Super silvery and sensitive film

[lenny]

Greetings all,
Is there any listing of different films based on silver content/richness/thick emulsion? I know some like the thinner emulsion film, but I am not among that bunch. In my process, a good, rich negative almost prints itself. The thin stuff drives me nuts.
In addition, is there any test for it? A test that would show sensitivity? Not basic ASA/ISO, but the ability to distinguish between two midtones? I imagine we could prove it by photographing maybe 10,000 patches and reading them all with a spectrophotometer to see if it doesn't show a change from one to another. But there has to be a better way....

I don't know, maybe I'm just looking for something with a really flat curve. How about a listing of film with the flat-est curves?

TIA

Lenny

 

[Photo Engineer]

Another myth.

Gentlemen, silver spread (amount per area) is independant of density or curve shape. I have seen 10 mg / dm2 of silver give densities of 3.0 or higher and OTOH, require 400 mg/dm2 of another emulsion to achieve the same density.

It is the form of the silver that results from development that counts and this depends on emulsion and developer both.

Lets use an analogy. Take one boulder 1 meter on a side and drop it into an area 10 meters on a side and then judge the light blocking properties of that boulder. Now, pulverize it to dust and spread it over the same 10 meters square and judge the light blocking properties. Different? You bet!

Emulsions vary, and so do the results of their exposure and processing.

It is like comparing eggs and oranges. They are both roundish, but that is where things stop. Same thing with emulsions. And they vary even more when you consider 'dead grains' (ones that don't develop) and the different halides and tones that you get. Addition of certain salts to emulsions change their covering power to an astounding degree. An AgBr and an AgCl coated at exactly the same spread per unit area will give different maximum densities due to chemical and physical properties of the emulsions themselves.

Please don't get hung up on an old myth. Emulsions give what they give. And, in particular, paper emulsions are even more decieviing due to the multiple internal reflections and reflection cutoff limits of paper coatings themselves. This means that there can be a huge variation in silver content in a given paper to achieve a given denstiy. If you don't believe that, read a paper by transmission density and compare it step for step with the reflection densities. The results may be eye opening.

PE

 

[Aggie]

Try Efke, Forte and Foma films.

 

[lenny]

Another myth.

It is the form of the silver that results from development that counts and this depends on emulsion and developer both.
It is like comparing eggs and oranges. PE

OK, I understand this. Now the real question - how do I compare these oranges and eggs? I have been using Efke 100 and Efke 25. Tested everything else and it failed. So far, I know this is ridciulous, the best test for me has been a visual one - a certain amount of richness. I would like to find a way to quantify this....

I have been using Efke 25 in PMK in a Jobo. I then scan it and print it. I have the finest scanner ever made (an Aztek Premier) and the most sensitive b&w process ever - a custom set I developed of 6 dilutions of Cone ink. (I am not a newbie). I used to print in platinum and my printing style still wants to see all the delicacy of platinum. My 8x10 negs from the old days work marvelously - Tri-X and FP4 (not plus). Newer film doesn't seem to have it. Rich, multilayered film seems to yield rich results. I am struggling to quantify this is some reasonable way.

 

[Donald Miller]

Greetings all,
Is there any listing of different films based on silver content/richness/thick emulsion? I know some like the thinner emulsion film, but I am not among that bunch. In my process, a good, rich negative almost prints itself. The thin stuff drives me nuts.
In addition, is there any test for it? A test that would show sensitivity? Not basic ASA/ISO, but the ability to distinguish between two midtones? I imagine we could prove it by photographing maybe 10,000 patches and reading them all with a spectrophotometer to see if it doesn't show a change from one to another. But there has to be a better way....

I don't know, maybe I'm just looking for something with a really flat curve. How about a listing of film with the flat-est curves?

TIA



Lenny

As Photo Engineer stated, the tales of silver rich thick emulsion superiority are a myth. They are advertising sales hype used by a few companies. These claims have no validity inasfar as performance.

One example of a claim such as this is Bergger BPF 200 which is a film that really has some serious problems building enough contrast for some purposes.

On the other hand TMax 400 has a ton of expansion capability.

The claim of silver richness was disproven a long, long time ago. The best that you can do is evaluate materials for yourself. Work with them, learn their characteristics, and get the materials that you choose to use to perform in a manner to produce what you want to produce.

You can view and plot curves on films. That will tell you about as much about how tonal values will render as anything that I or anyone else can tell you.

 

[jim appleyard]

Film is like beer, they can talk all they want about hops, barley, cold brew, filtered thru Austrailian sand, blah, blah, blah, but if it doesn't taste good, why bother?

Good advice from the above posters, but my point is that it might take awhile to find that combo that does it for you.

I've read about "silver rich" being a myth. All I know is that different films have different flavors.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

"Is there any listing of different films based on silver content/richness/thick emulsion? I know some like the thinner emulsion film, but I am not among that bunch. In my process, a good, rich negative almost prints itself. The thin stuff drives me nuts."

Maybe you don't know how to expose & develop too well? TMax films do work well for Azo/Amidol and Pt/Pd. So does TriX, Ilford FP4+, Delta 100 and 400 and a whole bunch of others. A lot of it is in knowing what one is doing.

 

[Photo Engineer]

A negative film which cannot achieve a maximum denstiy of about 3.0 or greater, and a contrast of at least 0.6 is not worth using IMHO. It does not meet the minimum ISO specs for a negative film based on years of R&D with that type of product.

If it cannot have a straight line portion of the curve that covers that density range (ie if the curve is bowed) then it does not meet certain quality standards.

So, take some film and develop it in the light and fix, wash, dry and measure. Is the max 3.0? If not, the time, developer, or film is wrong. Change the conditions and try again. When you get to 3.0, then expose and measure density and tone scale, if wrong, the film is wrong, and etc. You keep going until you find what is right for you and your conditions.

Ony you can be the judge of what is right for you. Different strokes!

Photography is both a science and an art. I am expressing part of it in terms of the scientific aspect. One of measurment and definitions if you will. If they both meet properly, they make absolutely stunning pictures. The best photographers that I have known over my years experience are a bit of both - scientist and artist.

PE

 

[lenny]

Maybe you don't know how to expose & develop too well? TMax films do work well for Azo/Amidol and Pt/Pd. So does TriX, Ilford FP4+, Delta 100 and 400 and a whole bunch of others. A lot of it is in knowing what one is doing.

No need to suggest I don't know what I am doing. I have been doing photography forever (40+ years). You have a wide variety of films to choose from because your prints don't require a better film. We aren't looking for the same thing.

Thansk to all those that took my question seriously. I'm going to go test a few things...

 

[nworth]

Lenny:

I sympathize with you at the same time I agree with PE completely. A lot has to do with technique, and we old geezers learned all the undocumented tricks using the older materials. (I still favor Verichrome Pan over just about anything.) I can't help much on the quantification end of things, although I think a close examination of characteristic curves and MTF curves would be revealing - but these may not be available for the older materials. Unfortunately, just making negatives thatduplicate the older characteristics odesn't do the trick. Printing materials and techniques have changed, too, as you demonstrate by your advanced digital methods. About the best modern material I've found to give me the easy printing and rich gradation of the older materials is Ilford XP-2, their chromogenic offering. It's a wonderful film with a huge latitude, but I doubt that you could get it to respond to zone system development controls. You might also investigate Rollei R3.

 

[lenny]

nworth,

I ordered some of that last week - should be here any day. I have some more testing to do.... that's pretty clear. Thanks.

 

[Peter Schrager]

J+C Pro 100

Lenny-if you want to try something that resembles Verichrome Pan try the J+C pro 100. It certainly has a lot of "depth." Some people work with it; I had some issues with it but would try it again. It's cheap enough so give it a try
Best, Peter

 

[Neal]

Dear Lenny,

Check out http://www.phototechmag.com/buying_b-w.htm.

The entry describing Bergger film (at the bottom) may interest you.

Neal Wydra

 

[Jim Noel]

If you want to see the delicacy of platinum, throw away the high priced computer junk and print platinum.

 

[Donald Miller]

Dear Lenny,

Check out http://www.phototechmag.com/buying_b-w.htm.

The entry describing Bergger film (at the bottom) may interest you.

Neal Wydra

Bergger BPF 200 will not develop much more DR then a SBR 6 (appr N+1) for use with platinum.

In my experience and opinion, this is one of the films that suffers from overly enthusiastic advertising claims.

 

[lenny]

Dear Lenny,

Check out http://www.phototechmag.com/buying_b-w.htm.

The entry describing Bergger film (at the bottom) may interest you.

Neal Wydra

My esxperience of Berrger film is that it ahs grain the size of golfballs. Fine for contact printing, otherwise, not for me...

 

[lenny]

If you want to see the delicacy of platinum, throw away the high priced computer junk and print platinum.

I know what platinum looks like. I printed in platinum back in the 70's. It isn't half as good as the prints I am making now. I have ten times the control, I can spot the print once, not every time I make a print. The prints I am making are richer, have more shadow and highlight detail.

Most platinum printers these days are using these fancy computers anyway - that's the way they make enlarged negs.... Everyone gets to choose the kind of prints they make so I don't offer this as a value judgement - or the way everyone should do it. However, computers don't scare me - they are just another tool.

 

[rusty71]

[/QUOTE].... Everyone gets to choose the kind of prints they make so I don't offer this as a value judgement - or the way everyone should do it. However, computers don't scare me - they are just another tool.[/QUOTE]

That's a good attitude Lenny. I learned to print the old fashioned way from one of the last true darkroom guys back in the '80s. I don't care what the curves, densitometers and "experts" say, some of the older films look different, develop different, and print different. IMHO the worst thing that ever happened to photography was Ansel Adams and his bloody densitometer! People forget there were 100 years of photography before Almighty Ansel.

If you like your prints using a densitometer then more power to you. But don't try and tell the rest of the world that there is not some kind of rare alchemy which occurs each time you expose & develop film. It's that random yet ordered system which keeps us in the darkroom. To each his own.