Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60

Thread: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    287

    T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    Ok, I know this has been talked about in here before but I searched and couldn't find anything truely dedicated to this topic.

    What are the differences between a T-grain film (ex: TMAX, delta, acros) and a conventional film (ex: HP5, forte, Efke, Tri-x)? This is what I know so far to be true: T-grain films have less forgiving latitudes and are less forgiving to processing errors. Conventional films have a random grain pattern, where T-grain films are constructed. T-grain films have more even tonalities and are finer grained than their conventinal counterparts.

    I'd like to hear everyone's view on this as well as experiences anyone has had who has tried both types and why you prefer one to the other. I'm in search of trying a new 4x5 film out and right now my two top favorites to try are Delta-100 and either Efke 100 or FP4.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    508

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    You raise three points.

    1. Latitude and processing. Depends how much latitude you need and which developer you use. I get 4-5 stops without trouble and a little in hand, and I aim for developing times around 9 minutes as standard.

    2. Random grain pattern. Assuming you can actually see the grain in a Delta film ( 8-) ) it is not 'regular'. That is digital...

    3. Even tonality. I would agree with that. Can be a blessing or a curse. I haven't needed a filter to add tone to blue sky with Delta. On the otherhand a little grain to add texture to a smooth tone can be useful. The colour sensitivity is a little different, I think, though I have not compared spectral sensitivity curves.

    I use Delta 400 in roll film and Delta 100 in sheet. Developer is usually FG-7 at 1+15, or maybe 1+9 if the Jobo is full. Works for me
    .

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    Tmax 400 is the heavywieght champ when it comes to reciprocity. Being a public school product during the era when "new math' was taught, I therefore have a deep seated fear of mathematics. I can get reciprocity factors "close enough" with Tmax 400 when shooting nocturnals. Great stuff! Developing tolerances have never been an issue for me, and I'm pretty cavalier about temperature---solutions are stored in 1 gallon amber glass jugs in the cool enviroment of an unused bathroom so everything is at least the same temperature starting out. From my negatives I can make out the licence plate numbers on the toyota pick up some one left parked in 'my' landscape, about 100 yards down the road. It isn't my everyday film, but it is a very good film and IMHO not at all difficult to develop.
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  4. #4
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    I've never understood the whole argument that t-grain films are less forgiving or have less latitude.

    Less latitude implies a shorter scale, or a shorter straight line section, when in fact many of these films have exceptionally long straight line sections.

    As far as "unforgiving" it seems people are saying is that small changes in development significantly influence the outcome. Which is another way of saying the film is responsive. This is a quality I've always admired.

    I prefer modern emulsion films--many years ago I switched from Agfa Pan 100 (a great film) to Tmax 100. It took me several months to figure out development for TMX ... it responded very differently than anything else I'd used. But once I figured it out, I was getting most of what I liked about the agfa pan, plus quite a few improvements. These include finer grain (of course), greater resolution of fine detail, softer (less likely to block) highlights, more uniform sensitivity over the visual spectrum, greatly improved reciprocity, slightly improved midtone separation, and fewer problems with edge density buildup and other kinds of streaking.

    What I lost is a little bit of speed, a little bit of edge definition in small enlargements, and a little bit of the sense of richness in some deep shadows.

    I do develop with a lot of precision ... time within a couple of seconds, motor base for agitation, all solutions within half a degree of 68 ... but this is mostly habit. I did it the same way with the old films. I don't know it's necessary, but I do know it's not difficult.

    I much prefer working with the tmx. but the differences are sometimes subtle. there are cases where i'd guess wrong if you asked me to pick which print came from which kind of negative.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    Hi Brian.

    I regularly use TMY, TMX, Foma 200, and Acros 100, all of which are designer grain films. I also use many different K-grain films, and most of the derogatory comments I've seen made in referrence to designer grain films vs K-grain films do not reflect my own experience with either group of films. My favorite film in any format is TMY, which has been, for me, the most reliably and predictably excellent film I've ever used. It simply does everything a film should do, and represents the state of the film manufacturing art. When 70s era photographers were asked how TX could be improved, many described TMY; better film speed, less grain, a more linear response to exposure, better reciprocity behavior, and more natural spectral sensitivity. I'll have to admit that I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "less forgiving latitudes ", but in my experience, TMY exhibits exceptional latitude, with a very short toe, and a long, straight curve that seems to go on forever, making it extremely forgiving of overexposure. I've never seen evidence that designer grain films are more or less forgiving of processing errors. In my mind, an intolerance of processing variation suggests that a film builds contrast very quickly throughout its range, or in a portion of its range, resulting in large variations in contrast from minor variations in development. In comparing contrast curves, I see no evidence to support the claim that K-grain films are more forgiving of processing errors than designer grain films are. Films like Pan F+, or APX 25 (RIP), which develop contrast quickly, and exhibit an S-shaped curve are much less forgiving of exposure or processing errors than a film like TMY.

    TMY is the king of the hill, Foma 200 is its slow nephew, and Acros and TMX are identical cousins, with the most important distinction between them being their nearly opposite spectral sensitivities. All of these films are excellent, as are the Delta films from Ilford, and offer some pretty amazing advantages over K-grain films.

    None of what I've written should suggest that I don't use, or love K-grain films, because I do. In fact, I've never used a film that wasn't capable of truly excellent results, when handled appropriately. The importance of familiarity cannot be overstated when discussing real-world use, as opposed to film spec's. Many photographers have never warmed up to designer grain films, partly, in many cases, because they have invested the time and effort to become intimately familiar with a particular K-grain film, and see little advantage to starting over with another film, with its own quirks and intricacies, when they're already getting excellent results from their chosen films. On the spec sheets, designer grain films are the clear winners, but on printing paper, experience wins every time. Good luck.

    Jay

  6. #6
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay De Fehr
    Many photographers have never warmed up to designer grain films, partly, in many cases, because they have invested the time and effort to become intimately familiar with a particular K-grain film, and see little advantage to starting over with another film ...
    I think that's true. I also hear from people who don't even realize that trying the new film requires starting over.

    So many photographers used to traditional emulsion films have tried t-max a few times, developed it the way they did their old film (or by simply following Kodak's advice, which they never would have considered with their old film ...) and they get results they hated. So they gave up on it.

    This is pretty predictable, actually. I can't speak for delta and across and the others, but for me, getting tmx to look the way I wanted took a lot of experimenting. And what ended up working was counterintuitive based on my experience with older films.
    Last edited by paulr; 21-Jun-2006 at 08:10.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    469

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    I agree with Paul on this.

    I shoot TMax 100 and 400. Souped in D76 (the developer is was originally designed for) these give consistant results. The latitude of these films is incredible.

    I performed a comparison between TMax100 in D76, D76 minimal agitation, Rodinal 100:1, and Rodinal 100:1 minimal agitation. The regular D76 results were soooooo good, a person really needs to be neurotic beyond belief to see much improvement in shadow development when compared with Rodinal 100:1 minimal agitation.

    Lastly, designer grain films being "unforgiving" must be one of those Urban Legends. What's unforgiving are traditional films and the way they block up the highlights. Over cook your processing just a little bit and away goes your highlight detail. Now that's unforgiving for you. Yet some people tolerate it as if it's the way things are.

    Quote Originally Posted by paulr
    I've never understood the whole argument that t-grain films are less forgiving or have less latitude.

    Less latitude implies a shorter scale, or a shorter straight line section, when in fact many of these films have exceptionally long straight line sections.

    As far as "unforgiving" it seems people are saying is that small changes in development significantly influence the outcome. Which is another way of saying the film is responsive. This is a quality I've always admired...

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,955

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    I use TMX, TMY and Acros, all in D76, 1:1, and I have found what the other posters on this thread have mentioned. I initially did film speed and development tests to establish plus and minus zone system times, and have never had a negative that I was unsatisfied with.

    When I began LF I used FP4+. A very good film, but as I was doing mostly low light work it's reciprocity charecteristics rendered it unsuitable.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    628

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    I guess I am the only person left on this forum who still uses Tri-X. To my eye TMax looks relatively lifeless.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Seattle, Washington
    Posts
    3,020

    Re: T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

    Quote Originally Posted by CXC
    I guess I am the only person left on this forum who still uses Tri-X. To my eye TMax looks relatively lifeless.

    I use TXP in 8x10, and 220. It can be absolutely beautiful when handled appropriately; one must be aware of its long toe and upswept curve, or disappointment will surely follow. 510-Pyro is an excellent match for this film; it gives full film speed and does a good job of controlling highlights. Makes for snappy portraits.

    Jay

Similar Threads

  1. sharpest 8x10 black and white film?
    By dano_6525 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 15-May-2006, 20:31
  2. TMAX RS Develooper and J&C Films
    By Michael Heald in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5-May-2006, 08:20
  3. Film grain and sharpness Question
    By brian steinberger in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 16-Mar-2006, 13:39
  4. Need Help 'Calibrating' a Critical Grain Focuser
    By Andre Noble in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-May-2005, 22:12
  5. Pyro Staining and Grain Masking
    By Kirk Keyes in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-Jun-2004, 14:41

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •