Why all the dislike for tabular-type films?

[Fixcinater]

I like the T-grain look, Acros in 6x7 is wicked.

 

[Maris]

Surely the differences between films becomes more obtrusive depending on how much the enlargement ratio reveals image structure. I make 8x10 contacts on variable contrast paper.

I can report all panchromatic 8x10 films are the same: no grain, "infinite" sharpness, rivers of tonal separation, and seamless image integrity. The only unforgiveable sins are insufficient exposure and insufficient development (any developer). I choose 8x10 films on the basis of speed, availability, and price. It used to be true and I think it still is that the smaller the format the more difficult it is to get quality results and the more individual film characteristics bite into the final result.

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh so today you are a psychiatrist.

Stone, until you decide to print your own negatives with an enlarger and print them on your digital track and try to match them yourself, I'm done trying to help you.

Despite the fact I'm scanning, if they were significantly different even my scans would be different looking. Otherwise why would anyone post anything to the APUG gallery? If the scan of their print isn't going to represent the real look of the image... On top of that other people who DO print optically are agreeing with me... Sheesh...

Maybe I should be done trying to help you... You're all so stubborn... But no one seems to actually do any real proving but me, and still I'm shot down... I can look at the two negatives and see they are the same, on a light box, but I can't SHOW you that because that would be based on a digital image... So it's invalid... Really... Nothing will ever satisfy the collective of you that just refuse to listen or look just because it's a scan, it's silly... And people like Drew talk about seeing the difference but never put up any proof... So, who are you going to believe, the person who just talks, or the person who does the work and shows it... If you choose the person who talks... Then I feel sorry for you, literal statement .... The blind leading the blind...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Stone... I appreciate your enthusiasm, but don't make me "bleep" your posts like on the other forum. There's a world of difference between real
evidence and surfing the web and passing along casual opinions as fact. The web is like a landfill. Once in awhile you can find a treasure in it; but you've got to wade thru a lot of trash to get to it. Ultimately, it's the eyes that judge. But until you've been on the road awhile, and
have learned to print for yourself, you can expect some skepticism from others about your rash statements. Y' know, walk the walk, and don't just talk the talk.

 

[jovo]

Amazed that this rather simple question has generated a thread this long on the day it was posted. I'll just say that I've used Delta 100 and Tri-X since forever in both medium and large format and love them both.

 

[StoneNYC]

Stone... I appreciate your enthusiasm, but don't make me "bleep" your posts like on the other forum. There's a world of difference between real
evidence and surfing the web and passing along casual opinions as fact. The web is like a landfill. Once in awhile you can find a treasure in it; but you've got to wade thru a lot of trash to get to it. Ultimately, it's the eyes that judge. But until you've been on the road awhile, and
have learned to print for yourself, you can expect some skepticism from others about your rash statements. Y' know, walk the walk, and don't just talk the talk.

What are you talking about??? You're the one who isn't walking the walk... You only TALK about walking it, has ANYONE actually seen one of your prints in person, or know you in person? Anyone on here at all to corroborate anything you say?

I am the one walking the walk, I shoot almost every day... Process almost once a week. Yes it's true I don't optically print, maybe I never well, but as much as the purists say scanning doesn't count... It's a form of film medium display, and the results vary just as much as printing results vary when you use one film vs another or one developer over another, or one filter over another, and just because you don't LIKE the type of process, doesn't negate it's validity as a source of proof of certain characteristics TO A POINT... If done correctly. And like it or not my actual shown results are a lot more valid than all the other people who have posted NO results just because they claim it's "unpure" and I'll ask that you not "bleep" my post as I'm sorry I singled you out but others are doing the same thing here.

Ultimately the OP has to run their own tests and decide for themselves but my test DOES prove that both types of film mediums traditional/tabular are both worthwhile to use and can produce the same results as each other given you have the skills and have put the testing time in...

To which I HAVE done for MY process...

Ok let's stop arguing and let's close this thread because it's going nowhere (going less places than "that sharpness thread" did anyway, that at least had worthwhile data from many helpful contributors).

 

[jovo]

Oh....now I see why! :munch:

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you want to see prints, then see prints, not some smudge on the web. But yeah... my prints don't exist, my cameras don't exist, I don't
exist, there is no such thing as global warming, the moon landing is a hoax, and bigfoot dines out at your favorite NYC bar ...

 

[StoneNYC]

Oh....now I see why! :munch:

It is my fault. I'm sorry, I have trouble letting things go, I just get frustrated when I actually do the work, show the result, and get told it's not valid by people who AREN'T showing the work. It makes me insane, and then other people who also haven't shown anything as proof will also mock me, and pass my words off as invalid even though I've proved something valid... And just make up excuses why it's not valid, it makes me defensive and frustrated, I just want someone to say "oh look, Stone did the work, he's right, look both films are similar, and look Thomas Bertleson (spelling?) and others agree with the statement, guess it's true, thanks for providing valuable information to the film community and showing us examples, that's helful" instead I get a bunch of cockamamie excuses but nothing to back up those claims. How would you like it if spent hours in the freezing cold doing testing, and spent money one the film and developer and time invested processing it all, only to be told "oh well, that's not valid because you scanned it" really... Give me a break!! Wouldn't you be a little bit defensive?

They told me to do the work, so I did the work... Then they said the work isn't valid... Because I'm displaying it digitally... On an ONLINE FORUM... Ugh, that's it I'm un-following this thread, I'm out... I promise...

 

[jovo]

Stone, your house burned down. No doubt you lost a lot of stuff that mattered to you. That's something to be stressed and upset over, not a discussion on apug. I realize you feel chuffed and frustrated, but, hey....it's after 8PM. Have a beer. In fact, if I could, I'd buy it. Smile....enjoy the ride! Have a calm and happier evening!

And it's Friday!!!!!!! What's not to feel good about!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'd buy Stone a beer too. Thanks for your sound advice, John!

Stone, both you and I have a tendency to get a little hot headed about this.
There are many ways to work with photography. Scanning film is a viable medium for very fine image making, particularly with techniques involving digital negatives and alternative printing like photogravure or palladium prints.
But, when you discuss films and such you are not seeing the same things when you scan as you do when you print silver. That's where a lot of the discussion gets lost and peeing contests ensue.

What do you want to achieve with your photography? I don't want to know the answer, unless you specifically want to tell me. But the point is that the answer should be crystal clear in your head, and when it is you find a way of achieving that.

If you plan on scanning your work and do it that way, I believe you are over complicating everything with film developing and such. Focus on getting really good at scanning and printing (printing digitally takes some serious skill too), and just enjoy having fun. You don't have to prove anything to anybody but yourself.

Find something that works well enough to give you a good platform to work from, and then learn how to get amazing at what you do.

I also think that the scanning thing is a sore spot with many here, because of how digital work flow has won a million times more support in the market than film has, and many are a little upset and unhappy with it. I know I am, although I try to stay open minded. When you sling a lot of advice and opinion around, based on what you see in scans, please just realize that it will likely not be received very well by stalwarts like me. Your knowledge is different from those who were brought up on darkroom. It just is. A digital scanner simply doesn't record light in the same way. It's an almost linear device. Photo paper is not. So we are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Stone, I think it's hard to take images shown online as proof of anything without fully documenting the process. Not that I'm faulting you for trying, it's just that there are so many chances for variability that it's hard to know if any difference we are seeing are due to the process or the film.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I also think that the scanning thing is a sore spot with many here, because of how digital work flow has won a million times more support in the market than film has, and many are a little upset and unhappy with it. I know I am, although I try to stay open minded. When you sling a lot of advice and opinion around, based on what you see in scans, please just realize that it will likely not be received very well by stalwarts like me. Your knowledge is different from those who were brought up on darkroom. It just is. A digital scanner simply doesn't record light in the same way. It's an almost linear device. Photo paper is not. So we are comparing apples and oranges.

That is a good point. Scanners are entirely linear devices, so your impression of a film may be different if you scan or print in the darkroom. Same with printing carbon vs silver gelatin, or any other process. With scanning there are also interactions with the sampling frequency and the spacing of the film grain. So some films may appear more or less grainy relative to others when scanned a certain way, whereas printing by enlarger you hardly see a difference. On a drum scanner it's easy to see this just by changing the aperture. On a CCD scanner don't really have that flexibility, so your scanner becomes part of the equation.

 

[Arcturus]

I didn't mean to start arguments with this thread, I was just curious if there was any truth to the purported faults of tabular-type film. I use TMY-2 for pretty much everything now, but I like to use Tri-X and HP5+ when shooting with antique Tessars or triplets. I think it looks better with those old lenses, but I also think that it's probably just my imagination.

 

[markbarendt]

I think it looks better with those old lenses, but I also think that it's probably just my imagination.

The grumpiness is not your fault.

Your probably right on both of these thoughts count. I doesn't matter as long as it works for you.

 

[erikg]

I didn't mean to start arguments with this thread, I was just curious if there was any truth to the purported faults of tabular-type film. I use TMY-2 for pretty much everything now, but I like to use Tri-X and HP5+ when shooting with antique Tessars or triplets. I think it looks better with those old lenses, but I also think that it's probably just my imagination.

It probably is your imagination. Only you can answer your question to your own satisfaction but when you consider that these films have been on the market for 30 years now from 3 manufacturers they must have some good points. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, says some guy on the internet. Happy shooting.

 

[Ian Grant]

When did the tabular grain films come on the market? I did some googling but the earliest reference I could find was to tabular technology first being used in VR1000 color film in 1982. John Sexton's article about getting best results with TMX, still available on the LFP site, appeared in 1987. I thought they came out in the mid 80s, a long winded way of saying "wasn't it later than 1980 you had that conversation?"

No real matter though.

There was a lot of discussion in the magazines etc that Kodak had moved to T-grain emulsions for their colour films with major improvements in terms of grian, sharpness etc and people wanted to know why B&W films hadn't been similarly improved.

I still have some of the original articles by by John Sexton about Tmax films prior to their actual release which were around 1986, I've also still got the first Tmax data sheet. Tmax was available earlier in the US than the UK but I was using it here in around 1987. I've a Howard Bond article on lowering contrast with Tmax from that year.

Ian

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I'm not sure what this thread is about at the moment.

But if the question is whether there are visible differences between negatives of various films, then I would have to say yes of course!

How big or important these differences are depend on your personal view. Something that looks almost the same to one person may appear radically different to another. It depends on what details you pay attention to, if any.

If anything these differences will be more apparent in a sccan than a print. In the print you have an overlay of other factors, which affect the look.

Personally, I have no trouble telling my films apart based on scans with no identifying marks.

 

[Aristotle80]

I have two thoughts about T-grain films I can put in nutshells.

After 10 pages of this thread I'm stunned that nobody has brought up the way that tabular grain films exhaust fixer at the speed of light. When I first tried TMAX films 15 years ago I could fix TWICE the number of Plus-X rolls in the same volume of freshly made fixer. TMAX and Delta films are wonderful, but in my experience they require much fresher fixer to clear completely. When I track the number of times the fixer has been used, my own system counts a single roll of Delta 400 as TWO rolls of FP4+. Once I made that adjustment I never had to suddenly mix fresh fix and re-fix on the fly. This fact alone tells me that something is really different with the substance of the emulsion itself, regardless of the results when printing.

The second thing I consider about tabular grain films is that Delta 100 has such fine grain, I can't always focus on it properly with my enlarger in 6x6 format! I can focus on Delta 100 grain in 35mm format under the enlarger because the enlargement factor is so big. I consciously choose grainier film for medium format because of my difficulties enlarging sharply. That's a failure of my own eyes, but something for people to think about. The result looks just as smooth because it's not enlarged as much. My concession to age.

 

[Roger Cole]

You can always get a more powerful grain magnifier or use one of the type with a plastic "ground glass" type screen to focus on the image itself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RattyMouse]

Does Neopan Acros kill fixer extra fast too?

 

[BetterSense]

I have not noticed Acros being any harder to fix than "normal" films.

 

[paul ron]

Cheesus... This is still going???

Just load it up n try it for yourself! Liking anything is a personal choice!

 

[piu58]

> that tabular grain films exhaust fixer at the speed of light

That may be a misinterpretation. Tabular films contain much more iodide (indtead of bromide) which fixes harder. It is not uncommon to fix the film for 10 minutes. If you count the "freshness" of the fixer measuring the fixation time you may come to the conclusion of exhausted fixer. But it isn't. Tabular films simply need a longer time.

 

[fhovie]

One of the things that draws me away from Tab films and keeps me with TRI-X and FP4 is that I can get a "sharper" image with the non-tab films. Now hear me out ... with certain low sulfite developers such as pyro or ascorbic acid types, there is a certain erosion of grain that causes a ridge to form in the terminator between light and dark areas of the negative. This line adds to the apparent sharpness of the image. Super fine grain films will not have the grain structure to allow this formation and although they have better resolution, they will not appear as sharp. For most of my work I like the apparent sharpness I can achieve with non tab films. I still use and enjoy tab films at times and do appreciate some of the things they can do with smooth tonality and grainless prints but for most of my work, a little grain is fine and a lot of sharpness is better. I shoot 6x6 through 8x10 ... For 35mm or smaller, I think I would prefer tab films. (But I almost never shoot smaller than 6x6)