work for you and your process. They can pretty much all be molded to fit. The amount of control we have with film exposure, filter use, and film developing tools like agitation, it's possible to get almost any tonality you want - they are not necessarily qualities of the film itself.

Grain and sharpness are much more constant, and less affected by developer choice and technique.

Basically - pick a film that has grain and sharpness that you like, and has a speed you can work with. Then go make it behave the way you want it to.

I would certainly agree with you that the film is a tool, but I think it's a huge part of the equation. I also feel like you said that grain and sharpness aren't really all that affected by developer and technique, which I also disagree with in a big way, that's something I learned from ... shoot... "that guy who keeps trying to make me love Tmax400" when it comes to Rodinal, technique is everything, and severely affects the look of your film depending on what you do.

Anyway, it's all good, I've moved on, I have two more rolls of it in my fridge and if I haven't figured it out after those two rolls, then that's all she wrote for me on that and I'll be free to love my ilford Also, this thread is about the OP wanting a fine grained slow speed film, not a Tmax400 discussion so lets stop talking about it please.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes, how you use Rodinal changes your results drastically - I'm mostly talking about tonality here, Stone. Grain is what grain is, some developers show it a little bit more than others.

Example: I did some enlargements from cropped 35mm Tri-X for an upcoming show. 8x18" prints from Tri-X. A few were in Rodinal, and a few in Xtol. Looking at the prints, side by side, there IS a small difference in grain size, but not as big as some people make it out to be. Tonality wise they are similar, because I made the tonality of the negatives similar by how I developed and exposed the film.

On the other hand, when I scan those negatives, the difference in grain is bigger.