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

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I would call it the TX look. When I personally shoot TX, it's the look I'm after myself. But most of the time, I'm after a different kind of look, and use different films. Of course, there are lots of tricks attempting to tame TX into looking like other films; but those other films are generally better in their own right for that kind of thing. It's nice to have a selection of films to choose from.

 

[Milpool]

Well, I would call it the TX look. When I personally shoot TX, it's the look I'm after myself. But most of the time, I'm after a different kind of look, and use different films. Of course, there are lots of tricks attempting to tame TX into looking like other films; but those other films are generally better in their own right for that kind of thing. It's nice to have a selection of films to choose from.

I'm not following. You were describing the tonality as harsh. I don't see what that would have to do with Tri-X which is a general purpose film with a typical long exposure scale/range. Tri-X doesn't need any "taming" - nothing like those micro/copy films or pushed Pan-F etc. Were you referring instead to it being grainier than medium speed and/or tabular films?

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's an old school grainy film for sure, although the 35mm and 120 versions have been re-tweaked somewhat. The 320 sheet film retains the more classic look. You either like the grain or you don't.

What you have keep in mind is the film curve itself. If you want very bold shadows, use it around box speed. But in order to get more tonal gradation down there (at least in high contrast scenes), you have to give the significantly more exposure to boost them up above the toe onto the straight line. Then if you want to develop for full midtone tonality, you risk shouldering off the highlights.

I'm not going to get into Zone System talk or TX sheet film usage for UV processes which favor a dense overexposed negative. The immediate discussion seems to revolve around the roll product
only. My own strategy is just to drop the shadows into blackness, then develop well for excellent midtone gradation and good highlight sparkle.

I use PMK pyro, a staining developer. Then I print it reasonably small to prevent the solid blacks from getting oppressive, or the grain getting annoying. Note that Im not trying to achieve the classic journalistic look of TX. If I was, I'd want to figure how to get even more distinct graininess.

"Micro" films are a whole different category of problem; and Pan F has pronounced S-curve and very short scale of good reproduction, though it can be lovely if intelligently used. And then you've got the slow speed issues; TX is fast.

The problem with TX in tiny 35mm format is that it just can't record a whole lot of detail. And that's where pronounced grain can help, because it potentially lends interesting character to otherwise bland portions of an image.

I like to shoot 35mm for spontaneous poetic little images. A chihuahua might have a lot of attitude; but its's never going to be a big dog. Just let little dogs do what they do best instead; thats my format philosophy.

 

[loccdor]

If you shoot 35mm with the best lenses made in the last 15 years on a high resolution film, you'll find that detail is not a problem. And if it is, it's coming from your digitization or enlargement process.

In fact, I'm impressed even with half-frame on a stopped down Olympus Pen D from 1965.

1 x 1 mm crop of Velvia 100 from the Olympus Pen D (24x18mm). Even at f/2.8 here, the lens and film outresolve my 7200 pixel long-side ability to digitize it, using Pentax K-1 pixel shift technology that combines 4 frames with a slight sensor shift.

I can see moving to larger formats if the grain bothers you. But with careful forethought, the resolution itself is not an issue.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Who are you kidding? It's a piece of film not much bigger than a postage stamp. I don't give a damn about pixel talk or how things look on the web. I'm surrounded with 4 foot wide prints on my walls where you'd need reading glasses or a loupe to see the full detail (where the image is truly in focus, that is). You can't even make a 5x7 inch print from 35mm with that kind of detail.
Go find the best 35mm lens in existence and you're not going to hold a candle to a MF image taken with a garden variety lens, let alone match competent sheet film results. Size matters.

I'm certainly not criticizing 35mm photography. But I scratch my head when aspiring photographers go out and spend thousands of dollars for the "latest and greatest" 35mm or DLSR lens, when for a fraction of the price they could pick up a decent used MF camera, if detail is their objective.

What you've just posted, L., is mush, not detail. That tells me your "proof"scan isn't in focus at all. I'd rather see distinct grain than mush. I know what Velvia grain looks like; I've shot the darn stuff in multiple formats clear up to 8x10, although I've never considered it a versatile film.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

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.

The photo I am referring to was taken around 1975.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Who are you kidding? It's a piece of film not much bigger than a postage stamp. I don't give a damn about pixel talk or how things look on the web. I'm surrounded with 4 foot wide prints on my walls where you'd need reading glasses or a loupe to see the full detail (where the image is truly in focus, that is). You can't even make a 5x7 inch print from 35mm with that kind of detail.
Go find the best 35mm lens in existence and you're not going to hold a candle to a MF image taken with a garden variety lens, let alone match competent sheet film results. Size matters.

I'm certainly not criticizing 35mm photography. But I scratch my head when aspiring photographers go out and spend thousands of dollars for the "latest and greatest" 35mm or DLSR lens, when for a fraction of the price they could pick up a decent used MF camera, if detail is their objective.

What you've just posted, L., is mush, not detail. That tells me your "proof"scan isn't in focus at all. I'd rather see distinct grain than mush. I know what Velvia grain looks like; I've shot the darn stuff in multiple formats clear up to 8x10, although I've never considered it a versatile film.

Trade you this pic on 35mm CMS20 II for one of your MF images Drew.

 

[loccdor]

That makes sense if you regularly print to 4 feet, Drew. I've not seen that to be the case with most large format photographers.

What you've just posted, L., is mush, not detail.

That was the point: the half-frame film and lens is outresolving my ability to pick up all the detail even with a high end digital camera. It is correctly focused. I don't add any sharpening to my images.

Many of the sharpest 35mm lenses can be had for under $1000 used, with Tamron and Sigma being very competitive in this area. Even $500 will go a very long way. I bought the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 lens for $800 which was the most I ever spent on a lens, considered by many reviewers to be the sharpest they ever tested when it came out.

 

[Yezishu]

From my personal experience, film might be the main limiting factor. The highest resolution film I've used is Kodak 2468, which might be on the same level as the pixel-shift shooting of the A7CR (240 million pixels). The manual lenses used for shooting/copying are just Super Takumar 55mm f2 and Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro (As full manual lens, their price here is quite amazing, no more than 100$). However, normal negative film is far from this resolution; 6 to 20 million pixels may be sufficient, details often appear some blurry when copying at 61 million pixels.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Please don't complicate this with how pixels interpolate things. Film isn't pixels. Oranges versus apples. But yes, film can be a limiting factor. The point is, grain is apparent with even Velvia at enough magnification, especially in the darker areas. And Velvia wasn't even Fuji's finest grain slide film (Astia 100F was).

Alan - if your actual results with CMS20 are anything like what pops up on the web at
magnification, you'll notice the are little BB or bullet holes all over the sky. It's particularly evident in your following sailboat shot. That's typical in my experience with "micro" style films overly enlarged. Then the images suffers tonality-wise too.
I mean, it's fine to try to squeeze as much as you can out of 35mm shots if that is your objective,
or if you're in the same trade as James Bond. But no matter how loud a chihuahua barks, it's still a chihuahua.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I know that Olympus spend time increasing resolution on their half frame lenses, to compensate for the smaller negative (at least on the Pen F series). Never had a problem with the Pen F and Not sure if it the case on other half frame lens makers. Never had problems with resolution when I was using mine. Or at least enough to botter me. Mostly used Plus X at the time. Did most of my printing on 5x7 so not that much enlargement.

 

[Sirius Glass]

One can lower the contrast of any black & white film by just shortening the development time.

 

[Yezishu]

Olympus's half-frame lenses are exceptional (I also have a very sharp Pen D2). High-resolution lenses like this are common from the 1960s; even without mentioning the impressive 400 lp/mm achieved by Zeiss, many prime micro lenses exceed 80-100 lp/mm at their optimal aperture, maximize the potential of high-quality negatives and slides at that time.
Grain primarily affects resolution at low contrast image. For example, the resolution of Fuji Velvia 100 is less than the nominal 80 lp/mm at a 1:1.6 contrast, but reaching 160 lp/mm in high contrast scenes with a 1:1000 ratio. The resolution data (and more flim) is come from Creeks Navigation:https://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm

 

[Donald Qualls]

One can lower the contrast of any black & white film by just shortening the development time.

There is, however, a limit to how far one can lower contrast for ultra-fine-grain films, as they have less grain size dispersion. For microfilm-type "monodispersed" emulsions it requires special developers and still doesn't meet the standards of some workers.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

There is, however, a limit to how far one can lower contrast for ultra-fine-grain films, as they have less grain size dispersion. For microfilm-type "monodispersed" emulsions it requires special developers and still doesn't meet the standards of some workers.

FX-21 was formulated to do a better job of controlling the contrast of low-speed/fine-grain films than simply reducing development.

 

[Donald Qualls]

FX-21 was formulated to do a better job of controlling the contrast of low-speed/fine-grain films than simply reducing development.

And for microfilm-type stocks, there are POTA, H&W Control, and a couple different versions of low-contrast Caffenol formula. Even high dilution Rodinal (1:100) will do it, though not as well as those others.

 

[snusmumriken]

Trade you this pic on 35mm CMS20 II for one of your MF images Drew.

Ah, the Belfast ... I stayed on her as a cadet when she was in the Royal Naval Reserve fleet. She had been in the tropics, and was full of bloody cockroaches. Horrrible for sleeping, but during the day we sailed 27ft whaling dinghies around Portsmouth harbour, which was great.