PDA

View Full Version : T-Grain Films vs. Conventional Emulsions



brian steinberger
20-Jun-2006, 21:23
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.

Graham Patterson
20-Jun-2006, 21:41
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
.

John Kasaian
20-Jun-2006, 22:35
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.

paulr
20-Jun-2006, 23:23
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.

Jay DeFehr
20-Jun-2006, 23:51
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

paulr
21-Jun-2006, 08:09
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.

Christopher Perez
21-Jun-2006, 08:39
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.


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...

Ron Marshall
21-Jun-2006, 10:44
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.

CXC
21-Jun-2006, 13:13
I guess I am the only person left on this forum who still uses Tri-X. To my eye TMax looks relatively lifeless.

Jay DeFehr
21-Jun-2006, 13:30
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

Bruce Watson
21-Jun-2006, 15:47
I guess I am the only person left on this forum who still uses Tri-X. To my eye TMax looks relatively lifeless.
Hardly. I use 5x4 Tri-X. I soup it in XTOL 1:3. Beautiful. I don't have much incentive to change. I'd rather make photographs than do EI and normal development time testing. Maybe when I run out of Tri-X I'll think about it. It'll be awhile though - gotta work my way though all those boxes of Tri-X in the 'fridge ;-)

Ken Lee
21-Jun-2006, 19:20
Film choice is closely linked to choice of developer. To speak of a particular film alone, is an abstraction of sorts.

There are some really great film+developer *combinations* out there. Some of them involve T-Grain film, and some don't. The complexities are vast. It's analog, after all.

Sensitometry may not stimulate you, but there are some very good testers out there, and they have not only discovered some of these combinations, but they have freely shared their findings on the web, along with suggested developing times, etc.

You can try some of them, and leverage their hard work. I have, and am most grateful for it.

Oren Grad
21-Jun-2006, 19:42
I don't select films by class (i.e., T-grain or "new generation" films vs traditional films). For my purposes, there's as much variation within the "new generation" as there is among the older films, and I don't find it useful to generalize about them. There are films in each class that I like very much, and others that I don't.

If I wanted a slow film for making enlargements from 4x5, I'd probably pick Delta 100. Despite its being a newer film, I don't find it especially hard to handle; in my experience it delivers readily printable negatives with no hassles under a wide variety of conditions. TMX has been much more finicky in my experience - but as the other posts demonstrate, YMMV.

And I second Ken's point about the importance of developer choice. My comments about films should be interpreted in light of the fact that I use D-76 almost exclusively at this point.

brian steinberger
21-Jun-2006, 20:07
Oren,
Delta 100 is a film I'm actually thinking of trying in 4x5. YOu have developed this is D-76? 1:1 or straight? I've heard Tmax to be finicky too, plus I would never start to use and trust in a Kodak film now, for fear it'll be gone in a year or two. I'd rather stick with Ilford.

Oren Grad
21-Jun-2006, 20:18
Brian - I develop 4x5 Delta 100 in D-76 1+1, primarily because I need the dilution to reach adequate solution volumes for development in a Jobo Expert drum. If I were shooting Delta 100 in 8x10 I'd use D-76 straight, for the opposite reason - to avoid excessive solution volumes in the drum. Frankly, for my purposes, especially in large format, it doesn't make much of a difference in the appearance of the negative and I'm happy to be swayed by the logistical consideration.

All that said, I don't use much Delta 100 sheet film. I mostly work in formats where it's not available, and I usually want a faster film anyway. My most-used sheet film, by far, is HP5 Plus.

Why specifically are you looking for a new film to try? That might help in narrowing your choice. What are you using now, and what do you find unsatisfactory or limiting about it?

David Karp
21-Jun-2006, 21:59
Delta 100 is very nice in D-76/ID11 at 1:1 dilutions. I used it for a long time with 35mm Delta 100. I showed an 11x14 print from a negative made this way to a very experienced photographer, and he thought it was from a medium format negative. Very sharp, with excellent fine detail.

Recently, I used some Delta 100 4x5 sheet film with Barry Thornton's two-bath developer and was very happy with the results. I think it might replace FP4+ as my slow speed film. I need to do some comparison shooting before I make up my mind. I don't think you will be disappointed with Delta 100.

Joseph O'Neil
22-Jun-2006, 04:47
Well, let's get the serious stuff out fo the way first;
Digital = EVIL
T-grain films - EVIL
American Beer = EVIL
:)

Back from silly land, Delta 400, when Ilford used to make it in 4x5, was quickly becomming my favourite film. Right now I bounce 50/50 between Tri-x and HP5+. The minute Ilford starts making Delta 400 in 4x5 agian, I'll go back to being a T-grain convert.

Delta 100 is a very nice film, but a few of my lenses are F9, and in lower light conditions, those two extra stops sometimes count for a lot. Maybe what we need is Delta 3200 in 4x5. :)

joe

paulr
22-Jun-2006, 07:16
Film choice is closely linked to choice of developer. To speak of a particular film alone, is an abstraction of sorts. There are some really great film+developer *combinations* out there. Some of them involve T-Grain film, and some don't. The complexities are vast.

Exactly. 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. Not too surprising!

ronald moravec
22-Jun-2006, 07:59
Do not pick a conventional emulsion because you think processing can be sloppy. I see no change in the required accuracy in say T Max and Tri X. Both need to be correct and I test at 30 sec intervals.

T Max 100 looks sort of OK in HC110. You may even like it until you process in D76 or Xtol, if you like Xtol. The film comes alive.

My problem with T Max is I can`t find a time where the tonal range does not look compressed or the highlights do not block. Perhaps this is because I use a condenser enlarger. I do not have this problem with Delta 100 and D76.

I saw original test prints of T Max ( the American Indian head if any one remembers the ads ) that Kodak made and it was superb. They used D76 1:3 for it. But then this neg did not have pure white areas. It is non textured whites I can`t seem to get right reguardless of time.

Oren Grad
22-Jun-2006, 08:04
Actually, although we so often talk about selecting them separately, if you work entirely in traditional mode what really matters is the film/developer/paper combination. That's not being pedantic - the match between the characteristic curves of film and paper is by far the most important determinant of the tonal scale you'll get in your prints. Anyone who, like me, grew up printing TX/D-76 on Ilford Multigrade FB got a very rude reminder of this principle when MGFB was replaced with Multigrade IV FB, which has a longer toe and is IMO a very unhappy match to TX.

Ralph Barker
22-Jun-2006, 08:45
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
22-Jun-2006, 12:38
"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
22-Jun-2006, 14:42
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
22-Jun-2006, 15:36
. . . 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
22-Jun-2006, 17:37
Do you think there's any chance they might bring it back now that they're more stable?

Oren Grad
22-Jun-2006, 18:14
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
22-Jun-2006, 18:21
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
22-Jun-2006, 18:38
"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
22-Jun-2006, 18:42
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
22-Jun-2006, 19:17
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

Oren Grad
22-Jun-2006, 20:34
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.

At very modest enlargement ratios - say, 1.5-2X from 4x5 - I've seen Delta 100 produce the sort of look that I think Ralph means by "technical". By the time the enlargement ratio gets up to 5x, which is the way I usually print 35mm negatives, it looks more like a traditional film with a grain structure, only much finer and smoother than you'd see from an ISO 400 film.

TMX is different. My subjective impression of it, and of TMX relative to APX 100, is the same as yours. Objectively TMX records a phenomenal amount of detail, but it can look quite soft-edged.

Jay DeFehr
22-Jun-2006, 22:26
I've been shooting Fuji Acros in my Olympus XA, and developing in 510-Pyro. I'm looking for a good film/developer combo for this camera, and the way I use it, and this combination seems like it has potential. Acros is essentially grainless at anything like normal enlargements, and sharpness is very good. The attached is a full 35mm frame scanned at 1800 dpi, and a 100% crop from the same frame.

Jay

lee\c
23-Jun-2006, 02:39
maybe I am missing something but the portraits Jay has uploaded don't particularly look very sharp to me.

lee\c

Christopher Perez
23-Jun-2006, 08:57
Considered in the manner Ralph suggests, I find that TMax developed in D76 gives me a very very smooth deeply nuanced image. I guess it could be considered "technical", if I understand the use of the word. Anyways, it's the combination of TMax100 and D76 in 4x5 that allows me to match the resolution and "texture" of an 8x10 HP5+ contact print. This impression holds up well under 10x loupe inspection of prints. I have inspected prints in this manner with 4x5 enlarged to 11x14 and compared them to 8x10 contact prints. The result is amazing.

Alternatively, I find that TMax100 developed in Rodinal 100:1 extreme minimal agitation gives me a hint of a more "artist's sketchbook" like image. The edge contrast is enhanced to a similar degree that I find 120 Ilford PanF+ in Rodinal gives me.

For working with images containing stone (granite, in particular), the TMax/Rodinal/ExtremeMinimalAgitation combination gives very pleasing results that are subtly different than TMax/D76. In 120 work I find TMax100 or PanF+ in Rodinal 100:1 works well for portraiture. I have a series of images that I have made over the years that are very pleasing to me. The effect is in the edge enhanced contrast that diluted Rodinal returns.

Due to the extreme fine grain nature of TMax100, I use it exclusively in 4x5. I then switch between D76 and Rodinal 100:1 (or sometimes 150:1) with extreme minimal agitation, depending upon the subject matter and the effect I'm driving to.

In 8x10 contact print work I am much less picky and tend to use Ilfords HP5+ or just about anything of similar speed. I soup these in D76. Though I have to admit that I'm thinking of trying Patrick Kolb's approach of developing in properly sized PVC tubes with std. plumbing caps on each end to try my hand at extreme minimal agitated Rodinal.

The mind ever turns...


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...

Ken Lee
23-Jun-2006, 09:11
...For working with images containing stone (granite, in particular)...

Now we're talking !

Never mind film+developer, not even film+developer+agitation.. what about film+developer+agitation+subject+lighting ?

I have no doubt that if one were to "really" compare films, one would conclude that certain methods work nicely under certain conditions, and for certain subjects.

For my landscapes with puffy clouds, I like Film X in Developer Y, etc. For portaits in the shade, give me Film P with Developer K... etc.

As Chris says, the mind turns.

Kirk Keyes
23-Jun-2006, 09:23
As Chris says, the mind turns.

I've seen Chris' mind turn, and it's fun to watch!

Hany Aziz
23-Jun-2006, 10:22
Tmax 400 is the heavywieght champ when it comes to reciprocity.

I have never shot Tmax 400 in LF (I do use Tmax 100 occasionally) but to me Acros is even more deserving of that title. No reciprocity correction up to 2 min and then only 1/2 stop correction beyond that. You may even find it a faster film than Tmax 400 in really prolonged exposures. Those are not idle boasts by Fuji; they have proven correct on multiple occasions. If only they would stop putting that silly hole in the sheets and the quickloads.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Jay DeFehr
24-Jun-2006, 01:26
maybe I am missing something but the portraits Jay has uploaded don't particularly look very sharp to me.

lee\c

Lee,

the image I posted is not the sharpest I've ever seen, but considering it was shot on ISO 100 35mm film in a new camera I'm still getting used to handling, handheld and wide open in available light, and individual hairs that measure around 17 millionths of a meter in diameter can easily be resolved, I can live with the results. If I want absolute sharpness, I would use larger film, a tripod, stop down, and use a strobe. For my purposes, it's more than sharp enough, but I'll try to do better next time, and as I become more accustomed to my new camera, I'm sure I can improve.

Jay

lee\c
29-Jun-2006, 07:32
Jay,

Why would you post an image that is not as sharp as possible in a thread that is about film sharpness? How hard is it to focus the camera while looking at the subject even if it is a new camera? How many ways are there to focus a 35mm camera? That to me does not make any sense and looks to me like all you were really interested in was pimping your film developer formula. And why post a full frame 35mm image in a Largeformat forum?

lee\c

David Luttmann
29-Jun-2006, 07:53
Jay,

Why would you post an image that is not as sharp as possible in a thread that is about film sharpness? How hard is it to focus the camera while looking at the subject even if it is a new camera? How many ways are there to focus a 35mm camera? That to me does not make any sense and looks to me like all you were really interested in was pimping your film developer formula. And why post a full frame 35mm image in a Largeformat forum?

lee\c

And why are you judging a JPG compressed image? He just posted it as a sample of the film. Take a pill.

Jay DeFehr
29-Jun-2006, 15:12
Jay,

Why would you post an image that is not as sharp as possible in a thread that is about film sharpness? How hard is it to focus the camera while looking at the subject even if it is a new camera? How many ways are there to focus a 35mm camera? That to me does not make any sense and looks to me like all you were really interested in was pimping your film developer formula. And why post a full frame 35mm image in a Largeformat forum?

lee\c


Lee,

I appologize; I didn't realize this thread was about sharpness, I thought it was about comparing T-grain films to conventional films, and that there was more to that comparison than sharpness (like grain, for instance). I posted a 35mm image because I only have a 35mm film scanner, and thought that the subject under discussion was not format-exclusive. As far as "pimping" my developer goes, I think it would have been odd, and inappropriate to omit the developer I used in making the image I posted. Why don't you get this upset when others note the developers they use? What's your agenda here?

Jay

Ralph Barker
29-Jun-2006, 18:23
Jay - within the context of this forum, all topics should be considered LF-exclusive. That's what we're all about, after all. Scans of 35mm negs would be OK in some comparitive contexts, when ntoed as such, but generally they will be assumed to be 4x5 or larger.

Jay DeFehr
30-Jun-2006, 00:03
Many appologies, Ralph.

I suppose I could have described my impressions of Acros in 4x5, but photographers being visually oriented people, I thought a scan of an actual image would be more meaningful, even if that image was made on a piece of film smaller than 4x5. By the way, I shoot a lot of 3x4; is that not large enough to be considered LF?

Jay

David Luttmann
30-Jun-2006, 05:40
Unusual that you were scolded when the other poster was rude to you by posting an unwarranted attack. I guess that point was missed by the moderator.....as were you good intentions.

poco
30-Jun-2006, 05:57
Jay - within the context of this forum, all topics should be considered LF-exclusive.

Boy, that's sure going to limit the site's utility. So posting about any topic under the sun in the lounge is okay, but posting non-LF photos to illustrate format independant characteristics about film is abusing the site?

Ralph, your instincts as a moderator are almost invariably spot-on, but I really think your aim was poor here.

David Luttmann
30-Jun-2006, 06:25
Boy, that's sure going to limit the site's utility. So posting about any topic under the sun in the lounge is okay, but posting non-LF photos to illustrate format independant characteristics about film is abusing the site?

Ralph, your instincts as a moderator are almost invariably spot-on, but I really think your aim was poor here.

Poco,

I've already been thru this one before. Apprarently it goes even further than that. I was scolded before for discussing the use of a digital back on a view camera....apparently, it all has to do with the use of film, you see.....it doesn't matter that a view camera was used. The second film wasn't used with the large format view camera, it no longer became a relevant topic for the large format forum. This was pointed out by many on another thread, but Ralph dug his heels in regardless.

Ralph Barker
30-Jun-2006, 06:34
Jay - as noted in the guidelines, smaller sheet films and 120 shot in a roll-film adapter are OK. But, again, unless those scans are noted as such, "generally they will be assumed to be 4x5 or larger" and scans of 35mm images should only be used in a clearly annotated comparitive context.

David - the objection to the digital discussion centered on the fact that the digital images being discussed were those from a 35mm-frame digital camera, not a digital back aimed at use on LF cameras.

poco
30-Jun-2006, 06:53
Jand scans of 35mm images should only be used in a clearly annotated comparitive context.

Well they were were clearly noted as 35mm and were comparitive in nature ...compared, that is, to those who posted opinions without scans to illustrate their point. Jay was the only one to bother doing that and got smacked for making the extra effort. Lesson learned, Jay?

David Luttmann
30-Jun-2006, 07:14
Ralph, that is because it was a dynamic range issue discussion of CMOS & CCD sensors, which is format independant. As well, it was pointed out by many people that DSLR bodies are now regularly being attached to view cameras, thus only using the DSLR body as a sensor back for the view camera. Most in the thread saw this a completely appropriate....you did not. Majority rules on this one....sorry if you feel otherwise. Digital capture utilized via view camera is appropriate in this forum.

Ralph Barker
30-Jun-2006, 07:42
Ralph, that is because it was a dynamic range issue discussion of CMOS & CCD sensors, which is format independant. As well, it was pointed out by many people that DSLR bodies are now regularly being attached to view cameras, thus only using the DSLR body as a sensor back for the view camera. Most in the thread saw this a completely appropriate....you did not. Majority rules on this one....sorry if you feel otherwise. Digital capture utilized via view camera is appropriate in this forum.

David, CMOS and CCD sensors may be format independant (even though most are APS-sized), but the core forums here are not. You're forgetting that you were criticised for repeatedly touting stand-alone DSLR images over LF, and the view-camera attached DSLR argument was simply used as justification. I'm not sure that the few examples of these amount to "regularly" when considered in the total population. And, FWIW, the guidelines rule, not what you might feel is a majority. Please remember, this isn't the "Any Old Format Photography Forum".

David Luttmann
30-Jun-2006, 07:54
You might be in for a rude awakening as time goes on and more people look to large format gear but want digital solutions. The attitude you display doesn't bode well as it will definitely not attract new users to the hobby nor this site. In the end, the majority make the rules, and those unwilling to change and accept that find themselves alone.....that might be something you should keep in mind as well.

Regards,

Marko
30-Jun-2006, 08:07
David, CMOS and CCD sensors may be format independant (even though most are APS-sized), but the core forums here are not. You're forgetting that you were criticised for repeatedly touting stand-alone DSLR images over LF, and the view-camera attached DSLR argument was simply used as justification. I'm not sure that the few examples of these amount to "regularly" when considered in the total population. And, FWIW, the guidelines rule, not what you might feel is a majority. Please remember, this isn't the "Any Old Format Photography Forum".

This is not a publicly owned forum, the guidelines do rule and it is called a Large Format photoraphy forum, there's no misunderstanding there, but...

Let say we have a standard view camera with a 6x7, 6x12 or 6x17 rollfilm back attached on one side and a handheld, rigid-box 4x5 camera or even a 8x10 pinhole camera on another. According to the rules as you stated them, it appears that the first would not belong to this forum and the latter would.

Also, like it or not, the fact of life is that digital is rapidly becoming a mainstream light sensitive medium and as such is being increasingly used on all types of cameras. It will introduce different medium sizes than film simply because of its different characteristics, and I am not sure insisting on film sizes-based categorization will make sense much longer. My understanding is that even Better Light back is not really a 4x5, although I will admit upfront that I don't know much about it.

So, my question is this: is it the strict size of the light-capturing medium, whatever it is, or the type of the camera or the technique used that determines whether a topic is kosher enough for this board or not?

David Luttmann
30-Jun-2006, 08:24
Marko,

It does appear that it only has to do with film sizes in the LF world. A view camera post doesn't necessarily mean it is acceptable. As such, all posts involving roll film, DSLR bodies attached to view cameras, Betterlight and other digital backs apparently don't make the grade....unless the moderators say so....which should make matters rather difficult for the rest of us deciding on whether or not it is acceptable.

This should indeed be a lonely forum in a few years.

Don Hutton
30-Jun-2006, 08:55
Wow Dave - you sure don't get it.... Surely you get that "large format" means large format - why is that so very confusing to you? I've followed some very interesting posts here on Betterlight backs (they're interesting to me because I actually don't know too much about them), roll film holders for view cameras etc. While I would guess that many members own DSLRs, I am sure that they share the same view that I do, which is that this is not an appropriate forum to dicuss them.

Believe it or not, this forum was not such a "lonely" place the last time you left...

Ralph Barker
30-Jun-2006, 09:15
. . . So, my question is this: is it the strict size of the light-capturing medium, whatever it is, or the type of the camera or the technique used that determines whether a topic is kosher enough for this board or not?

As has been stated above and previously, sheet film smaller than 4x5 and 120 film shot in roll-film adapters on view cameras are OK topics, even though strictly not "large format" (generally considered to be 4x5 or larger). Similarly, digital capture and processes, related to LF photography, are fine. Digital capture and process topics not related to LF photography, however, should be posted elsewhere, or (now) in the Lounge, as they are off-topic for the core forums here.

Many people here, including myself, shoot digital in addition to large format, and digital, indeed, is very mainstream. That, however, is not the issue here, nor the focus of this forum. In fact, by most statistical measures, LF wouldn't be considered mainstream. But, that remains what this forum is all about. Pretty simple, really - unless one is trying to press a digital-trumps-everything agenda.

Marko
30-Jun-2006, 09:49
As has been stated above and previously, sheet film smaller than 4x5 and 120 film shot in roll-film adapters on view cameras are OK topics, even though strictly not "large format" (generally considered to be 4x5 or larger). Similarly, digital capture and processes, related to LF photography, are fine. Digital capture and process topics not related to LF photography, however, should be posted elsewhere, or (now) in the Lounge, as they are off-topic for the core forums here.

Many people here, including myself, shoot digital in addition to large format, and digital, indeed, is very mainstream. That, however, is not the issue here, nor the focus of this forum. In fact, by most statistical measures, LF wouldn't be considered mainstream. But, that remains what this forum is all about. Pretty simple, really - unless one is trying to press a digital-trumps-everything agenda.

No agenda here, Ralph.

If I wanted to do digital-ueber-alles type of thing, there's plenty of forums out there on which it would be more fun than here. Not my cup of tea, though.

The core of my question was Large Format vs. View Camera, or in other words, Size vs. Technique, regardless of capture medium. I believe this is a valid question, to which I still don't see a clear answer.

Insofar as I have an agenda, although I'd rather call it an interest, it is biased more toward technique than the size. I am asking this question because it will have a bearing on when and how I should participate on the forum.

The way I understand it, Dave was saying a very similar thing - it is technique that makes Large Format so unique and it is digital that is blurring the size boundaries.

Perhaps this might be worth deeper discussion before we summarily dismiss one view or the other?

Ralph Barker
30-Jun-2006, 10:08
Marko - I didn't mean to infer that you had an agenda. Sorry if you got that impression. Actually, the format size vs. view camera issue has been discussed numerous times - resulting in the smaller "view camera" based formats (in quotes because the majority are really press cameras) being permitted, largely based on technique. Where digital topics stray off topic is when they aren't related to view camera technique and/or LF-related processes. A properly-framed topic relating to LF techniques used on a view-camera-mounted DSLR, for example, would probably be OK. Extending that to the characteristics of images captured directly in a DSLR, however, are not.

Jay DeFehr
30-Jun-2006, 12:22
I'm sorry, guys.

I didn't mean to stir up a controversy; I just posted an image I thought was relevant to the discussion, by the only means available to me. It won't happen again.

Jay

P.S. I think the most technically accurate definition of Large Format is any format larger than MF , which itself is narrowly defined as 120/70mm rollfilm formats and their sheetfilm counterpart (2x3 sheets). To suggest that 3x4 film is MF, or not large format has no basis in tradition, or logic.

David Luttmann
30-Jun-2006, 12:31
Wow Dave - you sure don't get it.... Surely you get that "large format" means large format - why is that so very confusing to you? I've followed some very interesting posts here on Betterlight backs (they're interesting to me because I actually don't know too much about them), roll film holders for view cameras etc. While I would guess that many members own DSLRs, I am sure that they share the same view that I do, which is that this is not an appropriate forum to dicuss them.

Believe it or not, this forum was not such a "lonely" place the last time you left...

No Don, you don't get it. Large Format to most means using a view camera. Even you agree with this as I haven't heard you complain about roll film backs or digital backs on a view camera.....yet the second it is mentioned to use a DSLR as a cheap film back on a view camera, some people jump down other peoples throats....as though there is an agenda.

So really, it appears it is confusing to you. You have stated that "Large Fromat means Large Format", yet you accept roll film backs, which aren't large format.

I can accept where Ralph is coming from, as the tone appears to have changed and he is now offering that a DSLR mounted to a view camera is OK.....which is precisely what I said. So what exactly are you saying....because your post in contradictory and doesn't make sense?

Don Hutton
30-Jun-2006, 12:51
Dave

As I have said before, your tone and manner are abrasive; and that coupled with an obvious ineptitude for basic reading comprehension makes a lot of what you post here offensive. I'm not sure why you came back again after promising to go away! Is that clear this time?