Tabular: terrific or terrible? Your opinions, please.

[Arthurwg]

My problem is that the TMX grain is so fine that it's almost non-existent, making it difficult to focus on the enlarger.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm more concerned with the relatively poor edge acutance effect of TMax100 despite its tremendous detail capacity. So for this film only, I increase the overall size of the grain a little by using Percepol 1:3 as my developer, which has a very different effect that at 1:1, and gives me the boost of acutance I want, but still provides significantly finer grain than TMY400 or Ilford FP4, and still true 100 speed. My favorite developer for MY400 remains PMK pyro.

But one distinct advantage of TMX is that it can be "plus" developed to a significantly greater degree of gamma than Acros. FP4 and Delta are also capable of a nice boost, but not quite as much. But there are just soooo many really good films to choose from at the moment. No, not as many as back in the good ole days, but plenty enough. The only thing with a universal boost, unfortunately, is price. One brand goes up, so will the others. It's the law of the jungle.

 

[GregY]

TMX, 120 yellow filter, Plaubel 670, 11x14" print on Ilford Classic... no problems with shadow detail

 

[aparat]

Time for the next installment of characteristic curves. This time, the ILFORD DELTA 400. Here is the Ilford supplied curve.



And here are the results of my test. The overall shape of curves appears similar, with excellent performance throughout the entire exposure range. I have found the consistency and quality of Delta films to be exemplary. I am only taking about sensitometric tests, not aesthetics. A real pleasure to work with. The film can definitely take long development times without losing linearity. I would not hesitate exposing at EI 800 and pushing it one stop. Likewise, pulling by at least one stop also appears possible with this film.



And here is how Delta 400 compares with Kentmere 400. Sensitometric performance is very similar between two two films.


and HP5 Plus:

 

[aparat]

I didn't use a sensitometer. I used a strobe and incident meter to expose a grey card and controlled the exposure for each step with a transmission calibrated lens, then put a roll of film that I wanted to test into the camera, filled the frame with the grey card so that there'd be no flair, set the lens to infinity focus, then step up and down the aperture range at each transmission stop. Strobes are about as full spectrum as you can get. I put all the details in the published resource.

Thank you for your thorough answer! This is a very interesting method.

I sometimes use a similar test, except in daylight. I sometimes include the results when the Zone System is brought up in the thread, as the method has its roots in the ZS testing methodology, but, of course, is not limited to it. These kinds of methods have been recommended in the literature, including Picker (1974), White, Zakia, and Lorenz (1976), Woods (1993), Lambrecht and Woodhouse (2011), and others. They are simple to carry out and capable of producing very good results.

 

[Craig]

The Delta 400 seems like a very long developing time to make the ISO speed, 16 min? The Kodak Xtol datashseet says 7 min for a Jobo with Xtol-R.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

There really are no right and wrong opinions. Obviously more modern films are "technically" better if you want fine grain and sharpness.

Personally I've always liked grain. Even before I knew what I was doing I shot a roll of Delta 400 and immediately didn't like it. For many years I shot Fuji Neopan 1600 and developed it in Rodinal. I kind of bemoan the fact that films have been improved too much for my liking. I prefer higher speed films when I'm shooting 35mm because of the grain. I've always had a weird thing with Kodak black and white films for some reason. We just don't get along. I've seen many images that were gorgeous on Tri-X for example but I generally get mushy negs from it. HP5 on the other hand is a piece of cake.

As an aside, the most "technically" perfect negs that have ever gone through any of my cameras were with Fuji's original Acros taken with a modern Zeiss lens and developed in Pyrocat-P. Pretty amazing from that technical viewpoint. Only problem with them is they are impossible to focus in the darkroom.

 

[aparat]

TMX, 120 yellow filter, Plaubel 670, 11x14" print on Ilford Classic... no problems with shadow detail

I am afraid I am not a landscape photography connoisseur, so I can't give you an opinion on the subject matter or composition, but the print quality is outstanding. It looks like you captured well over 7 EV worth of light, and, yet you have somehow managed to contract the tonal range where necessary and expand it where necessary, creating a perfectly balanced print. I bet it looks amazing in person.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

There really are no right and wrong opinions. Obviously more modern films are "technically" better if you want fine grain and sharpness.

Personally I've always liked grain. Even before I knew what I was doing I shot a roll of Delta 400 and immediately didn't like it. For many years I shot Fuji Neopan 1600 and developed it in Rodinal. I kind of bemoan the fact that films have been improved too much for my liking. I prefer higher speed films when I'm shooting 35mm because of the grain. I've always had a weird thing with Kodak black and white films for some reason. We just don't get along. I've seen many images that were gorgeous on Tri-X for example but I generally get mushy negs from it. HP5 on the other hand is a piece of cake.

As an aside, the most "technically" perfect negs that have ever gone through any of my cameras were with Fuji's original Acros taken with a modern Zeiss lens and developed in Pyrocat-P. Pretty amazing from that technical viewpoint. Only problem with them is they are impossible to focus in the darkroom.

I love shooting Delta 3200 at 800 in my Fujica GW690. It's awesome.

 

[kino-eye]

I’m curious what people think of the dim view of t-grain films taken by Troop and Anchell in the Film Developing Cookbook (1998), pp. 14–15. In an aside, they call them “inferior” and chalk them up to the need to reduce silver content by penny-pinching manufacturers. That seems a bit hyperbolic since in the main text they point out that t-grain films offer finer grain and better sharpness/higher resolution. (See the higher resolution figures for t-grain films than conventional films posted by Henning Serger on this forum.) Still, T&A point out that this requires trade-offs, some already mentioned here: t-grain films require more exacting control of time and temperature in development and have less latitude for underexposure (and overexposure?). But I was interested in their claim that another trade-off is that the flatter-but-larger shape of tabular grain increases micro contrast at the cost of “smooth gradation of fine highlight detail” found in more classic films. Of course, the latter is harder (impossible?) to measure; the curves published here show macro contrast. But is this trade-off something experienced photographers have noticed?

I’m just getting back into film, and am drawn to Tri-X—perhaps partly because that was what I used when I first learned the art, as a kid, now many years ago—and I think Kentmere 400 looks great. (Of course, Tri-X is no longer the same either: Anchell laments the loss of older, gritty, cubic grain to the new Tri-X made of “semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers” in Darkroom Cookbook [2012], p. 36.) The linear curve of TMX produces a wide, lovely range of tones evidenced by some of the examples posted here, but I have shied away from TMX so far because I’m interested in film as a change from the digital look of a grain-free, linear response with quick-to-clip (or blow-out) highlights. Is the preference for conventional grain just a sentimental attachment to the analog noise of film grain, as an escape from the digital grid? Or is it also that films with more of a shoulder to the curve handle highlights and overexposure more gracefully (which I see as a real benefit of film)? And can we see real differences in micro contrast, fine highlight detail, gradation, etc., between the different film types, as T&A claim? (They recommend overexposing by up to 2 stops and underdeveloping by 20–30% to reduce micro contrast and improve the gradation of t-grain films.)

It is interesting to hear some prefer Delta 100, which, according to Anchell and Troop’s description, has a slightly more conventional grain shape than TMX, even as others hold out TMX as the technically “superior” film (according to measurements of film speed, finer grain, etc.).

 

[GregY]

I’m curious what people think of the dim view of t-grain films taken by Troop and Anchell in the Film Developing Cookbook (1998), pp. 14–15. In an aside, they call them “inferior” and chalk them up to the need to reduce silver content by penny-pinching manufacturers. That seems a bit hyperbolic since in the main text they point out that t-grain films offer finer grain and better sharpness/higher resolution. (See the higher resolution figures for t-grain films than conventional films posted by Henning Serger on this forum.) Still, T&A point out that this requires trade-offs, some already mentioned here: t-grain films require more exacting control of time and temperature in development and have less latitude for underexposure (and overexposure?). But I was interested in their claim that another trade-off is that the flatter-but-larger shape of tabular grain increases micro contrast at the cost of “smooth gradation of fine highlight detail” found in more classic films. Of course, the latter is harder (impossible?) to measure; the curves published here show macro contrast. But is this trade-off something experienced photographers have noticed?

I’m just getting back into film, and am drawn to Tri-X—perhaps partly because that was what I used when I first learned the art, as a kid, now many years ago—and I think Kentmere 400 looks great. (Of course, Tri-X is no longer the same either: Anchell laments the loss of older, gritty, cubic grain to the new Tri-X made of “semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers” in Darkroom Cookbook [2012], p. 36.) The linear curve of TMX produces a wide, lovely range of tones evidenced by some of the examples posted here, but I have shied away from TMX so far because I’m interested in film as a change from the digital look of a grain-free, linear response with quick-to-clip (or blow-out) highlights. Is the preference for conventional grain just a sentimental attachment to the analog noise of film grain, as an escape from the digital grid? Or is it also that films with more of a shoulder to the curve handle highlights and overexposure more gracefully (which I see as a real benefit of film)? And can we see real differences in micro contrast, fine highlight detail, gradation, etc., between the different film types, as T&A claim? (They recommend overexposing by up to 2 stops and underdeveloping by 20–30% to reduce micro contrast and improve the gradation of t-grain films.)

It is interesting to hear some prefer Delta 100, which, according to Anchell and Troop’s description, has a slightly more conventional grain shape than TMX, even as others hold out TMX as the technically “superior” film (according to measurements of film speed, finer grain, etc.).

Processed in staining developers, i haven't found highlights quick to blow out at all.

 

[MattKing]

The preference for grain is at least partially explained by our affinity for the perception of "sharpness". "Sharpness" is as much subjective as objective, and relates most closely to our ability to perceive edges of detail. If there is little or no grain, it is more difficult to perceive edges. Film with more grain can't resolve as much detail as film with less grain, but the additional grain can make things look more pleasing.
The Anchell and Troop complaints about the T-Max films strike me as entertaining, because the things they (or perhaps just Anchell) complain about are essentially the same things that one observes if one just uses larger film formats.

 

[RodinalSpezial]

@aparat, I'm very interested in your findings regarding Fomapan 200, would you mind sharing those also?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I learned yesterday that Yousuf Karsh used orthochromatic film that brought out the grittier lines and blemishes in his portraits rather than panchromatic, the type used more often today. Should this discussion include this difference as well?

Also, does the type of photography you favor also affect the need for grain? For example, street photography tends to look better with a grainy, grittier film (by my eye). Shouldn't this be part of the discussion as well?

Karsh: https://karsh.org/overview/portraits/#thumbnails

Yousuf Karsh: The Master of Portrait Photography - Photogpedia

Yousuf Karsh is one of the greatest portrait photographers of the 20th century. Read about his career, iconic photos and lighting technique.

photogpedia.com

 

[removedacct1]

Processed in staining developers, i haven't found highlights quick to blow out at all.

My experience as well.

 

[titrisol]

DELTA 400 is a wonderful film, quite forgiving in exposure and produced very fined grained images with DDX/Microphen

DELTA 3200 is a good film when there is no light, I used many rolls in concerts and inside party pictures. DDX/Microphen again
Exposed at 800 and developed in Rodinal 1+50 is quite unique.

 

[GregY]

I am afraid I am not a landscape photography connoisseur, so I can't give you an opinion on the subject matter or composition, but the print quality is outstanding. It looks like you captured well over 7 EV worth of light, and, yet you have somehow managed to contract the tonal range where necessary and expand it where necessary, creating a perfectly balanced print. I bet it looks amazing in person.

Thank You.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Tabular films supposedly scan better than regular silver films.

 

[aparat]

Time for Delta 100. I have tested Delta 100 in a number of developers because I use this film a lot. I have also found it to be very close to its claimed box speed of ISO 100. Interestingly, in XTOL-R, the film didn't reach ISO 100, but got very close. I would not read too much into that and continue exposing it at EI100 for a lot of typical daylight conditions. I am also attaching plots of Delta 100 in D-76 and HC-110 to show the difference in response. And, I am also attaching its conventional counterparts from Harman, the FP4 Plus and Kentmere 100, for comparison. I found all these films very close to box speed, and a pleasure to work with.
This is the official Ilford curve:

XTOL-R:

D-76:

HC-110:


FP4 Plus:


Kentmere 100 (the new 120 version):

 

[snusmumriken]

I’m curious what people think of the dim view of t-grain films taken by Troop and Anchell in the Film Developing Cookbook (1998), pp. 14–15. In an aside, they call them “inferior” and chalk them up to the need to reduce silver content by penny-pinching manufacturers. That seems a bit hyperbolic since in the main text they point out that t-grain films offer finer grain and better sharpness/higher resolution. (See the higher resolution figures for t-grain films than conventional films posted by Henning Serger on this forum.) Still, T&A point out that this requires trade-offs, some already mentioned here: t-grain films require more exacting control of time and temperature in development and have less latitude for underexposure (and overexposure?). But I was interested in their claim that another trade-off is that the flatter-but-larger shape of tabular grain increases micro contrast at the cost of “smooth gradation of fine highlight detail” found in more classic films. Of course, the latter is harder (impossible?) to measure; the curves published here show macro contrast. But is this trade-off something experienced photographers have noticed?

Please don't think I am being pedantic, but I have learned from discussions in this forum that there is a difference between 'grain' and 'granularity', and in this thread we probably need to be clear which we are talking about.

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong: I understand granularity to be the clumped appearance in 2D of grains that in reality are distributed in 3D within the emulsion. So it must reflect the size, shape, consistency of grains, and their dispersion within the emulsion. Granularity is what we notice in prints. But even a 20x16 print from a 35mm negative is only a 14x enlargement - you need much higher magnification to see the grains, which are the individual crystals of silver halide.

It's the individual grains that are flatter in T-grain emulsions. It's not obvious to me what effect that would have on granularity, or on smooth gradation of tones. Anyone have any insights?

 

[kino-eye]

The preference for grain is at least partially explained by our affinity for the perception of "sharpness". "Sharpness" is as much subjective as objective, and relates most closely to our ability to perceive edges of detail. If there is little or no grain, it is more difficult to perceive edges. Film with more grain can't resolve as much detail as film with less grain, but the additional grain can make things look more pleasing.
The Anchell and Troop complaints about the T-Max films strike me as entertaining, because the things they (or perhaps just Anchell) complain about are essentially the same things that one observes if one just uses larger film formats.

That is a good point about sharpness. And yes, T&A also make a similar point about larger formats (p. 3): larger negatives automatically have finer grain, lower micro contrast, and "smoother gradation." But what is counterintuitive to me is the claim that t-grain films have finer grain but higher micro contrast and less smooth gradation in highlight detail. At first glance, I would associate coarser grain with higher micro contrast (contributing to perceived sharpness), not the other way around as T&A have it. I can understand why grainier films have lower macro (or perhaps what they call "local") contrast: highlights, for example, will be grayer because interspersed with visible flecks of grain and not as brilliantly white. But they seem to claim that, because of the shape of t-grain, although it is finer, it is higher in micro contrast, which negatively affects highlight detail, making it less smooth. I guess that could make sense that without a mist of noise evening out some of the tones, highlights appear more "crunchy" even if the grain isn't as visible (like cranking up the clarity slider in digital). Perhaps I just need to get a microscope and some test shots to try to see what they're talking about ...but I'd like to figure out if this is actually plausible before going through the trouble.

Please don't think I am being pedantic, but I have learned from discussions in this forum that there is a difference between 'grain' and 'granularity', and in this thread we probably need to be clear which we are talking about.

Someone please correct me if I have this wrong: I understand granularity to be the clumped appearance in 2D of grains that in reality are distributed in 3D within the emulsion. So it must reflect the size, shape, consistency of grains, and their dispersion within the emulsion. Granularity is what we notice in prints. But even a 20x16 print from a 35mm negative is only a 14x enlargement - you need much higher magnification to see the grains, which are the individual crystals of silver halide.

It's the individual grains that are flatter in T-grain emulsions. It's not obvious to me what effect that would have on granularity, or smooth gradation of tones. Anyone have any insights?

That makes sense, thanks. So, yes, I am thinking of granularity as the visible effect (with close examination) of clumps of grains, assuming we can't see individual grains without a ton of magnification. But grain size and shape are what T&A link to these visible effects of granularity: they use the analogy that conventional films have grain like boulders, t-grain are like flagstones, except the t-grain "flagstones" have more 2D surface area, which is more regular, than the "boulders." They describe the grain of T-Max films as "a thin, long, flat grain" with an aspect ratio between height and width as 1:8, while Delta films are "shorter and thicker" with a 1:5 aspect ratio. On the whole, they claim "the larger size of the crystals causes higher contrast in the minute areas, resulting in higher sharpness but poorer gradation of fine detail" (T&A p. 14). I'm still trying to figure out what this means, and how it works.

 

[aparat]

Tabular films supposedly scan better than regular silver films.

Thank you for pointing it out. That's probably true. My old scanner, however, shows terrible banding artifacts with smooth, grain-free films like the Acros II, but it is the scanner's fault, not the film's.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thin emulsion films like D100 take on only a little pyro stain. It certainly helps with highlight control, but still doesn't equalize Delta to TMax, especially if you factor in the same stain effect on TMax itself. I've discovered all this the brass tacks way. Delta can be coaxed into being a so-so substitute, but will never really be the same thing.

The only film currently on the market which can dig down deeper into the shadows than TMax, due to an even longer straight line characteristic curve (having even less toe), is Foma 200. But Foma has certain idiosyncrasies, like ridiculously overoptimistic speed rating, miserable long exposure characteristics, limited expanded development potential; and it isn't even remotely in the same quality control league as either Kodak or Ilford.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thank you for pointing it out. That's probably true. My old scanner, however, shows terrible banding artifacts with smooth, grain-free films like the Acros II, but it is the scanner's fault, not the film's.

Scan at a higher resolution and scan in Tiff. If you have to scan in jpeg, then make sure you set the jpeg to less compression. If compression is set too high, it often creates banding especially in the sky.

 

[warden]

I’m curious what people think of the dim view of t-grain films taken by Troop and Anchell in the Film Developing Cookbook (1998), pp. 14–15. In an aside, they call them “inferior” and chalk them up to the need to reduce silver content by penny-pinching manufacturers. That seems a bit hyperbolic since in the main text they point out that t-grain films offer finer grain and better sharpness/higher resolution. (See the higher resolution figures for t-grain films than conventional films posted by Henning Serger on this forum.) Still, T&A point out that this requires trade-offs, some already mentioned here: t-grain films require more exacting control of time and temperature in development and have less latitude for underexposure (and overexposure?). But I was interested in their claim that another trade-off is that the flatter-but-larger shape of tabular grain increases micro contrast at the cost of “smooth gradation of fine highlight detail” found in more classic films. Of course, the latter is harder (impossible?) to measure; the curves published here show macro contrast. But is this trade-off something experienced photographers have noticed?

I’m just getting back into film, and am drawn to Tri-X—perhaps partly because that was what I used when I first learned the art, as a kid, now many years ago—and I think Kentmere 400 looks great. (Of course, Tri-X is no longer the same either: Anchell laments the loss of older, gritty, cubic grain to the new Tri-X made of “semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers” in Darkroom Cookbook [2012], p. 36.) The linear curve of TMX produces a wide, lovely range of tones evidenced by some of the examples posted here, but I have shied away from TMX so far because I’m interested in film as a change from the digital look of a grain-free, linear response with quick-to-clip (or blow-out) highlights. Is the preference for conventional grain just a sentimental attachment to the analog noise of film grain, as an escape from the digital grid? Or is it also that films with more of a shoulder to the curve handle highlights and overexposure more gracefully (which I see as a real benefit of film)? And can we see real differences in micro contrast, fine highlight detail, gradation, etc., between the different film types, as T&A claim? (They recommend overexposing by up to 2 stops and underdeveloping by 20–30% to reduce micro contrast and improve the gradation of t-grain films.)

It is interesting to hear some prefer Delta 100, which, according to Anchell and Troop’s description, has a slightly more conventional grain shape than TMX, even as others hold out TMX as the technically “superior” film (according to measurements of film speed, finer grain, etc.).

Welcome to the forum!