Tabular: terrific or terrible? Your opinions, please.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you all for sharing your experiences with the tabular grain films. It's fascinating to read the diversity of opinions.

So, Acros II is a newer tabular emulsion, compared to the original ones from the 1980s and 1990s, so why not look at another newer tabular film, the KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 (TMY-2). I have searched for Kodak's characteristic curves, and the most recent I found is from 2016, so it might be for the older TMY film. Still, I think it's nice to be able to compare the two. Looking "by eye," the overall shapes are similar, and Kodak got about the same speed as I did (maybe 1/4 stop more?), though it is hard to tell exactly. Here are the two curves to compare:
Kodak:


My own test (TMY-2):


I think that for a lot of outdoor scenes, TMY-2 can be successfully exposed at EI400, only lowering the EI and cutting development time for scenes of seven stops or more. That's what I typically do, anyway.

@Andrew O'Neill I am working on it. It'll be a few months before the UI is decent enough to show.

@Craig I agree that it is surprising to see the Acros II speed so low. I will, therefore, retest in D-76 and report as soon as it's ready. Thank you for bringing it up!

@Andrew O'Neill I am working on it. It'll be a few months before the UI is decent enough to show.

Thanks! I look forward to it!

 

[MattKing]

This is a typical example of T-max 100’s blacks getting locked up soon if you don’t watch out. Very needy film indeed.

Actually, it isn't - it was an aesthetic choice at time of presentation. The darkroom print on the wall is similar to that presentation, but being a darkroom print it shows more shadow detail then a greatly downsized digital scan. There are/were a lot of choices available.
This is closer to a straight negative scan or initial work print:

 

[otto.f]

Actually, it isn't - it was an aesthetic choice at time of presentation. The darkroom print on the wall is similar to that presentation, but being a darkroom print it shows more shadow detail then a greatly downsized digital scan. There are/were a lot of choices available.
This is closer to a straight negative scan or initial work print:
View attachment 327027

Good to correct this, although that doesn’t convince me that TMX is an easy film in the darkroom or even worth the effort

 

[Steven Lee]

I do not think that an image shared online can convince anyone that a given film was a pleasure to work with. The end result says nothing of the journey. If Matt has an image in his portfolio to share, it means he succeeded getting the result he wanted, otherwise it probably would have been discarded. But was it easy/enjoyable? That's a subjective criteria we can only share anecdotes about.

Again, the reason I do not work with T-Max films is because they feel like scientific image acquisition tools. Something like HP5+ is more fun to play around with.

 

[gone]

My usual stock answer is: there are just too many variables. It's not just about grain structure. My old Tri-X negs that were developed in D76 stock look nothing like the negs that were developed in Rodinal (different Rodinal dilutions make a difference too). This shows up in the darkroom prints as well. More, or less, depending on print sizes.

This is for 35mm. 120 and LF will have their own variances, of course.

Light. I moved from Tucson, Az to Little Rock, Ar. Totally different types of light, they have nothing in common w/ each other. So that will be another factor. As for graphs and stuff, I go by my eyes since this is a visual thing. As others have mentioned, looking at web images online, negs on a light table and an actual darkroom print are not comparable. Let's not even get into the differences between different EI's or what the prints will look like w/ RC vs FB papers.

About all one can say for sure is that it just depends. Leaving out all these variables, which you can't really do, it's more a matter of personal preferences.

 

[MattKing]

Also, foul language is against the rules here - we've deleted the example.

 

[aparat]

I thought it might be interesting to see how TMY-2 compares to 400TX. Unfortunately, I only have data for ID-11, but the curves, and thus the tonality, look different. There is some compression in the highlights, beginning with the eight-minute development, which should, in theory, make them somewhat "gentler" perhaps? Of course, it's all a matter of taste.

 

[MattKing]

@MattKing and why did you keep the original insulting post?

"... They just aren't for shoot from the hip types who don't carefully meter, expose, and develop... "

What is it about this toxic character that keeps him and his boasting here?

If you want to question moderation and membership questions, there are three places to raise that.
1) by Reporting a post you find objectionable;
2) by initiating a direct private conversation with the moderators; or
3) in the case of a policy suggestion, in a Feedback and Discussion forum thread.
Do not raise such issues within the threads themselves.
And by the way, if you are put off by people who have an extra-ordinary amount of confidence in their own opinions, I hate to break it to you, but internet forums are not going to be a great place to hang around!

 

[BHuij]

I'll be very interested to see how Delta 100 compares against it's nearest classic grain equivalent, which is presumably FP4+.

I've standardized around FP4+ in formats larger than 35mm, because in Rodinal I get the most amazing shadow separation, with plenty of sharpness without starting to look clinical. So my 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, and 4x5 stuff is often done on FP4+. The tradeoff is harsh grain (I think in no small part due to rotary development) and low film speed; I have to shoot FP4+ at EI 64 to get full shadow detail with N development. In medium and large formats, the grain is a nonissue and the images are beautiful. In 35mm, I just wouldn't use FP4+ for years. The grain looks bad at the enlargement sizes I want to make from 35mm and it really detracts from the images for me. So I shoot Delta 100 in 35mm instead, it's sharp and very smooth in HC-110.

But I recently decided to try Mytol developer as a way to get as close as possible to XTOL without needing to give up my one-shot workflow, and I'm shocked at how much I like FP4+ in Mytol in 35mm. I'm still testing to figure out whether I like stock strength or 1+1 dilution better, and what the sweet spot is for N development time. But preliminary results are excellent. It's not completely grain-free, but the grain is no longer a problem for me. The tonality is still relatively snappy as I would expect from FP4+. And the film actually gains some speed in my tests; I get correct contrast and full shadow detail when I shoot it at EI 160, which untethers me from the tripod to an extent. That's nice because when I want to use a tripod and a slower workflow, I tend to prefer shooting a larger format anyway.

I was enthused enough that I'm going to try Delta 100 in Mytol as well. Unless both films are significantly different from each other and find different use cases for me, I'll likely settle on one or the other instead of continuing to stock both. Bit of a shame... I just bought 100' of Delta 100 haha. Now I'm thinking maybe I should have bought FP4+ instead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Relistan - Thousands of careful densitometer plots are NOT anecdotal. T-Max films were deliberately engineered for technical as well as pictorial applications in the first place, and had to be very predictable right from the start. In large format, until quite recently when prices got intolerable, the largest consumers of large voulume sheet cuts of TMax were not photographers per se, but scientific and technical applications. Even improved astronomical plates were made using TMax emulsions early on. Now it's possible to digitally bend the curve of Delta enough using a customized film recorder (nothing the public can buy) to mimic TMax in applications like color separation work. But darkroom-wise, these same potential technical applications would be hell with Delta for various distinct reason I don't need to go into here.

The whole point is, TMax is a VERY well thought-out and engineered line or film with loads of technical literature on file about it, which apparently few here are even aware of. Why would you be? You don't necessarily need to be aware of it for routine applications. But the fact that this kind of information exists, and that others like me concur with that due to many years of hard experience as well as a lot of our own technical tests, should count for something considerably more weighty than merely anecdotal. Sorry we can't do anything to alleviate the cost argument.

I not knocking Delta 100 at all, for what it provides; but it sure ain't the same thing. And this is the least technical photo forum I participate in. I enjoy it, and learn from it myself; otherwise, I wouldn't be here. But it's not where I go for hard data or the opinions of actual film engineers, that is, post-PE, whom we all no doubt miss.

 

[relistan]

I was enthused enough that I'm going to try Delta 100 in Mytol as well. Unless both films are significantly different from each other and find different use cases for me, I'll likely settle on one or the other instead of continuing to stock both. Bit of a shame... I just bought 100' of Delta 100 haha. Now I'm thinking maybe I should have bought FP4+ instead.

I think you will like Delta 100 in it. It is a fantastic combo with XTOL.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hundreds of careful densitometer plots are NOT anecdotal. T-Max were deliberately engineered for technical as well as pictorial applications in the first place, and had to be very predictable right from the start. In large format, until quite recently when prices got intolerable, the largest consumers of large sheet volume cuts of TMax were not photographers per se, but scientific and technical applications. Even improved astronomical plates were made using TMax emulsions early on. Now it's possible to digitally bend the curve of Delta enough using custom film recorders (nothing the public can buy) to mimic TMax in applications like color separation work. But darkroom-wise, these same potential technical applications would be hell with Delta for various distinct reason I don't need to go into here.

The whole point is, TMax is a VERY well thought-out and engineered line or film with loads of technical literature on file about it,
which apparently few here are even aware of. You don't necessarily need to be aware of it for routine applications. But the fact that it exists, and that others like me concur with that due to many years of hard experience as well as a lot of our own technical tests, should count for something considerably more weighty than merely anecdotal. Sorry we can't do anything to alleviate the cost argument.

I not knocking Delta 100 at all, for what it provides; but it sure ain't the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing...but that is a good thing.

 

[Craig]

I'll be very interested to see how Delta 100 compares against it's nearest classic grain equivalent, which is presumably FP4+.

I've had excellent results with FP4, it's an easy film to work with. But I love Delta 100 in Xtol for the tonality I am able to achieve with it, it gives very pleasing results for me. Delta 100 is my standard medium speed film now.

 

[faberryman]

It bears remembering that a technically perfect boring photograph is a boring photograph.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Andrew - I like working with sniper-rifle style film when it comes to film choice; others might prefer a quick-draw colt 45 film. And frankly, for fun rainy day shooting, with a Nikon or 6X9 RF under my parka, I might choose a shotgun film like D 3200, with grain as big as shotgun pellets! But when it comes to extreme highlight and extreme shadow tonality resolution on the same sheet of film, TMax is the sniper rifle of choice. Ya just gotta learn to aim it correctly, and decide which version of Clint Eastwood you need to be : the rifle expert of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, versus Dirty Harry with his revolver, or the gold bullion thief with his Colt 45 in Mexico. It makes a difference. "A man has to know his limitations".

And per Craig, I recommend FP4 as the best sheet film to learn with, and potentially stick with afterwards, even though it's Chevy and not a Ferrari. I generally keep it on hand in both 4x5 and 8x10 sheets for moderate contrast situations. But I prefer something even finer-grained in roll film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It bears remembering that a technically perfect boring photograph is a boring photograph.

Technically perfect exposure is not tied to the composition. It is part of the overall photograph.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One of the most interesting emulsion technologies to emerge since the 1980s is the so-called "tabular grain" technology. Currently, these films are available for sale:

• Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros II (Super Fine - ∑ Grain Technology)
• ILFORD DELTA 100 PROFESSIONAL (Core-Shell™ crystal technology)
• ILFORD DELTA 400 PROFESSIONAL (Core-Shell™ crystal technology)
• ILFORD DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL (Core-Shell™ crystal technology)
• KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 (KODAK T-GRAIN Emulsion)
• KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 (KODAK T-GRAIN Emulsion)
• KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200 (KODAK T-GRAIN Emulsion)
• FOMAPAN 200 Creative (T-crystals)

I have tested all of these emulsions. I developed the films in replenished XTOL (XTOL-R) at 20C, using rotary agitation, fixed in Kodafix, washed with Kodak's Hypo Clearing Agent, and processed the resulting data by a custom application. My goal is to present the data in chunks and, if possible, compare the modern emulsions to their conventional counterparts. The important thing to keep in mind is that the results are meant to offer an approximation of the film's performance under controlled conditions, only. It's quite possible, even likely, that the films would perform differently under different conditions and that my test results may not always align with your own pictorial or sensitometric experience. For the sake of brevity, I will be including analysis summaries, only. If you want the whole twelve-page test for each film, please let me know. I will be happy to make them available.

A lot has been written about tabular grain films over the years. For example, here's a quote from Popular Photography (Kolonia, 1992): "T-MAX 400 shows significantly denser highlights when overdeveloped by 30% than Delta or HP5 Plus.". He goes on to say, " As a concession to darkroom workers, Ilford formulated Delta to require less burning in when printing highlight detail than is often required with T-MAX 400." Another quote from the same article: "Ilford engineers state that Delta is less taxing on both film developer and fixer than Kodak's T-MAX." I am sure we can find lots of other information in old journals and forum posts. Therefore, it would be great if you all could share your more recent experiences with these films, and, in particular, tell us your preferences for different types of photography and different types of workflow.

Kodak-Tmax 400 has become my go-to film for portraiture because of its smooth skin-tone rendering.

 

[warden]

which version of Clint Eastwood you need to be : the rifle expert of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, versus Dirty Harry with his revolver, or the gold bullion thief with blah blah where's my blanket zzzzzz

Listen up. I choose TMax films when I want a little Mrs. Doubtfire in my highlights, fair enough I'll give you that. But if I'm in a When Harry Met Sally mood only HP5 will do for the shadows, as I'm sure you will agree. For mid-tones if you want The Crying Game you'll need Acros and this is non-negotiable. None of this is conjecture: it has been tested and is very serious.

Because we are serious people.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I agree, Matt. TMY-2 is fantastic, and I feel that it's the cream of the crop!

Agree too, TMY in XTOL has always been a stellar tool for me. I never warmed to TMX, the Deltas, or Acros, but there is something about TMY.

For the price, I would rather spend it on TMY than Tri-X. When I want cubic grain, my new love is HP5+.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Are you looking for responses from regular people or people who deeply understand the chemistry and sensitometry? I am in the former bucket so I will say that I really loved Acros. Now there is apparently an Acros II. Can't wait to try it. I hope that response gives you what you are looking for.

 

[DWThomas]

Circa 2005 when I decided to go back to film and try medium format, I shot Tri-X and Plus-X, fondly remembered from back when. I then tried shooting Acros because it was about 30% less expensive and found that I liked it for my typical shooting. I went on to try quite a few things, then Plus-X and Neopan 400 dried up altogether removing those two options. Over the last -- enh -- maybe 8 or 9 years -- in 120 I've shot mostly 400TX and HP5 interchangeably plus FP4. But I have used 400Tmax in 35mm (and some Panatomic-X, but no point belaboring that!) I do not claim to have done any exotic scientific investigations on film.

Oh, and I shoot X-ray in my 8x10 pinhole camera!

My usual subjects are Olde Rusty Stuff, railroads, bridges, architecture, and landscape. I use HC-110 and am generally able to get what I want. I suppose if I were onto portraiture it might be different.

My film shooting has tapered off a bit, and I "overstocked" for a couple of major trips so I've not bought any film recently. Thus I have yet to try Acros II, and the price hasn't encouraged doing so just on a lark.

EDIT: There are a fair number of examples in my gallery here.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Is the Fomapan 200 a mixed t-grain and cubic grain film?

Yes, it is.

 

[aparat]

Are you looking for responses from regular people or people who deeply understand the chemistry and sensitometry? I am in the former bucket so I will say that I really loved Acros. Now there is apparently an Acros II. Can't wait to try it. I hope that response gives you what you are looking for.

Thank you. Yes, I am looking for responses from all photographers. One of the hardest things for me is trying to reconcile sensitometric data with actual photographic experience. For example, we use colorful words to describe tonality, such as "rich," "smooth," "gradual," etc., but it is not entirely obvious how these terms relate to quantifiable characteristics, such as slope, rate of change, linearity, compression, etc. There is a lot more to it, of course, as we can see from this and many other threads. I find it fascinating.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Thank you. Yes, I am looking for responses from all photographers. One of the hardest things for me is trying to reconcile sensitometric data with actual photographic experience. For example, we use colorful words to describe tonality, such as "rich," "smooth," "gradual," etc., but it is not entirely obvious how these terms relate to quantifiable characteristics, such as slope, rate of change, linearity, compression, etc. There is a lot more to it, of course, as we can see from this and many other threads. I find it fascinating.

I may not be able to help you since I have done none of the testing that people are talking about. I just expose, develop, and print images according to the instructions I got in my high school journalism class 50 years ago. I can tell you that I love a film because of its lovely character, great contrast, or grain but I cannot tell you how I arrived at that conclusion... other than looking at prints. My observations won't be linked to test results on the images that I am commenting about. You may know that I find a film "contrasty" but you won't know anything about why my negatives are contrasty. You'll know not much more about Acros or Acros II from my artist's comments than you would from the marketing materials published by Fuji.

 

[otto.f]

A pity that this topic has derailed again, I’m leaving