Silver Content, Rich Emulsions, super sensitivity

[Lenny Eiger]

Greetings all,

Is there any listing of different films based on silver content/richness/thick emulsion? I know some like the thinner emulsion film, but I am not among that bunch. In my process, a good, rich negative almost prints itself. The thin stuff drives me nuts.

In addition, is there any test for it? A test that would show sensitivity? Not basic ASA/ISO, but the ability to distinguish between two midtones? I imagine we could prove it by photographing maybe 10,000 patches and reading them all with a spectrophotometer to see if it doesn't show a change from one to another. But there has to be a better way....

I don't know, maybe I'm just looking for something with a really flat curve. How about a listing of film with the flat-est curves?

[sanking]

What ever do you mean by a"flat" curve?

Curves have toes, shoulders and straight line sections, but so far as I recall I have not hear one called flat. Do you mean one low in contrast?

[Kevin M Bourque]

No one really knows how much silver is in papers or films. As far as I can tell, terms like "silver rich" are just marketing.

If by "flattest" you mean films with a long straight line section, most modern elmulsions fall into that category.

[Bruce Watson]

I have to agree with Sandy and Kevin. Thick emulsion films were known for their large toe and large shoulders. Films like Kodak's Super XX had almost an "S" curve for a characteristic curve plot. Modern thin emulsion films have much longer straight line parts of their reponse curves. The longest and straightest characteristic curve I know of comes from 100Tmax.

On the other hand, if an old thick film emulsion is what you want, then that's what you want. There are some still being made. Check with the APUG forum - I'm sure they can point you in the direction you desire.

[Lenny Eiger]

The taller the curve, in the center straight line section, the more contrasty it is. If it was a perfect 45 degrees, that would be fine. If you look at a TMax curve, you will find that the gradient is much higher than 45. Midtone sensitivity is gone (I know this is a subjective statement) . People that use this film print more contrasty than I do, so it doesn't amtter to them. However, I am looking for something that doesn't start out contrasty, that has everything the scene had to offer.

[Jim_3565]

"On the other hand, if an old thick film emulsion is what you want, then that's what you want. There are some still being made."

No there aren't. Super XX was the last one. The "old style thick emulsion" claim is also just marketing hype.

You can easily verify this by attempting water bath development with any modern film. Success with water bath development was the hallmark of thick emulsion films. It does not work with any modern film, because this technique is a function of the physics of the emulsion and not the chemistry.

[John Kasaian]

Lenny,

Efke in definately different from any of the modern emulsions I'm familiar with. Whether or not its "old-style" I can't say, but it is different. Try it, you may like it (I do!)

[Ken Lee]

"The taller the curve, in the center straight line section, the more contrasty it is. If it was a perfect 45 degrees, that would be fine. If you look at a TMax curve, you will find that the gradient is much higher than 45."



I'm no expert, but doesn't the steepness of the curve depend on development variables: developer, time, temperature, agitation, etc. ?



Are you looking at the standard Kodak TMax curves ? Sandy and other list members can probably furnish many plots for other combinations of developer/temperature, etc.



An entirely subjective impression, but TMax 100 seems to have been created with greatest consideration to grain size. A "snappy" appearance may fully accord with its intended use. Other films exist, with more general applications in mind.

[Aaron van de Sande]

Efke was one of the first multi-layer emulsion films (in the 50s).

All of the single-layer films are gone, although the verdict is still out on j&c pro 100. Nobody seems to know how that film is really made.

[paulr]

" If you look at a TMax curve, you will find that the gradient is much higher than 45. Midtone sensitivity is gone (I know this is a subjective statement) . People that use this film print more contrasty than I do, so it doesn't amtter to them. However, I am looking for something that doesn't start out contrasty, that has everything the scene had to offer."

This isn't true, but more importantly it doesn't make any sense.

The angle of the gradient of t-max (or any film) is dependent on the degree of development. The angle is approximated by a measurement called Gamma. TMax is responsive enough to give you a ridiculously low Gamma (or a ridiculously high one) if that's what you're looking for.

I have never heard of "midtone sensitivity" so I can't comment on that.

I don't believe you can generalize that people who use TMax print at any particular level of contrast. It's a responsive emulsion; I've used it for years but I cannot identify its use in other people's work, because there are so many variables and because it yields different results with different kinds of development.

In general, it does have a longer straight line section than most traditional emulsions. Maybe this is what you're seeing. It seems to me to have a very short toe, at least when developed the way I develop it. This, however, lends a sense of open shadows and lots of range in the midtones, not one of high contrast.

This has nothing to do with the amount of silver. As Kevin pointed out, "silver rich" has always been a descriptive phrase used by photographers, or a marketing hook used by manufacturers. There's never been any reccord of how much silver is in any of this stuff, or even of what difference it might make. Any film has enough silver in it to get impenetrably dark.

There may not be any true thick emulsion films, but there are older technology films that tmax. Anything besides tmax, ilford delta, and whatever fuji's similar product is.

But I'm willing to bet that with some work with developers, you could get a tonal scale you like out of just about anything.

[Aaron van de Sande]

a quick film timeline

ortho-pan-multilayer-tabular grain

[Lenny Eiger]

I was looking at this one example by smieglitz on apug...

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20752

I don't know but negs that are rich-looking seem to print rich. I am not a newbie. I have been doing photogrpahy for 40 years. I am struggling to describe and quantify this effect. The later films seem to print with little life.

[robert_4927]

Lenny, Are you familiar with pyro developed negs. This may give you the effect that you are trying to describe. Just a thought.

[Lenny Eiger]

I am. Currently using Efke 25 in PMK, albeit in a Jobo. That has been the best result so far. I would like a film that is a little faster, and still has realtively tight grain. Used the Efke 100, but I think I hit a bad box (waiting to hear Efke's analysis), so i am skittish aboutthe 100, perhaps unfairly.

However, lately, some others have suggested that fx-2 or fx-39 might be even better. That's next week's tests.

[robert_4927]

Although different pyro developers are very close in chacteristics you may wanna play with a couple of different ones. PyroCat HD, Wimberlys' WD2D+, ABC are all very good and one might give you the effect you are looking for better than another. Plus it's fun seeing the differences if you don't mind spending the money to do the tests.

[paulr]

"I am not a newbie. I have been doing photogrpahy for 40 years. I am struggling to describe and quantify this effect. The later films seem to print with little life."

Not suggesting you're a newbie, but I'm willing to bet you have seen a very limmited range of results possible from newer films.

I'd bet against anyone being able to consistently look at my work and point out which prints were made from dense agfapan negatives and which were made from lower contrast tmax negatives.

[Lenny Eiger]

"Not suggesting you're a newbie, but I'm willing to bet you have seen a very limmited range of results possible from newer films.
I'd bet against anyone being able to consistently look at my work and point out which prints were made from dense agfapan negatives and which were made from lower contrast tmax negatives."

The two statements above appear to be contradictory. I don't doubt that folks can't discern which prints were made from which. However, can you? Do you see a difference?

I guess I am struggling to wrap my head around this problem. Without a good identificaton of a problem, it is hard to find a solution. Especially when most can not agree there is a problem. When I scan and print a neg that isn't rich, it doesn't appear rich in the final print. I don't know why this is.

[John Kasaian]

Lenny,

What films did you use that did give you the richness you're looking for now? Maybe theres someone here thats walked the same path & can give you some useful info.

If it was old Plus X, you might give aerial film a try---got to cut it to size though.

Michael Smith can shoot whatever film he wants, but still shoots X X. You might find one of his pix on the AZO site that exemplifies what it is you're after to illustrate your problem and post the link---after all " A picture is worth a thousand words" right?

[paulr]

"The two statements above appear to be contradictory. I don't doubt that folks can't discern which prints were made from which. However, can you? Do you see a difference?"

Not sure what the contradiction is. I can see a difference in some cases between the old and the new film, but only in cases that emphasize one charatcristic or another of these films. And these are my own negatives, that I've spent a lot of time with ... if you asked me if I could tell the difference in someone else's work, with all the unknown variables that that would imply, then I'd doubt I could see it with any consistency. this is the point i was trying to make.

"I guess I am struggling to wrap my head around this problem. Without a good identificaton of a problem, it is hard to find a solution. Especially when most can not agree there is a problem. When I scan and print a neg that isn't rich, it doesn't appear rich in the final print. I don't know why this is."

I suspect your working methods are tailored to a negative with a particular kind of scale. When you print a negative with characteristics that you're used to, eveything falls into place, because of your years of experience with that kind of negative. Those same methods applied to a negative with a different kind of scale give disappointing results.

This doesn't say anything about the potential of the other kind of negative ... just that your methods aren't suited it. New materials require some adaptation.

When I switched from agfapan to tmx, i spent a year figuring out the best way to develop the new film. It was immediately clear to me that it responded differently, so it would take different methods to adapt its scale to my paper.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I'm shooting Fp-4 and semistand developing in pyrocad-hd. I think I know what you mean when you describe what you want in a print. I would give the pyrocat a chance or not do the second dip in developer with the PMK. I would like to have some FRESH supper-xx but with my combo I'm not missing it.

[Eugene Zaikonnikov]

The issue of availability of "old-style" emulsions is largely dependant on how "old" them you want. If 1930s type tech is sufficiently old, there are choices availabe.

Russian TASMA still produces Type-17 and Type-25 (20) isopanchromatic films, which are based on pre-war AGFA technology. The difference in silver content is 6g/m^2 of Type-17 vs. 3g/m^2 of Type-25, so the term "silver rich" ain't just a marketing hype also. The films were intended mainly for aero and space photography due to their extended red sensitivity: http://www.antiufos.narod.ru/Tip17s.html

A number of Russian photographers still uses these emulsions for general photography and astrophotography.

It is entirely conceivable that there are other oldschool emulsions on the market too.

[Eugene Zaikonnikov]

Uh sorry, that should've been 6g and 3g per kg of emulsion, not per square meter :/

[Chuck_1686]

I thought I saw the word scan. Are you printing the digital way or traditional darkroom? If digital why use PMK?

[robert_4927]

I don't think Gordon Hutchings recommends the pyro after bath anymore.

[Lenny Eiger]

"I suspect your working methods are tailored to a negative with a particular kind of scale. When you print a negative with characteristics that you're used to, eveything falls into place, because of your years of experience with that kind of negative. Those same methods applied to a negative with a different kind of scale give disappointing results."

Paul - I think this is a valid. I aqgree tat the "new" scale may be just confusing more than anything.

"I thought I saw the word scan. Are you printing the digital way or traditional darkroom? If digital why use PMK?"

Yes, I am scanning. I have an Aztek Premier, best drum scanner ever made. It is very sharp, sensitive, etc. I print using a 6 dilution black ink set that I custom diluted myself. The prints I have made from my older negatives are exquisite. I consider them to be more beautiful than my platinum prints (tho' I don't want to start an argument about this - I invite you all to come over and see them and you can decide for yourselves.). It's a different medium, to be sure. Regardless, I am an experienced technologist, who is capable of much repeatability. I have simply come up with an issue that is making my brain hurt - when I figure it out it will appear simple and obvious and I will likely feel like an idiot for asking.

There isn't any specific reason to use Pyro. I am simply looking for tight grain and a I believe a neg with some density in the midtones. I used to use Tri-X in and FP4 (not plus) in 8x10. The 4x5's work beautifully as well, and that's primarily what I am using now. I used to develop in D23, and later I used Microphen - neither are particularly stunning developers by what I know now. Since I printed in platinum I used a longer tonal scale than a normal silver print could handle (higher DMax).

The new negs seem to be perfect for making very contrasty prints. I am looking for the sensitivity of prints made by platinum, gravure, etc. I like Ansel Adams the person, but I can't stand the printing style. I am more interested in Clarence White, or Steichen, Stieglitz and gang. It seems reasinable to assume that this is attainable by modern film, but perhpas not.

I guess I have some more testing to do. I wanted to test out the number of shades in a particular area or the midtones, but it appears this is not possible. I guess I just have to print some more and see.

[robert_4927]

If you are shooting for a certain density range like we do in pt/pd I'd suggest investing in a densitometer or using step wedges to attain the range you want. This will enable you to tweak your development times to keep you in a range of say 1.40- 1.85. Of course I work with in-camera negatives. If I want a bigger negative I just buy a bigger camera.

[jantman]

I wasn't around to compare it to Super XX or any of the other "old" films, but I've found Bergger BPF-200 to be quite different from any other 'modern' emulsion, especially anything current from Kodak or Ilford. I find that it responds quite well to water bath development as well as the few extreme expansions/contractions that I've tried.

[Lenny Eiger]

Dan, I am not much for Sexton's prints, either. Too contrasty. And it drives me crazy that he just centers everything. I'll take Weston anyday, or how about Walker Evans.

Robert, I have a densitomer, thanks.

Jason, I have found Bergger to be a bit too grainy for me. Probably at for contact printing, tho'.

[Michael Graves]

I'll take Walker Evans over John Sexton for his eye any day. I've held both Evans and Sexton prints in my hand and I'll take the Sexton one for print quality any day. I'm not sure which prints you had the opportunity to examine, but excessive contrast was not an issue with the ones I saw. Mid tones practically glowed. In answer to Lenny's original question, the Berrger films handle expanded and contracted development about the same way as the older thick-emulsion films of yesteryear. They have excellent gradation in the mid-tones and absolutely gorgeous highlight definition. The down side is that the stuff costs and arm and a leg.

[John Kasaian]

I thought BPF-200 was Fortepan 200---can you describe what the difference is between the two? Or is the Bergger/Forte thing just another urban legend, like Dagor focus shift?

[robert_4927]

John, But Dagors do shift. Just watch what mine does after a fifth of 18 yr old MacCallums. Damn lens

[Michael Graves]

I've never used Fortepan. If someone can confirm that Forte and Bergger are the same, I could save a bunch of money!! Freestyle sells the Forte in 5x7 for ten bucks a box less money. I'll feel like an idiot for the several boxes of Bergger I bought at inflated prices, but I'll smarten up a bit each time I DON'T spend the money.

[Michael Graves]

Woops. My bad. Freestyle has FOMA not FORTE. Never heard of that one. Anyone else ever use it?

[John Kasaian]

Michael,

I don't know for sure that Bergger BPH200 is Fortepan 200, but I've assumed that it was (and you know what happens when you" assume") but awhile ago there were several posts speculating that Forte manufactures Bergger and that they are the same emulsion offering the same results.

Perhaps someone who has compared both films will join in and set the record straight on this one?

The discontinued Arista .edu was Fortepan(I've used it and am sure that, at least, is true), but its been replaced by Arista.eduUltra which I've heard is Foma. I understand that J and C Classic is Fortepan though I could be wrong.

[Lenny Eiger]

"I'll take Walker Evans over John Sexton for his eye any day. I've held both Evans and Sexton prints in my hand and I'll take the Sexton one for print quality any day."

Well, we can agreee to disagree. I have been printing for a long time, and I learned that extra part by going to Christie's and Sotheby's back in the mid 70's and holding prints that were from the greats in my hand - back in those days when they would let anyone in there. I have held Evans's prints in my hand. I am sure Sexton came make a nice print when he wants to. Of course, I just acquired a Clarence White image that I thnk is beyond the both of them. Been wanting it for more than 20 years after I saw it in the Lewis Hine retrospective and the Brooklyn Museum. I saw it and grabbed it. Still paying on the credit card, but its worth it.

Of course, if Sexton would stop centering everything I might give him a second look. Besides, what's he doing taking a picture of the white house ruins in Canyon de Chelly? Does he think he can improve on Timothy O'Sullivan - and everyone else who has done it? It's arrogant.

"In answer to Lenny's original question, the Berrger films handle expanded and contracted development about the same way as the older thick-emulsion films of yesteryear. They have excellent gradation in the mid-tones and absolutely gorgeous highlight definition."

Now, this is interesting. When you say "excellent gradations in the midtones" I agree. This is what I have trying to explain. But a lot here do not even think the problem exists. What are "excellent gradations in the midtones" and why do some think it doesn't matter and why do some chase after it like crazy? Is it a good thing? (My results seem to indicate this.)

I don't use the Bergger films becasue of the grain. I have found that Efke 25 has similar midtones but tight grain. As tight as Acros. Of course the speed isn't much fun. I had been using Efke 100 and I think I got a bad box of it. If I can solve thta problem - or at least figure out what happend, I might be able to go back to it.

[Ken Lee]

Shooting the same subject matter, if a number of films exhibit similar curves, is it possible that a differing spectral response is the cause of what we consider better or worse "separation" or "definition" in a given range of values ?

[John Kasaian]

How is Sexton taking a picture of the white house ruins arrogant? Was A.A. arrogant for taking photos of places in Yosemtie that Carlton Watkins had already shot?

[Lenny Eiger]

AA arrogant - who knows? I have a William Henry Jackson print of the Grand Canyon of the Yellowston. One day I was photographing there and I went a little off the trail and stuck my camera at this giant canyon and I had a shock - not only did I recognize the image on my ground glass - it was the one I had on my wall in my house! I didn't take the shot.

Would you? It just seems weird to me. I think if you do a subject someone else has done, you ought to at least treat it a little differently. For all I know he was unaware of Watkins. I'm pretty sure Sexton was aware of both of them. I'm not here to sit in judgement of others. I just think its weird.

I know it's hard sometimes, if one goes to these places, but I think it is only respectful not to plagiarize.

[Lenny Eiger]

So you think if I make a copy of Whistler's mother, and, gee, it looks pretty good, then I should sell it as an original painting? Sorry, but I think its plagiarism. I also think its a lack of integrity.

[Arne Croell]

"Besides, what's he doing taking a picture of the white house ruins in Canyon de Chelly?"

Now, apart from the fact whether one can use the same subject matter as others, which is not necessarily copying, on what do you base that statement? The Anasazi ruin pictures he published so far are all in the "Places of Power" book, and none of them is White house ruin (I just checked). There is one from the Canyon de Chelly in there, called Ledge ruin, and its certainly not White house, and actually quite different from both O'Sullivan's and Adams' style. He has done workshops in the Canyon de Chelly, but thats a completely different thing.

[jantman]

Lenny Eiger said:

So you think if I make a copy of Whistler's mother, and, gee, it looks pretty good, then I should sell it as an original painting?

Well, if you happen to be having tea with Whistler's mother, and she asks you to paint her, and you do, and you like it, of course you should sell it as an original. But an original Eiger, not an original Whistler.

[Lenny Eiger]

As long as it doesn;t look exactly like the other one, I don't mind. I'm talking about basic integrity, not some stupid rules just for the sake of rules. I think that Watkins, O'Sullivan and Muybridge were geniuses, all in their own way. I think we should emulate their efforts, their understanding and way of working, not steal their images. This is very simple.

[John Kasaian]

Back to film---have you tried Polaroid P/N55 or aerial Panatomic? I've heard these are very similar to the old Panatomic X. I wish I had a direct comparison to go by but back when Panatomic X was available I was shooting 35mm and I don't have any of my old negatives to compare. Just a thought.

[paulr]

"I'll take Walker Evans over John Sexton for his eye any day. I've held both Evans and Sexton prints in my hand and I'll take the Sexton one for print quality any day."

"Well, we can agreee to disagree."

You two just might agree on what you like, because there's such a range of Walker Evans prints out there. I've had many in my hands .. quite a few vintage prints from Paul and Prentice Sack's collection. Some were absolutely gorgeous, and had similar qualities to the Weston prints from the same era. Others were hard and cold and flat, like the 'fifties photojournalism style that was still a couple of decades away.

In a lot of cases it was unknown who made the print. It seems Walker didn't often print his own work, but I'm not sure about this.

As far as more density in the midtones, it sounds to me like you're looking for a more compensating scale from the film. Greater midtone density corresponds with more open shadows, and more compressed highlights. This will tend to give you a more "long scale" kind of look that is in the other direction from the inky black/paper base white look that Ansel sold everyone on in his later decades.

It shouldn't be at all hard to get this from a modern emulsion. I actually find t-max perfectly suited to this kind of scale, although in my experience (skewed by my papers and methods, etc.) the film prints and scans better if it's on the lower density/lower contrast side--not exactly "rich" looking on the lightbox.