Why all the dislike for tabular-type films?

[paul ron]

Old dog here... I have to say films, especially t-grain, have improved so much. I love tMax. I feel i am in full control and can get so many different look out of it using different dev combos.

But papers have turned to crap! Wish i had the old Agfas of the 70s to print on using these wonderful new films!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Maybe if you like a lot of grain, 35mm tabular-grain films will disappoint you. If you like the curve shape of 320 Tri-X, you'll have a hard time finding that in another film, tabular or not.

A couple of years back, when TXP disappeared in rolls, I made an effort to try to duplicate the film curve of TXP using TMax 100 and 400. Interestingly, it was not that difficult, and I got close with just a few rolls of film. Both TMX and TMY-2 have, as you know, tremendous exposure latitude, particularly TMY-2. If you use a developer that is really efficient in the shadows, like Xtol, you can get close to the shadows of TXP by underexposing and over-developing. I shot TMX at 400 and TMY-2 at 1600, and then processed in Xtol 1+1 for a way extended time, agitating often to avoid a shoulder. You could go 1+2 or 1+3 and develop even longer, which would stretch that abrupt toe to start to look like TXP.
I shot the same scene on TXP and TMX and once all was said, done, and printed, in a print size where grain doesn't matter it was actually difficult to tell them apart.

 

[bdial]

It's film. Put it in your camera, capture some photons and make something great.

If you can only do that with this or that film developed in this or that magic brew you're missing something.

IMHO
:munch:

 

[cjbecker]

When I started shooting medium format my first 50 rolls were acros. I made some very wonderful images with it, but after that, I have only put 3ish rolls of t-grain film threw it. I have bounced all over, and all that been traditional grained films. I just like the look of them.


PS. Stone don't be a troll, and try to get every thread you talk in closed.

 

[StoneNYC]

{snip}

That said, tabular-grain films are a bit less forgiving of sloppy exposure and processing that many of the more "conventional" products (even the newer, tweaked ones). Sloppy workers are going to have troubles with them by comparison and, since this group is often the most vocal and lazy, will bad-mouth the film and blame it rather than clean up their act.

I think this latter comprises the bulk of the vilification of tabular grain films.

{snip}

+++++++++1

 

[StoneNYC]

When I started shooting medium format my first 50 rolls were acros. I made some very wonderful images with it, but after that, I have only put 3ish rolls of t-grain film threw it. I have bounced all over, and all that been traditional grained films. I just like the look of them.


PS. Stone don't be a troll, and try to get every thread you talk in closed.

Sorry, my comment was only information added to the conversation, as it was pertinent to point out that the film being mentioned as Traditional, in fact was a hybrid... I thought that was important to point out. Not trying to be a troll.

Also, the tread in question wasn't actually closed because of me, but because of others (so I'm told by the moderator).

 

[BetterSense]

The latitude of the film is stupendous, and no other film can do what TX does.

This is hyperbole. Latitude is something that you can measure, and Tri-X does not have "stupendous" latitude. Tri-X does have better latitude than some films, but if you want latitude, TMAX has more. Tri-X does have nice grain, but the grain is very fine...if you want course grain, there are better films for that, and if you want fine grain, there are better films for that. I find that Tri-X is a rather ordinary film. A high-quality film, but not a film with any special qualities. So it's silly to say there's no other film that can do what Tri-X does because it's just not that special.

On the other hand, there really aren't any films that can do what TMAX400 does. Tri-X can be substituted with any number other films with similar qualities, but if you are using TMAX400 for the fine grain, high speed, good sharpness, extreme latitude, and low reciprocity failure that it provides, there's not anything else that really falls on the map in the same place. Delta400 is comparable but not quite as good, in my opinion.

TMAX400 is truely the "Have your cake and eat it too" film. If I had to standardize on a single film, it would have to be TMAX400. The combination of speed, grain, latitude, and sharpness make it the standout choice in everything from my Pen-F to 4x5. If I have one gripe, it's that it's slightly expensive and fixing it is really annoying.

TMAX 100 is also phenomenal but a little less special; I think that Delta 100 and Acros are fine substitutes for TMAX100 in most situations.

 

[StoneNYC]

This is hyperbole. Latitude is something that you can measure, and Tri-X does not have "stupendous" latitude. Tri-X does have better latitude than some films, but if you want latitude, TMAX has more. Tri-X does have nice grain, but the grain is very fine...if you want course grain, there are better films for that, and if you want fine grain, there are better films for that. I find that Tri-X is a rather ordinary film. A high-quality film, but not a film with any special qualities. So it's silly to say there's no other film that can do what Tri-X does because it's just not that special.

On the other hand, there really aren't any films that can do what TMAX400 does. Tri-X can be substituted with any number other films with similar qualities, but if you are using TMAX400 for the fine grain, high speed, good sharpness, extreme latitude, and low reciprocity failure that it provides, there's not anything else that really falls on the map in the same place. Delta400 is comparable but not quite as good, in my opinion.

TMAX400 is truely the "Have your cake and eat it too" film. If I had to standardize on a single film, it would have to be TMAX400. The combination of speed, grain, latitude, and sharpness make it the standout choice in everything from my Pen-F to 4x5. If I have one gripe, it's that it's slightly expensive and fixing it is really annoying.

TMAX 100 is also phenomenal but a little less special; I think that Delta 100 and Acros are fine substitutes for TMAX100 in most situations.

OK...so.... which is TMAX400 and which is FP4+? (EDIT: don't look at the file names... I forgot to make them blank...)




1:1

 

[removed account4]

people just spew what they heard read or dreamt not what they experienced for themselves.

It's worse than that. Even when they "experience" it they have no idea what they are looking at, and draw preposterous conclusions based on nothing.

yep

the interweb is not a place to learn about film or paper
it is a tabloid stuffed full of opinion ...

the best way to learn about film, to understand how it reacts
with lenses, light, chemicals, and paper and light and chemicals
is by actually using it.

sigh. EEPinions ....

when will this madness end ?!!

 

[BetterSense]

OK...so.... which is TMAX400 and which is FP4+? (EDIT: don't look at the file names... I forgot to make them blank...)

I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate with your examples. It's hard to tell anything from the web, but if I didn't look at the file names, I would not be able to guess which image was shot with which film. The sample images you show look very similar to me. My interpretation is that TMY is just as sharp and fine-grained, and gives similar tonality to FP4+, while being 2 stops faster.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I'm not sure what you are trying to illustrate with your examples. It's hard to tell anything from the web, but if I didn't look at the file names, I would not be able to guess which image was shot with which film. The sample images you show look very similar to me. My interpretation is that TMY is just as sharp and fine-grained, and gives similar tonality to FP4+, while being 2 stops faster.

That is the conclusion I've come to also. I was quite shocked the first time I printed the two side by side of a similar subject at the same size. There was practically no difference visible. The main difference I see is in the reciprocity characteristics.

 

[StoneNYC]

Nothing of value can really be illustrated with silly low resolution negative scans anyway. The excercise serves no purpose.

I love how I literally show examples and you say they are no good, then why don't you print a cropped image zoomed in to illustrate your point? How come I'm the only one willing to actually do tests and show my work...? And still everyone makes comments that it's not good enough.... This 1:1 is good enough for 20x24 easily bigger even... What does it even matter if it's a "low quality" or "high quality" scan? It illustrates that when shot similarly and developed properly you can achieve virtually the same result in grain and "LOOK" with either film. It does demonstrate what the above poster said that the Tgrain film could be shot 2 stops faster. But still can achieve the same "look" as a traditional grained film... Which was the question by the OP... Which I actually did the work, and showed my results... Unlike everyone else who just talks...

EDIT: what L said also that there is a difference in reciprocity characteristics which can be appealing especially for LF shooters with bellows compensation times etc.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Whilst this is a perfectly valid thread I guess, it has already brought out what we all have... strong personal opinions and perceptions and a knowledge of certain properties of individual films.

For me its absolutely simple, In monochrome we have a fantastic range of monochrome films both of tabular ( controlled crystal growth ) design and manufacture, and also conventional emulsions from KODAK / FUJI and ILFORD. On a 'technical point' its not really possible to have a true 'hybrid' between the two ( as I have seen mentioned before ) because of the differing emulsion preparation / manufacturing processes involved in producing a CCG emulsion or a conventional emulsion.

Some people like CCG films, some prefer conventional emulsions, its down to you, what type of work you do, what you personally want and what your chosen film does for you and in some cases what format you are shooying in. It should not be forgotten that by and large CCG films are more expensive than conventional films and that can influence some peoples purchasing decisions.

So in answer to the original question, 'I do not know'.


Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[BrianShaw]

I love how I literally show examples and you say they are no good, (snip)

Some days there is no way to win.

 

[BrianShaw]

(snip)
So in answer to the original question, 'I do not know'.

... and some days there is no way to really know.

 

[StoneNYC]

Some days there is no way to win.

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[DREW WILEY]

What th........... If everyone hates these films, why are they selling so well? Start with a ridiculous assumption to begin with, and nothing
else will make sense afterwards

 

[MDR]

It's different than the old thing and since it's new (only 27 years old) it has to bad. The best film for 1930's type portraits is T-max 100 btw

 

[Jaf-Photo]

For me, TMAX is excellent for documentary style photography. The fine grain and sharpness do produce a very good image.

But for artistic and subjective shots, classic films have that arty look that you want.

Ilford Delta is a compromise because I think it looks like a cross between t-grain and classic grain.

 

[Vilk]

It's mostly old dogs who don't like new things... Ignore them and find your own way

arf arf

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yep, that TMY-2 and FP4+ sure do look alike, which is my experience also. Confusingly similar.

Shoot film, folks, and be happy about the choices you have. If you really must find an answer to the difference between new and old films, the only way to satisfy your own curiosity is to try it and see for yourselves.
Use both films side by side, develop them to the same contrast, and print on the same paper. Make it an 'all other things equal' scenario and compare.

Enjoy yourselves too! Don't pay so much attention to the 'facts' on the internet. There's a lot of misinformation out there.

 

[cliveh]

Growl, Growl.

 

[miha]

The TMY picture looks like it has been shot through a light yellow filter. Different colour response.

 

[ntenny]

I don't really remember seeing "hate" for t-grain films. There are plenty of people who like the conventional-grain films better, either because they see or believe they see different outcomes, or for process reasons; but if anything I feel like I see more advocacy than denigration. (When Efke 25 was still with us, it was hard to talk about it for very long without someone saying "you should just use TMX/TMY which is better in every way and does your laundry for you too". OK, maybe I exaggerate a little.)

The difference in shoulder shapes between, at least, the Kodak t-grain films and conventional ones is objective and real. Of course it's only one step in the process, but a process is made up of choices at various steps; personally I find I get along better with the shoulder of TX or HP5+ than that of TMX/TMY, so why change?

(I got 1/2 on Stone's samples, by the way. The first pair I thought was pretty obvious based on the highlights, and I was right; but in the second I thought I saw the exact same difference, and I was wrong.)

-NT