When film grain improvement might not be perceived as a film grain improvement

David Lyga · Apr 13, 2019

There is almost a religious aspect towards believing that TMAX and DELTA films are 'better' because the grain is tabular. My queries are these:

1) Are there any out there who PREFER traditional grain over the tabular types? Please note: I am NOT talking about 'more forgiving' as far as exposure range is considered, simply 'Do you prefer the traditional grain's look?'

2) Is there any notice within the film manufacturing industry about the 'fact' that what they had initially upheld to be an improvement might not have been perceived to be the case by many (more than anticipated by the industry) of the film buying customers?

3) Is 'cheaper to manufacture' or 'many customers prefer the traditional look' the main, underlying reason for the continuance of the traditional B&W film's ongoing marketing impetus? - David Lyga

Pentode · Apr 13, 2019

I can’t venture a guess as to the answers to questions 2 and 3 but I, for one, do prefer the look of traditional-grained films in most applications.

Specifically, I like the look of the mid tones that I get from traditional films.

To be completely fair, though, I haven’t really tried very hard to emulate the mid tones I get from traditional films using tabular films so it’s possible I’ve just been fooling myself into believing I can’t get what I want from modern films when, in fact, I haven’t really tried that hard. I can’t justifiably condemn newer films for having an ‘inferior’ look since I haven’t really given them a fair shake.

One application where I really like the look of T films is portraiture. I’m not much of a portrait photographer but I think the finer grain and straighter curve of T-grain films lends itself to portraits. I mostly shoot in the street and I often like the look of obvious grain.

Tabular films have an enormous following. I have to assume they must be doing something right.

David Lyga · Apr 13, 2019

Yes, tabular films do have a profound following, but intriguing to me is the fact the traditional ones seem to be doing well. I would like to know whether this is primarily due to usually costing less, or simply visual preference. - David Lyga

Sirius Glass · Apr 13, 2019

I prefer the look of traditional grain and cost is not a factor.

trendland · Apr 13, 2019

David Lyga said:
There is almost a religious aspect towards believing that TMAX and DELTA films are 'better' because the grain is tabular. My queries are these:

1) Are there any out there who PREFER traditional grain over the tabular types? Please note: I am NOT talking about 'more forgiving' as far as exposure range is considered, simply 'Do you prefer the traditional grain's look?'

2) Is there any notice within the film manufacturing industry about the 'fact' that what they had initially upheld to be an improvement might not have been perceived to be the case by many (more than anticipated by the industry) of the film buying customers?

3) Is 'cheaper to manufacture' or 'many customers prefer the traditional look' the main, underlying reason for the continuance of the traditional B&W film's ongoing marketing impetus? - David Lyga

Well David - a simple answer to your question from "Trendland" I realy don't care about what type of bw film has to have specified characteristic from grain!
So it is no concern to me if a film have tabular grain or conveltional grain!
Remember : Two film manufacturers have spent much money to explain photographers what highly
advantage "T" grain will serve the comunity of all kind of shooters!
This impact from some highly expensive advertisings of the past (15 - 20 years ago) is today in mind of many photograpers and (I have the impression) to each "Newbee"!

So Newbees dem and nothing else than Tmaxx and Delta films (be sure about) and manufacturers are happy about (be much more sure about David) some others also like T-grain films extreme
(NOT ALL ARE NEWBEES OF COURSE)!
So what is wrong with you David!......
You don't like Tmax ? THAT IS NOT NORMAL?
Pls. David buy Tmax and develope with Xtol - and forget all the oldfashioned stuff you also use
because IT IS TO WASTE IN 2019!!!!!!

R E A L Y ???

Of COURSE not!!

with regards

PS : Seriously I don't care about! IF I NEED MAX FINE GRAIN - I try some different films
WITH some different DEVELOPERS! That is the point! Of COURSE Tgrain give very fine grain -
but this is not exclusive for Tgrain films - Aha...!
So have you tried Delta 100 at ISO 800 with Rodinal? Pls. don't try btw....yes a ISO 100 film can come to ISO 800 via pushing (for some Newbees it is still clear) but what is then with you
beloved flat cristalic tabularic grain.... you may look at the Rokies then (via microscope)!
But that is not real precisly descibed because Rockies are not located in China but your miroscope would show you terrain located in China :

nice play with "Trendland" again you notice David ?

SERIOUSLY : Tgrain have very good abilitys to offer nice and REAL SMALL GRAIN - or highest speed or good tonals a.s.o. = in concern of E.I./developer/workflow!

I don't care about WHAT film have the characteristics I need (Tgrain or conventional grained)
I care about how it works (a simple PanF also have finest grain with special workflow)!

But if I can have the extreme I use it = for example microfilms for extreme resolution!
I am not in the run to shot at higher E.I. like others (with exeptions)!
So David you obviously like more the "smell" of convertional grain - OK !
You also can have this characteristics with Tmax - but it makes no sense!
(to buy expensive films and destroy most characteristics from special workflow of course)

Films from conventional grain have all the kind of possibillities one could imagine with one
EXEPTION : Speed - that is the reason for upcomming Tgrain technology!

You can use HP5 and from lower E.I. the grain is real good/you can push HP5 and the result is real
grainy and overdriven contrasty (but the speed is also high E.I. 3200)

But you can't get results from conventional grained films with RELATIVE SMALL grain at highest ISO! So Tgrain films (ALL of them) are nothing else than HIGH SPEED FILMS!
BUT WE HAVE FORGOTTEN! HIGH AND HIGHEST SPEED - NOTHING ELSE!

But Delta 100 - isn't high speed?... It is belive me - NEWBEES - PLEASE NOTICE IF YOU HEAR :
"If you already photographed E.I 800 with ISO 100 film then do that with Delta100 and not with
APX 100!"

So if I decide to need NOT finest grain/resolution I decide for example on Ilford Fp4,
APX 100 or some Rollei Retros a.s.o - the Ferrania isn't soo bad but Panatomic-x isn't
avaible any longer (since 1987) that was a real good film for example!!!!!!!!!?
WE should ASK why is it not avaible today!!!!

WHY CAN THIS NOT BE SHIPPED NEXT TO YOUR DEALER? A GOOD QUESTION DAVID!

Pentode · Apr 13, 2019

David Lyga said:
Yes, tabular films do have a profound following, but intriguing to me is the fact the traditional ones seem to be doing well. I would like to know whether this is primarily due to usually costing less, or simply visual preference. - David Lyga

I suspect it’s just preference. I don’t think the difference in cost is so great that those who prefer tabular films would opt out of them.

I’m always looking for a cheap deal on film but not to the point that I would use film I didn’t like. I would imagine that most serious photographers are of a similar mind. If cubic films are still available it’s because people still like them.

Of course, I’ve been wrong before....

Truzi · Apr 13, 2019

I don't dislike the tabular-grained films, but aesthetically, I prefer the traditional. I do use both.

The qualities, or characteristics, of each film are equally valid, but there is a trade-off. Each does something better than the other (at least at my skill level, which is quite low).
I simply prefer those qualities found in traditional grain.

Cost isn't a factor in my preference.

I've also noticed the typical "new is better" bias in some users - and this applies to all things, not just photography.
Don't misinterpret me - if someone prefers tabular because they like the qualities, I'm fine with that. The issue I have is when someone prefers something only because it's the bigger, better, newest thing.

jim10219 · Apr 13, 2019

They're just different. One doesn't really replace the other. I generally prefer T grain films for large format. The reason being, with LF I'm not using a hand held camera. The photos are usually highly controlled and carefully considered, and I like the smooth midtones. The look of the grain itself isn't the issue. And since everything is so tightly controlled, I'm not worried about forgiveness during development. I often an trying to capture a very large range of tones and am okay with dodging and burning the print.

With 35mm, I often choose regular grain. They tend to have more contrast and offer more pop, and give the photo a more ephemeral look. I'm also more likely to do handheld photography, which often means a more street photography style. Plus, if I'm using a small format, I usually want the look of the grain to show up in the print. And since so many exposures will be developed at once, a bit of forgiveness is nice. 120 film can go either way depending on what I want to do.

Price is never a concern when it comes to choosing film. If I'm trying to keep the price down, like I'm doing a project for pay and don't want to waste my budget on supplies, I go with digital.

Bill Burk · Apr 13, 2019

I am a fan of both tabular grain and traditional grain. I like TMY-2 in 4x5 and Panatomic-X in 35mm.

Tabular grains have been around a while, there are microphotographs of the grains in Mees, see page 9...

https://archive.org/details/TheTheoryOfThePhotographicProcess/page/n17

trendland · Apr 13, 2019

David Lyga said:
There is almost a religious aspect towards believing that TMAX and DELTA films are 'better' because the grain is tabular. My queries are these:

1) Are there any out there who PREFER traditional grain over the tabular types? Please note: I am NOT talking about 'more forgiving' as far as exposure range is considered, simply 'Do you prefer the traditional grain's look?'

2) Is there any notice within the film manufacturing industry about the 'fact' that what they had initially upheld to be an improvement might not have been perceived to be the case by many (more than anticipated by the industry) of the film buying customers?

3) Is 'cheaper to manufacture' or 'many customers prefer the traditional look' the main, underlying reason for the continuance of the traditional B&W film's ongoing marketing impetus? - David Lyga

Your question Nr2) David = to manufacture tgrain film WAS more expensive and more complicate
in relation to normal bw films AT THE BEGINNING! Remember the manufacturer Foma was not able to concurate against Fuji tgrain and Tmax! There tgrain was not so great in comparison!
Today (we speak about the past if we regard beginning tgrain) the difference from costs is much much less (meanwhile) - not in pricing for costumers (of course nodemand.)!

Sorry that was the answer to No.3) OK improvements!
Improvements just happen today - there is no way to avoid it! Some machines get repaired - some
came new - a calibration of workflow is done - some raws have to be replaced later the quality
is better (sometimes not realy messurable) but the package box indecates :
Improved Film! Lets be faire state David that is the way of 85% oft improvements today!

1) not intended
2) not demanted
3) higher priced films (but it is improved)

with regards

PS : Improvements of Fp4 in concern of Tgrain technology? Is that the other question?
All bw films would of course not have been improved till 2019 - If Aliens would have supported
Film manufacturers with 400 tons of extraterrestian gold in 2000!
Guess in that case film manufacturers would feel fine today with 1,7 - 2,9% remaining demand!
But (what ever the costs are) not all photographers would like to shot tgrain!
Like you! But the todays demand to improvements to film (if you David would like to have more speed for example) is NOT DONE FOR SURE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF MONEY!
BUT IMPROVEMENTS HAPPENS - I guess this sentence is describing the todays situation with bw films best!

with regards

PS : What kind of improvements I'll like to see?
A) PANF 25 ISO VERSION
B) PANF 12 ISO VERSION
C) FP4 50 ISO VERSION
D) Tmax 12 ISO VERSION. a.s.o

Vaughn · Apr 13, 2019

If the reduction in reciprosity failure is due the tabular grain structure or somehow connected to it, then that quality is more important to me than the grain structure itself, since I only contact print LF negatives.

jim appleyard · Apr 13, 2019

I prefer the look of trad films over t-grain. For me it's about the contrast and range of tones. Grain is indeed very fine with t-grain, but I find it easy to get what I want with trad films, but not with t-grain.

MattKing · Apr 13, 2019

Until recently, my film choice was Plus-X and T-Max 400.
Relatively similar size grain, but different grain character.
When light and camera permitted choice of either, I could and would choose based on character.
I've transitioned to T-Max 100 when I need slower speed. I'm not sure whether to add Tri-X as well.

Vaughn · Apr 14, 2019

When I was silver printing from 4x5 negatives, image size of about 15x19, TMax100 was pretty sweet to me.

CMoore · Apr 14, 2019

Pentode said:
I suspect it’s just preference. I don’t think the difference in cost is so great that those who prefer tabular films would opt out of them.

I’m always looking for a cheap deal on film but not to the point that I would use film I didn’t like. I would imagine that most serious photographers are of a similar mind. If cubic films are still available it’s because people still like them.

Of course, I’ve been wrong before....

Pardon the off-topic question, but.....are you into guitar amps by any chance.?

etn · Apr 14, 2019

Sirius Glass said:
I prefer the look of traditional grain and cost is not a factor.

Same here.
However I suspect that my preference is not related to the grain: I tested Tri-X, Tmax and Delta and settled on Tri-X as my ‘favorite film”. I think that the tonal response of the film played a bigger role in my decision than the grain itself. Call me blind or ignorant, but I think that in medium format at the size I enlarge (up to 30x30 cm) it doesn’t make much of a difference anyway... what do you think?

Etienne

KN4SMF · Apr 14, 2019

Do you h

CMoore said:
Pardon the off-topic question, but.....are you into guitar amps by any chance.?

I'm not into guitar amps. But amps are amps. Do you have a problem that needs remedy?

drpsilver · Apr 14, 2019

13 Apr 2019

I definitely prefer traditional grain films. They seem to have a smoother tonal structure, and respond to filtration better than the T-Grain films. (Disclaimer: most of my experience with T-Grain films has been Delta 100 and Delta 400.) My preferred films are Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+, and Plus-X when it was easily available.

I cannot venture answers to questions 2 or 3.

Regards,
Darwin

CMoore · Apr 14, 2019

KN4SMF said:
Do you h

I'm not into guitar amps. But amps are amps. Do you have a problem that needs remedy?

True Enough.
He could be into anything dealing with Amplification.
Guitar Amps are probably the biggest niche at this point.....so with his user-name i figured it was probably guitars.
But it could be Audio or Ham, or anything else i suppose.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 14, 2019

David Lyga said:
There is almost a religious aspect towards believing that TMAX and DELTA films are 'better' because the grain is tabular. My queries are these:

1) Are there any out there who PREFER traditional grain over the tabular types? Please note: I am NOT talking about 'more forgiving' as far as exposure range is considered, simply 'Do you prefer the traditional grain's look?'

2) Is there any notice within the film manufacturing industry about the 'fact' that what they had initially upheld to be an improvement might not have been perceived to be the case by many (more than anticipated by the industry) of the film buying customers?

3) Is 'cheaper to manufacture' or 'many customers prefer the traditional look' the main, underlying reason for the continuance of the traditional B&W film's ongoing marketing impetus? - David Lyga

I see benefits in both. I prefer the traditional grain whenever I'm looking for grid and sharpness as in street and product photography but prefer tab-grain for smoothness in tones as in portrait and nude.

Bill Burk · Apr 14, 2019

MattKing said:
Until recently, my film choice was Plus-X and T-Max 400.
Relatively similar size grain, but different grain character.
When light and camera permitted choice of either, I could and would choose based on character.
I've transitioned to T-Max 100 when I need slower speed. I'm not sure whether to add Tri-X as well.

What proves grain is not really important to me... when I go to the camera store and they're out of TMY-2 I get Tri-X.

When I reach for a roll to shoot and I have that Tri-X on the shelf, I only slightly hesitate before loading it.

For fast film, the most important characteristic to me is that it's fresh.

David Lyga · Apr 14, 2019

trendland said:
Well David - a simple answer to your question from "Trendland" I realy don't care about what type of bw film has to have specified characteristic from grain!
So it is no concern to me if a film have tabular grain or conveltional grain!
Remember : Two film manufacturers have spent much money to explain photographers what highly
advantage "T" grain will serve the comunity of all kind of shooters!
This impact from some highly expensive advertisings of the past (15 - 20 years ago) is today in mind of many photograpers and (I have the impression) to each "Newbee"!

So Newbees dem and nothing else than Tmaxx and Delta films (be sure about) and manufacturers are happy about (be much more sure about David) some others also like T-grain films extreme
(NOT ALL ARE NEWBEES OF COURSE)!
So what is wrong with you David!......
You don't like Tmax ? THAT IS NOT NORMAL?
Pls. David buy Tmax and develope with Xtol - and forget all the oldfashioned stuff you also use
because IT IS TO WASTE IN 2019!!!!!!

R E A L Y ???

Of COURSE not!!

with regards

PS : Seriously I don't care about! IF I NEED MAX FINE GRAIN - I try some different films
WITH some different DEVELOPERS! That is the point! Of COURSE Tgrain give very fine grain -
but this is not exclusive for Tgrain films - Aha...!
So have you tried Delta 100 at ISO 800 with Rodinal? Pls. don't try btw....yes a ISO 100 film can come to ISO 800 via pushing (for some Newbees it is still clear) but what is then with you
beloved flat cristalic tabularic grain.... you may look at the Rokies then (via microscope)!
But that is not real precisly descibed because Rockies are not located in China but your miroscope would show you terrain located in China :
View attachment 221322
nice play with "Trendland" again you notice David ?

SERIOUSLY : Tgrain have very good abilitys to offer nice and REAL SMALL GRAIN - or highest speed or good tonals a.s.o. = in concern of E.I./developer/workflow!

I don't care about WHAT film have the characteristics I need (Tgrain or conventional grained)
I care about how it works (a simple PanF also have finest grain with special workflow)!

But if I can have the extreme I use it = for example microfilms for extreme resolution!
I am not in the run to shot at higher E.I. like others (with exeptions)!
So David you obviously like more the "smell" of convertional grain - OK !
You also can have this characteristics with Tmax - but it makes no sense!
(to buy expensive films and destroy most characteristics from special workflow of course)

Films from conventional grain have all the kind of possibillities one could imagine with one
EXEPTION : Speed - that is the reason for upcomming Tgrain technology!

You can use HP5 and from lower E.I. the grain is real good/you can push HP5 and the result is real
grainy and overdriven contrasty (but the speed is also high E.I. 3200)

But you can't get results from conventional grained films with RELATIVE SMALL grain at highest ISO! So Tgrain films (ALL of them) are nothing else than HIGH SPEED FILMS!
BUT WE HAVE FORGOTTEN! HIGH AND HIGHEST SPEED - NOTHING ELSE!

But Delta 100 - isn't high speed?... It is belive me - NEWBEES - PLEASE NOTICE IF YOU HEAR :
"If you already photographed E.I 800 with ISO 100 film then do that with Delta100 and not with
APX 100!"

So if I decide to need NOT finest grain/resolution I decide for example on Ilford Fp4,
APX 100 or some Rollei Retros a.s.o - the Ferrania isn't soo bad but Panatomic-x isn't
avaible any longer (since 1987) that was a real good film for example!!!!!!!!!?
WE should ASK why is it not avaible today!!!!
View attachment 221323

WHY CAN THIS NOT BE SHIPPED NEXT TO YOUR DEALER? A GOOD QUESTION DAVID!

First, you are the most prolific writer I have ever witnessed, Trendland. That must be a 'trend' with you and your omnipresent, emotive, emojis. Second, I have not stated that I prefer the traditional films. In fact, I consider TMX (T Max 100) film to be the best film extant for general photography. Your Aerocon does not come close. And for ultimate resolution, trendland, try Kodak ImageLink (avail in 35mm but NOT perforated). It is a panchromatic microfilm that turns 35mm into 4 x 5. You are VERY VERY funny trendland. I cannot compete with your drawn humor. - David Lyga

David Lyga · Apr 14, 2019

Truzi said:
I don't dislike the tabular-grained films, but aesthetically, I prefer the traditional. I do use both.

The qualities, or characteristics, of each film are equally valid, but there is a trade-off. Each does something better than the other (at least at my skill level, which is quite low).
I simply prefer those qualities found in traditional grain.

Cost isn't a factor in my preference.

I've also noticed the typical "new is better" bias in some users - and this applies to all things, not just photography.
Don't misinterpret me - if someone prefers tabular because they like the qualities, I'm fine with that. The issue I have is when someone prefers something only because it's the bigger, better, newest thing.

I really wonder if you prefer the traditional solely because you are USED to seeing the traditional grain and that familiarity drives your aesthetic perception. And, you would not be alone with that presumption. Maybe I am incorrect, here, but that is a thought worth thinking about. - David Lyga

David Lyga · Apr 14, 2019

Well, folks, I am REALLY REALLY busy with a six week temp job in King of Prussia for which I will be coming to Photrio sporadically during that onerous time, The travel time is almost two hours each way on the bus although it is only 18 miles away. Traffic is horrendous for the OUTBOUND commute in the morning and even more disgusting for the INBOUND commute at 5 pm.

So, there is no lack of interest on this topic and, by now, I get the impression that the choice is more (a perceived, learned acculturation, perhaps) aesthetics, than money. Interesting and I hope there is more to come, but remember that I might disappear for some time. Hope not. - David Lyga

David Lyga · Apr 14, 2019

PS : What kind of improvements I'll like to see? A) PANF 25 ISO VERSION B) PANF 12 ISO VERSION C) FP4 50 ISO VERSION D) Tmax 12 ISO VERSION. a.s.o:angel:[/QUOTE said:
trendland, This brings up a sore point with me: Why is there such an ongoing obsession with high film speeds? Slow films make 35mm into a medium format camera. We really have on ONE slow film: Pan F +. Granted, there has been VAST improvement with '100' films but, even they seem to be on the 'back burner' with regards to ostensible desirability. Everyone wants '400' and I ask why? First, slower films give more resolution and image quality Second, they often cost a bit less. - David Lyga

When film grain improvement might not be perceived as a film grain improvement

David Lyga

Pentode

David Lyga

Sirius Glass

trendland

Pentode

Truzi

jim10219

Bill Burk

trendland

Vaughn

jim appleyard

MattKing

Moderator

Vaughn

Attachments

CMoore

etn

KN4SMF

drpsilver

CMoore

RalphLambrecht

Bill Burk

David Lyga

David Lyga

David Lyga

David Lyga

When film grain improvement might not be perceived as a film grain improvement

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency