T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions

[Ralph Barker]

While I agree with the idea that film/developer, or film/developer/paper/paper developer choices are essential, most of the discussion so far has centered on the technical aspects involved in the processing. It might be helpful to consider the aesthetic aspect of Brian's original question within that "combination" context.

To me, T-grained films have a certain crispness that tends to give the resulting images a "technical" feel, while traditional emulsions tend to have a "softer" look, even if developed for a balance between fine grain and accutance. Thus, my preference is to select the film/developer (and paper/developer) combination that best suits the subject matter (well, really, how I want to render the subject matter). So, while I might personally prefer the look of FP4+ for much of my work, I also like the look of Delta 100 or Fuji Acros for some subjects.

[CXC]

"Anyone saying that Film X is lifeless/harsh/dead/ugly typically means that the first time they tried it, with whatever kind of development, it didn't look as good to them as their tried and true combination."

So if it looks worse, that means you should switch to it? Makes sense to me...

[brian steinberger]

Oren, I'm currently using HP5 in D-76 1:1. It's ok, but I used to use Tmax and I really liked the images I was swayed to try a conventional emulsion by someone (no one in here) that swore they were better. So I've been running test after test with HP5 and I think it's time to go back to what I liked before, but like I said before I don't trust Kodak enough to continue to make Tmax. So I'l like to stick with Ilford, but they don't make Delta 400 in 4x5!!! WHY NOT?!?!

And I agree with Ralph, since I've switch to HP5 my images have had a softer, more non-realistic look really, which is great for a lot of people. I agree that T-grain films have a "technical feel." They feel sharp, and they feel greater in tonality. My photography involves alot of landscape, as well as rustic architecture, and industrial photography. I think that a T-grain film may be the best choice for me. Is there any other T-grain 400 speed film in 4x5 other than Tmax 400?

[Ralph Barker]

. . . So I'l like to stick with Ilford, but they don't make Delta 400 in 4x5!!! WHY NOT?!?! . . .

They did previously, but, as I understand, the sales volume wasn't sufficient to support both Delta 400 and HP5+. So, the LF sizes of Delta 400 were deprecated during the financial crunch.

[brian steinberger]

Do you think there's any chance they might bring it back now that they're more stable?

[Oren Grad]

So I've been running test after test with HP5 and I think it's time to go back to what I liked before, but like I said before I don't trust Kodak enough to continue to make Tmax.

Apologies if this sounds blunt, but if that isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy I don't know what is.

Most of my film money these days goes to Ilford because they have the product that best meets my needs, and I'm also happy to do my part to keep them alive. But if you are really happy with TMY, I think you should continue to use it. Dumping TMY because you think Kodak might discontinue it at some point is the surest way to make them actually do it.

There is no other film quite like TMY, so why force yourself to go through all the effort and expense of testing new films and possibly ending up settling for a second-best until you really have to? If you're worried about TMY being discontinued so abruptly that you might wake up one day on the eve of an important shoot, with no time to test new films and no TMY to be found, then buy a bunch now and stuff it in the freezer.

[jshanesy]

with no time to test new films and no TMY to be found, then buy a bunch now and stuff it in the freezer.

Random grain films keep better in the freezer than the designer grains. When the demise of TMY becomes known, I'll buy a few boxes to put down but the bulk of my lifetime supply will probably be FP4+.

[paulr]

"Anyone saying that Film X is lifeless/harsh/dead/ugly typically means that the first time they tried it, with whatever kind of development, it didn't look as good to them as their tried and true combination."

So if it looks worse, that means you should switch to it? Makes sense to me...

hello, what?

the point is, if you've never used one of the new films, there's going to be a learning curve to figure out how it responds to development. it's very likely that your first attempt won't look the way you want it to.

comparing your first attempt at something new with something that you've refined and perfected over the years won't tell you much.

[paulr]

To me, T-grained films have a certain crispness that tends to give the resulting images a "technical" feel

that's interesting, because i had almost the reverse experience.

my old film, agfa pan 100, had very sharp, almost etched looking edge definition. this was one of the qualities I admired it for. it was apparent mostly in very small enlargements.

when i switched to tmx, i found i got a softer, smoother overall look. big enlargements look sharper with the tmx, but small ones look a bit softer ... more emphasis on tones than on edges. my only explanation is that with apx, the grain was contributing to edge effects ... or something like that.

[Pete Caluori]

Talking about film or film and developers is akin to talking about religion. Everone has their individual bias based on experience and whatever floats your boat is appropriate. To talk about one film vs. another film is purely acedemic.

Since none of us, or scant few of us actually display negatives, lets talk about the finished product; start from there and work backwards. What type of print are you trying to make? Then select the best film/developer to achieve the print you want.

Selecting a film, with no consideration for the developer is like picking out a car with no consideration for the driver. Consider this: place a drive that has never driven a manual shift vehicle into one and see what happens. The same is true for film and developers. Some film/developer combinations "sing" while other produce ho hum results.

What are you trying to achieve? Only then can folks make qualified remarks. My commens about one film or another is meaningless unless I qualify it with the developer I'm using and how I use the resulting negative.

One of my favorite process is Van Dyke which requires a negative that is extremely contrasty; so contrasty that most conventional silver printers would find it difficult to print. If I gave you my impressions of these films without first qualifing my remarks you would think my comments are off the wall compared to others that print conventionally.

All I'm really saying is try these yourself and see what you like. Taking the unqualified advice of folks on a subject like this is not very helpful.

Regards, Pete