Why all the dislike for tabular-type films?

piu58 said:

> 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.

Click to expand...

Yes but that is not apparent if you fix by time and temperature and only discover you have unfixed negs when you look at the film while drying or later.

If you fix by inspection and use two baths it is easier to ensure archival fixing.

Because I use plain hypo I normally need to fix the tabulars for more than ten minutes at 20C and in a multi tank it is easy to see which films are tabs.

You can stand tabs and non tabs 1:100 in Rodinal...

The t-grain films develop very well in Rodinal diluted to 1:2 million and stand developed for 40 years.

fhovie said:

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)

Click to expand...

You seem to be describing edge effects. I can see edge effects on both Tri-X and TMY through my grain magnifier (Pyro developers) very clearly.

Best,

Doremus

Xmas said:

Yes but that is not apparent if you fix by time and temperature and only discover you have unfixed negs when you look at the film while drying or later.

If you fix by inspection and use two baths it is easier to ensure archival fixing.

Because I use plain hypo I normally need to fix the tabulars for more than ten minutes at 20C and in a multi tank it is easy to see which films are tabs.

You can stand tabs and non tabs 1:100 in Rodinal...

Click to expand...

T-grain films really call for a rapid fix. It's inexpensive, readily available and liquid concentrate so why not use rapid fix? Fox for three times (rather than the old two) the time it takes a fogged piece of film leader to clear - no problem. Even t-grain films typically clear in less than a minute in fresh rapid fix, no more than two minutes in used but within capacity rapid fix.

I can understand if one uses plain hypo for prints that it might be easier to just use the same thing for film though.

Roger Cole said:

T-grain films really call for a rapid fix. It's inexpensive, readily available and liquid concentrate so why not use rapid fix? Fox for three times (rather than the old two) the time it takes a fogged piece of film leader to clear - no problem. Even t-grain films typically clear in less than a minute in fresh rapid fix, no more than two minutes in used but within capacity rapid fix.

I can understand if one uses plain hypo for prints that it might be easier to just use the same thing for film though.

Click to expand...

HiRoger
It is more expensive and reeks of ammonia which latter causes me medical problems.
I don't do test strips cause it is safe to fix in day light with hypo if you wait three minutes before opening tank.
Fixing is temperature dependent so a test strip would need to be tempered.
Time is not critical if it clears in seven minutes I set an alarm and do something else the 60 minute stand dominates the process.
Im not troubled by sulphite so I use hypo clear so washing is relatively quick in 20C wash water
Prints also get plain hypo
Noel

Well ok that all makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disliked Delta 400, and then one day I exposed and developed it properly and it came out beautifully. I then apologized to the Ilford gods.

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:

I disliked Delta 400, and then one day I exposed and developed it properly and it came out beautifully. I then apologized to the Ilford gods.

Click to expand...

What were you doing wrong before?

Roger Cole said:

What were you doing wrong before?

Click to expand...

Hi Roger,

Nothing special. I just wasn't taking the time to dial it in. I was used to "older" style more forgiving emulsions like HP5 and Tri-X and treating it the same, and practically "shoe-horning" it in by developing them all together sometimes. It lacked snap most of the time and was sort of flat for me. I work a job in finance that requires precise numbers and such but photography is my relaxation time and I hate taking extensive notes and such (I know I should but I then dislike photography when I do so I just wing it sometimes). I do keep track roll by roll but never bother to precisely compare different rolls and such. Eventually something clicked and Delta 400 came out great, and I at least remembered how I exposed and the times and such for the development for that roll. So using and following that it's been a great film for me ever since. Even shot it exclusively for a friend's wedding back in December using my Hasselblad. They all came out great. (I do not shoot weddings, it was just a for fun thing for a friend).

My son the photographer's assistant below. Delta 400:

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:

I disliked Delta 400, and then one day I exposed and developed it properly and it came out beautifully. I then apologized to the Ilford gods.

Click to expand...

Same. My first rolls og Delta didn't get enough agitation. Once I fixed that it became my favourite film. A combination of fine t-grain and classic arty look.

Both TMX100 and somewhat, Delta 100, tend to have disappointing edge effect, even in pyro developers. TMY400 is much better in this respect. One reason I gave up on TMX for landscape shooting, though I often select it for lab purposes (masking film), commercial use, and
portraiture.

Delta power rangers

Jaf-Photo said:

Same. My first rolls og Delta didn't get enough agitation. Once I fixed that it became my favourite film. A combination of fine t-grain and classic arty look.

Click to expand...

Delta 400 in dilute Perceptol..........WOW!

I hope ,you found nothing from me against Tmaxbecause,I'm a big fan of Tmax 100 snd 400.I can enlarge MF Tmax100up to 11x14 without visible or disturbing grainand T|max 400 gives me great skin tones.Processing must be with good timing for Tmax100but,after a proper film test in standard chemicals such as D76,that's not a daunting task. I'm a big Tmax fan!and so will be you sfter trying it.as a starttake 2/3 of a stop off the box speedand reduce dev time by 10%Tmax has loads of latitude towards over exposurebut is sensitive to underexposure. have fun and I wish you much success. it isn'y the sharpesr filmbut,I want that in portraits anyway.