Old look ? New Look ?

[srtiwari]

As I try out and read about B&W films, developing etc., I frequently come across references to "Old style" film, " a more modern look " etc. Can someone please explain these and with some examples . if possible ? I personally like the look of wide tonality, and a smooth, creamy texture. Where does that fit in ? And what film+developer combo might best approach that ?

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Subhash,

There are two separate questions here: film technology, and look.

Traditional-technology films (FP4, HP5, Tri-X, etc.) films have roughly cubic crystals of widely varying sizes. 'New-technology' films (Delta, T-Max, etc) are much closer to monosize and the crystals are a different shape. Delta and T-Max are somewhat different technologies, incidentally, though both produce flattish crystals.

Monosize or monodisperse emulsions can be faster for a given grain size, or finer grained for a given speed, but have less exposure latitude, a smaller developer repertoire, and poorer tolerance for over- and under-development. They also differ in tonality. They're a lot better than they used to be -- the new TMY is a vast improvement over the old -- but many still prefer the flexibility and look of old-technology films.

'Look' is another matter. Some films re-create the tonality of the past. Others don't. It's very subjective and it's also affected by developer choice, development regime, camera lens, format and paper choice.

Cheers,

Roger.

[nikonhswebmaster]

hey R,
Can you expand a bit on why the "roughly cubic crystals of widely varying sizes" produce more latitude. and expand a bit on the "look" of the grain you can see in a scan or enlargement?

I have just begun shooting film again, after years of traditional Tri-X pushed to 800, I am now using Kodak C41 B&W.

[lZr]

You can see the agged and old-newspaper fashioned version of my downtown shootout

[oscroft]

Can you expand a bit on why the "roughly cubic crystals of widely varying sizes" produce more latitude
My thought on that is that larger grain produces higher speed (it takes less light to activate a single larger crystal than several smaller ones, so you end up with more silver in the same area for less light). And so a wider range of grain sizes will give greater latitude, since not all spots on the film are activated to the same extent by the same amount of light. Does that make sense?

[Roger Hicks]

hey R,
Can you expand a bit on why the "roughly cubic crystals of widely varying sizes" produce more latitude. and expand a bit on the "look" of the grain you can see in a scan or enlargement?

Dear Fred,

Alan's explanation of the former is spot on.

Grain is massively complex and I don't have time to do it in full, but roughly, as I understand it:

T-grain (and I think Delta, but I'm not sure) relies on multiple development sites on one grain. Overexpose or overdevelop, and the sites join up so that grain clumping can be worse than with cubic-crystal emulsions. Get it right, and the grain is smaller.

Scan granularity is affected by an interaction between the scan source and the grain size, so a neg that looks grainier in a scan may look finer in a wet print, or vice versa.

Gain aliasing is not a problem with C41 films. Also with C41, increased exposure means finer grain (but still reduced sharpness), unlike conventional films, where grain gets bigger as well as sharpness declining.

Actual grain shape (= grain clumping, not actual grain) is heavily dependent on developer as well as on film. Some film/dev combinations give crisp but large grain while others give fine but mushy grain. If the enlargement is big enough to see the grain, the former is normally preferable. At smaller sizes, the latter may be 'creamier'.

The half-tone effect can affect tonality before you see grain consciously. The classic experiment is to give the same exposure to two pieces of the same paper from the same negative, at an enlargement size just too small for grain to be visible, but move the paper (originally on a gramophone turntable!) during one of the exposures. The tonality will be different.

Finally, C41 films have no Callier effect (scattering of light, as distinct from blocking/absorbing), which can make them much easier to scan without 'blown' highlights.

For scanning, I'd standardize on C41, but for wet prints, I prefer conventional film.

Cheers,

R.