What about Gigabitfilm

[Pete Andrews]

Ah! So it's not vapourware then.How about a quick rweport on the 35mm version Armin?I can't imagine why anyone would want to use it in 5x4, though.

[Bill Glickman]

Armin, the web site you listed is not translated in English. Would you be so kind to describe to us what exactly Gigabitfilm is? It sounds interesting? Is it available in the USA? Thank you

[Dave Anton]

Armin, do tell us what this film is about. As bill said, the english translation is not on the website yet.

thanks.

[floren de la rama]

Hmm. The resolution is nice, but so what? There are NO lenses currently made for everyday photgraphy that can resolve at this level. The only lenses that can resolve at this level or greater are used for etching onto silicon wafers to make computer chips... and they are EXTREMELY expensive. This kind of reminds me when Kodak released Ektar 25 film many years ago. When tested, the film revealed flaws in the lenses used to test it rather than any flaws in the film resolution itself. It is common knowledge that lens technology always lags behind film technology... kind of like computer software not taking advantage of the computer hardware. Oh well, this film sounds nice. But I'm glad I shoot large format. My 4x5 HP5+ prints beat the crap out of any 35mm Tech Pan prints.

Cheerio

[floren]

A more important reason to use a particular b&w film isn't small grain but acutance and especially a pleasing tonal range. If a b&w film can't render a pleasing range of tones most people won't use it. I always find it amusing that people try to use Tech Pan with special developer, agitation, temperature in their futile pursuit to enlarge 35mm to 16x20 "grainless" print. They then point out you can get "large format quality" from such a puny negative.

Besides NOT getting grainless 16x20 prints, the tonal range of Tech Pan sucks compared to conventional film. There is a reason Tech Pan is recommended for copying documents, etc... The reason people use TriX and HP5 is due to the beautiful tonal range reproduced.

My point is just because this gigabit film has a very high resolution, it doesn't mean it will "look good" for the type of photography people usually do. It could be a specialty film like Tech Pan, ortho, or lith film. These films I would NOT use for conventional photography. It remains to be see how gigabit film looks, but I'm not holding my breath.

So to take advantage of this new film, the problem remains to find a lens that can resolve at this high level and if gigabit film looks just as good as the current films. By the way, I have found a way to make a print look like large format quality. Answer: use large format film. Doh!!

Cheerio

[Bill Glickman]

Armin, Is this film only available in the B&W? I thought they may offer color also? Please advise, thank you.

[Allen Friday]

I always find it interesting in these forums that people who have never tried a product have very definite opinions on them, e.g "So what, no lense can resolve that fine.." I don't really care much for lab tests, other than as a rough guide line because different companies use different standards and comparing the final results is a bit like apples and oranges. I do care about what I can see on the negtive and on the final print!

I purchased 10 rolls of 35 gigabit and 50 sheets of 4x5 film. I ordered from photoimpx from their US web site. Here are my observations:

I have shot 35 or so of the 4x5 negs. I am currently working on a project to photograph the rural churches, school houses and meeting houses in the county in which I live. As a test for Gigabit, I shot it along side Kodak T-max 100 and Delta 100.

I started using the gigabit developed with the supplied developer. The negs look very thin but print fine using an enlarger. They are not very good for contact prints.

From my side by side comparisons, I found I like Gigabit better than the Kodak oor Ilford in contrasty situations. The Gigabit has a very long stright line. I can "overexpose" one stop, keep the highlights on the straight potion of the curve and still get good shadow detail. With the Delta and Kodak film, I get almost no shadow detail or blow the highlights, or I have to use n- development to keep them on the straight one. I took three negatives of a church, only the gigabit showes detail in the stained glass window which was partially in the shade.

I have shot kodak Tech film in the past and I have never liked the tone or lack of edge sharpness. In the past, fine grain=low edge acutance. Gigabit film is a quantum leap forward in this regard. I have found excellent tone even in large prints.

I have started making contact platinum prints from the gigabit film. I develop the negs in PMK pyro, however. I followed the instructions for n+ development for Kodak Tech Pan film from Hutchins Complete book of pyro. It worked very well for the gigabit film. The gigabit film, developed in pyro, delivers very good contact prints, it allows more seperation in the highlights--perfect for platinum prints--than delta 100 or T-max, but retains much more detail in the shadows.

I have not swithed completely to gigabit because of its low speed and high cost. But for the very contrasty scene, it is my 'go to film." I hope they bring it out in roll film and 8x 10.

[Jarred McCaffrey]

Allen,

Could you give us the web address for photoimpx. I can't seem to locate it on t he web using search engines and I would love to try this film myself.

Thanks,

Jarred McCaffrey

http://www.renaissanceman.info/