PDA

View Full Version : What is the finest grained BW 4x5 film that I can develop using standard chem?



l2oBiN
6-Sep-2010, 14:42
What is the finest grained BW 4x5 film that I can develop using standard chem? i have xtol developer and Tmax stop at the moment. I am shooting Fomapan 100.

Lachlan 717
6-Sep-2010, 15:03
Efke 25 for me.

Ron Marshall
6-Sep-2010, 15:09
Grain in films developed with XTOL (and DR5).

http://www.dr5.com/filmtests.html

Eric Woodbury
6-Sep-2010, 15:27
And do you want the finest grain or the highest acutance?

Techpan or other document film.

l2oBiN
6-Sep-2010, 16:53
Grain in films developed with XTOL (and DR5).

http://www.dr5.com/filmtests.html


Great Comparison.



And do you want the finest grain or the highest acutance?.

I am not sure of the technicalities. I just want to be able to get the maximum resolution when scanning and printing really big files. I guess I want maximum retention of the most pristine image quality with enlargement.

Peter De Smidt
6-Sep-2010, 16:54
Acros in Xtol.

Gary L. Quay
6-Sep-2010, 23:14
Grain in films developed with XTOL (and DR5).

http://www.dr5.com/filmtests.html

The Efke 25 test was astounding. I just wish they could produce fewer flaws in their emulsions.

--Gary

A49
7-Sep-2010, 03:20
And do you want the finest grain or the highest acutance?

Techpan or other document film.

The (ROLLEI/ADOX) ORTHO 25 is by far the finest grain sheet-film that I used. The best conventional films begin to show their grain at 5 to 6 times enlargement. The ORTHO 25 has no visible grain until 10 times enlargement and at this point only a touch of it, barely noticeable in the shadows of the print.

There won´t be any conventional or t-grain film to beat this. Maybe there are some other tech or ortho films that are similar fine grained, but at this time I know only the ORTHO 25. It can easily be developed in Rodinal diluted 1:150, where the sharpness is still can be enhanced by exploiting developing adjacency effects.

The emulsion of the ORTHO is that fine, that it can resolve between 260 and 330 lines per millimeter. As a comparison: The best conventional films (for instance TMAX 100) do "only" 200 lines.

Best,
Andreas

venchka
7-Sep-2010, 08:29
Great Comparison.




I am not sure of the technicalities. I just want to be able to get the maximum resolution when scanning and printing really big files. I guess I want maximum retention of the most pristine image quality with enlargement.

Sounds like a magic bullet hunt to me.

You better have the finest scanner ever built operated by the best scanning person ever born and printing on the finest printer ever made. Otherwise, the film and developer will hardly matter. Your lenses will have to be the best, a.k.a. expensive, as well.

For the rest of us: a 1964 Technika V camera, 20+ to 100+ year old lenses from Voigtlander & Sons-Kodak-Fuji & Nikon, fresh to 5 year old film, 8 month old Xtol, 10 year old Epson scanner and 5+ year old Canon iPF 5000 printer are plenty good enough.

venchka
7-Sep-2010, 08:38
ps: What's wrong with grain? Without grain, your photos will look like those artificial zeros & ones images. Grain worked for Sam Haskins. I reckon it's good enough for the rest of us.

A49
7-Sep-2010, 16:19
ps: What's wrong with grain? Without grain, your photos will look like those artificial zeros & ones images. Grain worked for Sam Haskins. I reckon it's good enough for the rest of us.

Your digital vs film argument is worth thinking of. Yes, grain is cool. I like it when it begins to show in pictures 50x70 inch made from my 5x7 inch negatives. ;) I must admit I never done this print format since I dont have the trays for that. This print format seems to be only manageable with hybrid working and a XXL printing service, unfortunately. :( But it still is a good feeling to have all this information in the negative...

Andreas

rguinter
7-Sep-2010, 18:17
The Efke 25 test was astounding. I just wish they could produce fewer flaws in their emulsions.

--Gary

I second that about the flaws. The pin holes in their IR 820/Aura emulsions can get quite annoying. Bob G.

rguinter
7-Sep-2010, 18:25
ps: What's wrong with grain? Without grain, your photos will look like those artificial zeros & ones images. Grain worked for Sam Haskins. I reckon it's good enough for the rest of us.

I'm with you Wayne.

Nothing worse than those ugly little squares one sees when getting up close.

Grain lets admirers of our work know that we care enough about our images to do them carefully with film. Bob (Grain is Good) G.

Jim Galli
7-Sep-2010, 18:51
As long as we're going for the silver bullets......

I once tested Tech Pan (asa25), Aerial Recon Panatomic X (asa32), and Efke 25 together. The Aerial Recon Panatomic was the easiest to control and slaughtered the other 2. It sadly is not practical for 4X5, but begins to be very useable by 5X7. It's on a 3 mil base. Ultra thin.

David Luttmann
7-Sep-2010, 19:28
ps: What's wrong with grain? Without grain, your photos will look like those artificial zeros & ones images. Grain worked for Sam Haskins. I reckon it's good enough for the rest of us.

Agreed. I even add some grain to digital images to make them look a bit more like film.

theBDT
8-Sep-2010, 20:22
I can also testify to the Adox Ortho 25. It has a general sharpness about it, which I've exploited both for counter-balancing the softness of pinhole exposures, and also for picking up fine details in flowers.

It is not red-sensitive at all, so if you have a deep red safety light, you can develop in a tray by inspection (that is, watch it as it develops).

It is indeed the sharpest kind of B&W film you can get, but like an athlete on steroids there is an asterisk: it is not sensitive to red (the largest/longest wavelength in visible light), which is why it is called "ortho"; the nature of an ortho emulsion, not being sensitive to red, makes it shaper/finer. But, since it cannot reproduce ANY deep reds, certain subjects will just not look right (a bright red that is almost white on panchromatic/standard film will show as mostly black on ortho).

For pinhole landscapes and white floral still-lifes, I can say from personal experience that it is lovely, if a bit fussy.

NB: If you develop by inspection in a tray, judge the development by the BACK of the emulsion—the development needs to "soak through"; the front of the negative looks developed long before the back does, and it will print very thinly indeed if that is all you have developed. Just flip the negative emulsion-side-down half-way through development...

Philippe Grunchec
9-Sep-2010, 05:44
@ theBDT: I like it a lot too, but I find difficult to tame the contrast. Which soup do you use?

A49
9-Sep-2010, 10:14
@ theBDT: I like it a lot too, but I find difficult to tame the contrast. Which soup do you use?

Rodinal (R09) 1+150 and about 10 to 14 minutes development in the tray at 20 C will lead to normally contrasted negatives.

Andreas

Philippe Grunchec
9-Sep-2010, 10:43
Thanks, A49.
At 6 or 12 ISO?
I'll shoot tomorrow and process next week!