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

 

[Donald Qualls]

Ilford XP2 Super, but cross-processed in B&W chemistry.

Processing in C-41 developer with bleach bypass will probably give finer grain (and 2/3 to 1 stop speed gain). The dye clouds will tend to make the silver grains run together, making a more continuous density. I've done this mainly to get EI800 without having to push Foma 400 or shell out for TriX/HP5+, never mind TMY/Delta 400 to push, but the results have been excellent.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Some lab results for RMS granularity of B&W films here:

California Creeks - Film Characteristics Table

Some of Henning Serger's results for resolution are here:

Rollei RPX 25: Grain and Resolution

Hi All, I am curious about the grain and resolution characteristics of Rollei RPX 25. Anyone have any experience or knowledge about this film as it pertains to it's grain and resolving power? How would it compare to TMax 100 or Across 100?

www.photrio.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

Trying to dissolve the grain one way or another won't really cure the harsh look. But why fight either? That's something interesting TX has to offer. If you want a smoother look and finer grain, just switch to a different film.
I love the grittiness of old TX journalistic and combat photos. No, it's not my own style at all, but that doesn't prevent me from appreciating how others have made good use of that set of characteristics.

The current trend of gallery and museum venues to blow things way up serves more as an advertisement gimmick in my opinion, and tends to do a great injustice to those who printed such things small to begin with.
Of course, there were those like Avedon who liked things big n brash, and way over the top. But Michael Kenna or Bill Brandt? - sacrilege.

How LF practitioners manage TX320 sheet film is a whole other story. They often overexpose it for better shadow gradation; but the upper midtones can get quite grainy, especially enlarged. It's long been popular for various kinds of contact printing, but again, not in my particular case.

Alan - regarding those "granularity" RMS charts - it can be pretty misleading when contrast and acutance isn't factored in, with respect to CN films. Those are really in an entirely different category than b&w films. I never liked C41 chromogenic black and white films for precisely that reason - very disappointing acutance and internal contrast. When I want "more" out of a frame, I scale up the format anyway.

 

[GregY]

On the subject of grain size, I'm reminded of some elements of music "tone,taste & timing" grain size alone for me is not a limiting factor, and comes behind tonality......when I'm printing. Fighting a high contrast film isn't high on my list of favourite things....

 

[Milpool]

Trying to dissolve the grain one way or another won't really cure the harsh look. But why fight either? That's something interesting TX has to offer. If you want a smoother look and finer grain, just switch to a different film.
I love the grittiness of old TX journalistic and combat photos. No, it's not my own style at all, but that doesn't prevent me from appreciating how others have made good use of that set of characteristics.

The current trend of gallery and museum venues to blow things way up serves more as an advertisement gimmick in my opinion, and tends to do a great injustice to those who printed such things small to begin with.
Of course, there were those like Avedon who liked things big n brash, and way over the top. But Michael Kenna or Bill Brandt? - sacrilege.

How LF practitioners manage TX320 sheet film is a whole other story. They often overexpose it for better shadow gradation; but the upper midtones can get quite grainy, especially enlarged. It's long been popular for various kinds of contact printing, but again, not in my particular case.

Alan - regarding those "granularity" RMS charts - it can be pretty misleading when contrast and acutance isn't factored in, with respect to CN films. Those are really in an entirely different category than b&w films. I never liked C41 chromogenic black and white films for precisely that reason - very disappointing acutance and internal contrast. When I want "more" out of a frame, I scale up the format anyway.

I agree it can be problematic to compare the graininess of conventional B&W films with chromogenic. For one thing they go in opposite directions with increased exposure / density. I'm surprised you would find chromogenic films lack sharpness. A film like XP2 should be quite sharp.