What are some fine grained, high resolution B&W film & development combinations which are good for lowering the contrast?

[Augustus Caesar]

I really like Tri-X 400, but it's not exactly a fine-grained, high-resolution film.

It is much finer-grained than most people realize. I can get 16 x 20 prints from 35mm Tri-X with very little noticeable grain.

 

[Kino]

I have 400 feet each of Plux-X 5321 (35mm) and 7321 Plus-X Negative in my freezer that I have had since the early 2000's.

Bought it for a possible motion picture to run tests for a director who ghosted me.

Maybe it's time to pull it out and give it a try...

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

It is much finer-grained than most people realize. I can get 16 x 20 prints from 35mm Tri-X with very little noticeable grain.

I guess the main problem with this preconception may be related to the developer/developer process used. I remember getting pretty nice grain with it, perfectly suitable for 8x10.

Grain could be increased if needed but I don't remember being non pleasant.

 

[loccdor]

Tri-X is a great film but there are some films with low enough grain and high enough resolution that they can trick you into thinking you're looking at a bigger format than you actually are. I've found those are 100 speed or lower.

When shooting half frame that can particularly be a consideration. Acros should work pretty well.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just depends what one defines as "little noticable grain". What one person thinks is barely noticeable might look like buckshot to me. Even 6X7cm TX frames enlarged to just 11X14-ish look quite grainy to me. Enlarged from 35mm, grain is evident in even a 5X7 inch enlargement. I'm not saying apparent grain is necessarily bad in an esthetic sense. It all depends on the specific image. But as someone who often puts MF enlargements into the same 16X20 portfolios as images taken on 4x5 and 8x10 film, TX would simply be a duck out of water, way way out of the water. You have to shoot something like 120 TMax or ACROS to pull off that kind of stunt.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Just depends what one defines as "little noticable grain". What one person thinks is barely noticeable might look like buckshot to me. Even 6X7cm TX frames enlarged to just 11X14-ish look quite grainy to me. Enlarged from 35mm, grain is evident in even a 5X7 inch enlargement. I'm not saying apparent grain is necessarily bad in an esthetic sense. It all depends on the specific image. But as someone who often puts MF enlargements into the same 16X20 portfolios as images taken on 4x5 and 8x10 film, TX would simply be a duck out of water, way way out of the water. You have to shoot something like 120 TMax or ACROS to pull off that kind of stunt.

Well, I was using UFG developer at the time, and enlarging with an EL-Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 lens. Most Tri-X is overdeveloped.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's fine as long as you are getting the look you want. Others might like Tri-X for its harsher vintage journalistic look with highly evident grain. It's not what it once was in that respect. Some people overexpose then under develop it in order to favor shadow gradation at the expense of highlights. Different strategies.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

That's fine as long as you are getting the look you want. Others might like Tri-X for its harsher vintage journalistic look with highly evident grain. It's not what it once was in that respect. Some people overexpose then under develop it in order to favor shadow gradation at the expense of highlights. Different strategies.

It isn't grainy at all unless you abuse it.

 

[GregY]

As Drew said "as long as you are getting the look you want." I love TriX.... but preferring MF/LF look to 35mm I typically only enlarge 35mm to 11x14." I remember seeing a Bill Brandt show in London years ago. Very big enlargements....impenetrable shadows and big grain. I guess that was the look the gallery owner wanted....or just big prints.
I prefer to use MF/LF if i am making big prints. If i am forced to use 35mm for a 16x20" or bigger.... I'll use TMax 100 (or Delta 100) these days...& it will still look like an enlargement from 35mm.....

 

[dourbalistar]

Perhaps an unconventional suggestion: Ilford XP2 Super, but cross-processed in B&W chemistry. First read about it here on the forum:

Ilford XP2 Super in B&W chemicals

I don't think it will be any surprise to anyone here that Ilford XP2 Super, a chromogenic film normally processed in C-41 chemicals, can be developed in ordinary black and white chemicals too. If you don't do your own processing, this wouldn't make a lot of sense, but if you do, it saves money...

www.photrio.com

I experimented with it once, and the results were surprisingly grain free. Here's an example in 6x7 format, but springtime California sun near mid-day.

Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 105mm f/2.4, Ilford XP2 Super (expired 2017), developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:49 for 10 minutes.


2021.03.06 Roll #272-05992-Pano-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr