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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

XP2? - Poor edge acutance and general lack of contrast. Plus one is restricted to conventional C41 dev options. Donald has apparently figured out how to darkroom develop it instead. But I already have plenty of conventional b&w films to choose from which do what I want.

 

[dourbalistar]

XP2? - Poor edge acutance and general lack of contrast. Plus one is restricted to conventional C41 dev options. Donald has apparently figured out how to darkroom develop it instead. But I already have plenty of conventional b&w films to choose from which do what I want.

Yes, it's a chromogenic film, but you are definitely not restricted to conventional C-41 processing. Forum member @drmoss_ca was the one who originally posted here on the forum about developing XP2 in black and white chemistry. Ilford themselves picked up the article and (re)posted it on their website:

ILFORD XP2 Super in black and white chemistry

Chris Moss takes us along on his journey where he develops ILFORD XP2S shot at various speeds in black and white chemistry,

www.ilfordphoto.com

Another author picked up on Dr. Moss' findings and did their own experiments with silver gelatine darkroom prints, also published on Ilford's website. Note one of the captions: with a little too much contrast on the enlarger!

Processing XP2S in black and white chemistry

I might not have reached for a roll of XP2 had I not discovered the experiments of another photographer who was developing XP2 in black & white chemicals

www.ilfordphoto.com

I did not find it lacking in contrast, but of course everyone has their own preferences for how much is enough. Your contrast may vary, as it were.


2021.03.06 Roll #272-05986-Pano-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr

 

[Slixtiesix]

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.

Yes, Kodak reformulated Tri-X some years ago, which lowered the grain significantly. Modern Tri-X equals and even surpasses some traditional 100 ISO films. Still not a fine-grained film by absolute standards, but definitely for a conventional 400 ISO film.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

How "harsh" it is, in my experience, has everything to do with the manner of exposure and printing. You have to give it enough exposure to get onto the straight line of the curve, control the highlights, and manage local contrast. I do this through a combination of long, high dilution development, and split VC printing.

Here is a scan of a split VC printed silver print. The negative was from a hand-held Nikon shot with the film shot at full box speed and developed in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:300 and developed using Extreme Minimal Agitation with an initial agitation and short agitations every 15 min or so, with a total time of 60 min. I do not find this harsh or gritty:

 

[Crysist]

Well the names are not 100% scientific. You are right that a mondispersed emulsion would be 0/1 and all grains are of the same size however this is -even with most modern emulsion making machines and recipes- impossible to achive. An emulsion may be called monodisperse if it is >70% monodisperse. So in reality it is more or less monodisperse but thats what the manufacturer is at least aiming for. If CMS 20 was really monodisperse (100%) it could not show any greyscales. With very fine grained emulsions we also run into the problem of being unable to measure this. So even the 70% is somehwat a guess ;-)

Couple questions: why would an entirely monodisperse emulsion not be able to show greyscales? Aren't the tones captured a reflection of the density of silver halide crystals that have been in some part reduced to metallic silver by photons? If you have a lot of photons, you will get many "seeded" silver halide crystals. With few photons, you would get fewer seeded crystals. Won't these and all tones in-between be represented purely by the density difference which reflects the light difference?

Are any B&W films layered with separate slow/medium/fast layers with different halide particle sizes? Or is it no different if they're all combined into one layer?

Additionally, something about this that I find fun and like to share: the distribution of silver halide grain sizes in an emulsion shows why reversal processing has the characteristics that it does -- its fine granularity. Since an image would necessarily have more exposed "coarse" grains than "fine" grains, coarse grains would be more prominent in the developed negative. However, in reversal processing the negative image is used as a mask, a complementary, and in developing the remaining silver halides to form the positive, the distribution of grain sizes is reversed relative to the negative. Far more fine grains were left undeveloped compared to coarse grains, so the positive will look a lot finer. Or, in other words, the negative's distribution of what % of a particular grain size gets developed is low at the fine end and high at the coarse end, somewhat like a triangle. The distribution of the positive image is the remainder of the different grain sizes, the empty space above the negative's distribution, a triangle that is tall on the fine end and gets shorter towards the coarse end!

I figure then that more monodisperse emulsions would have less of a difference between positive and negative in terms of grain size?

Personally I find T-Max 100 in XTOL (or Adox XT-3 these days) diluted 1+2 hard to beat. it pretty much handles all the contrast I'd ever need, with great resolution and tonality.

you can expose at ISO 50 (or even lower) and cut development time and agitation a bit to get a bit more shadow detail and lower contrast.

the current pdf only shows the curves for D-76, T-Max and T-Max RS dev:

https://www.kodakprofessional.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/resources/f4016_TMax_100.pdf

but he old german XTOL data sheet has some nice curves for different times, and even more for other films and dilutions:

https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/xtolEntwickler.pdf

Delta 100 and Pan F+ would be other good choices.

I like to use Agfa Copex and Adox CMS 20 II in dedicated developers for maximum resolution, but it wouldn't be my first choice for hard desert sun because you really have to nail exposure and development to have them handle high contrast scenes.

I second using diluted XTOL, which I just did for the first time haha! I had some issues distinguishing tones when I'd scanned it though.

And you got a wicked scanning setup to use yours on! Like some PhaseOne type setup?

Say, looking at the curves, I still wonder about this... why do ALL curves for negatives never show the shoulder? Sometimes it starts to flatten, but other times it's ends at the straight portion of the graph. I always thought it'd be nice to see the dMax from those figures but can't because they never plot it far enough!

Anyway, on that note, what about doing the opposite? Instead of lowering the contrast to fit the density range, increase the density range somehow. If the film can only achieve, say, a density range of 0.1-2.0, what if you could expand that to a dMax of 4.0? And, since lowering contrast will also effectively smush the MTF, and thus lower the extinguishing resolution, it'd be beneficial for OP's use case of retaining resolution on a smaller format. You could keep or even increase the contrast without forfeiting highlights because the film has reached its max density in this hypothetical. I've read about developers that can introduce silver during development, I believe it's called physical development in that case. Is that possibly a means to achieve this?

Of course, XTOL on TMAX 100 or Delta 100 gives great results and would fit the use case already, I just wanted to ask if this is possible. There's a lot of silver halide to reduce to metallic silver to form the latent image, but a more limited amount to subsequently develop into metallic silver.

 

[loccdor]

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

Thanks, so the resolution you need for about 7200 long side pixels from full frame 35mm would appear to be 100 lpmm, and half-frame 150 lpmm. Although in practice, maybe you can knock 20-30% off that due to losses in the digitization or enlarging step. So Tri-X at 100 lpmm should lack a small amount of resolution in half frame vs. something slow, to say nothing of its grain. I'll have to test that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

chuck - It's obviously hard to correctly judge a print, let alone negative, over the web. But what you just posted does really look like "soot and chalk", with empty shadows and blown out highlight texture. And yes, I'd call it conspicuously "harsh".

Crysist - published curves in tech sheets are often abbreviated to conserve space, especially in terms of the shoulder being lopped off. They also tend to be printed way too small, with a minimum of grid intervals. They still help, but are no substitute for full scale curves done on logarithmic graph paper. Really, "families" of curves need to be plotted for any given film and developer combination to get the bigger picture. Certain important features which people have trouble even detecting in tiny tech sheet examples become quite evident on larger scale plots.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I see lots of detail in both highlights and shadows, except the most extreme (which *should* be approaching full black and paper white).

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thanks, so the resolution you need for about 7200 long side pixels from full frame 35mm would appear to be 100 lpmm, and half-frame 150 lpmm. Although in practice, maybe you can knock 20-30% off that due to losses in the digitization or enlarging step. So Tri-X at 100 lpmm should lack a small amount of resolution in half frame vs. something slow, to say nothing of its grain. I'll have to test that.

Erwin Puts liked TMX, but if you want to see almost no grain microfilms like CMS20 II are better.

Limit_of_BW_photography | Mechanische camera's

 

[Milpool]

chuck - It's obviously hard to correctly judge a print, let alone negative, over the web. But what you just posted does really look like "soot and chalk", with empty shadows and blown out highlight texture. And yes, I'd call it conspicuously "harsh".

Crysist - published curves in tech sheets are often abbreviated to conserve space, especially in terms of the shoulder being lopped off. They also tend to be printed way too small, with a minimum of grid intervals. They still help, but are no substitute for full scale curves done on logarithmic graph paper. Really, "families" of curves need to be plotted for any given film and developer combination to get the bigger picture. Certain important features which people have trouble even detecting in tiny tech sheet examples become quite evident on larger scale plots.

Agree. Of course everything is a matter of taste. Presumably people are seeking this look (? hopefully!) when they use very long development times with dilute developers and reduced agitation ie high contrast with rather abrupt transitions on either side of the midtone range to somewhat blank black/white.