Fine Grain Film/Developer

[Todd.Hanz]

I would be interested in knowing which film everyone suggests that would have a tighter grain structure compared to Tri-X. I am looking for examples (pics) or experiences with different developer/film combos. I know alot of members use HP 5 and would be interested in your thoughts as well as C-41 process films. My only caveat is I would like it to be a 400 speed film with an "available"developer.
I use Acros 100 when I can but that isn't always an option. I feel like I can control the tonal range of Tri-X pretty well, I am just thinking about other possibilities. here is a recent example: (scanned on a flatbed, which is another issue altogether)

[GeneW]

Todd, there's a lot of opinions around this and perhaps the best place to post this question is on the B&W Photo - Film & Processing Forum on photo.net

http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1541

I use HP5+ and Tri-X and find them very similar in grain structure. Which developer you use also plays a role. A slightly solvent developer like D76 or HC-110 gives slightly finer grain on traditional silver emulsions. Rodinal, on the other hand, gives larger, but crisper grain.

I hear that T-MAX 400 has a very tight grain structure, but its tonality is different from Tri-X. XP2 can be quite grainy at 400 and quite smooth at 200.

I've got a bunch of HP5+ I'm using up then I'll be switching back to Tri-X which i slightly prefer. I keep both HC-110 and Rodinal on my shelf -- both last for years in concentrate.

It's a quest for the holy grail ...

Gene

[thejazzguy]

first, i doubt your picture could be any better with a different film. the grain structure of tri-x is just so pleasing. in ways that i can't quite explain. that said, i'll be developing 10 rolls of hp5 and delta 400 (with d-76 and t-max developers respectively) in the coming days and would be happy to post some results. without comparing actual negatives, the whole exercise might be for naught, but i'm willing to contribute.

xp2 is almost grainless and 400asa, but more expensive than doing it yourself.

i'll attach a tmax100 picture i developed in tmax developer recently (taken with a ricoh dicord tlr).

[Todd.Hanz]

jazzguy,
great image, I would love to see some of your results.

Gene,
It's not so much a quest for the "Holy grail" as it is a quest for the "Holy grain" (one that is forgiving)
:angel:
I used T Max years ago but did not stay with it, I could not get a nice tonal range.

Todd

[Rich Silfver]

Jazz, super image!

[back alley]

have you tried the delta films with ddx?
i happen to like grain so i have never been on a quest like yours.
i actually like ilfords ilfosol s developer with the delta films but they aren't known for their fine grain.

joe

[oftheherd]

I am about to get back into develping my own b/w film, but haven't done it in years. I did used to like Ilford's film which I thought had pleasing tonality and grain structure. But I thought Tri-X was nice and also that it pushed better. The Ilford films also had the best drying characteristics of any b/w film I ever used. You just couldn't get water drying spots on it. I have never used the T-max films since I never wanted to develop them nor send them out. I have in fact heard about the tonality issues, but I think I also heard that some people claim to change development times to increase tonality. Good luck in your quest.

[GeneW]

Originally posted by Todd.Hanz

It's not so much a quest for the "Holy grail" as it is a quest for the "Holy grain" (one that is forgiving)
:angel:
I used T Max years ago but did not stay with it, I could not get a nice tonal range.
LOL, Todd :)

Not to be flip but the ultimate answer is Tri-X on a larger negative. With medium-format sizes, you see very little grain at all and yet preserve all the tonality associated with this excellent film. It's why so many studio photogs use Hassys (or have turned to digital for its smoothness, especially of skin).

Grain is part of 35mm culture unless you go to low-speed films. I'm with Joe -- grain just doesn't bother me.

[Todd.Hanz]

Don't get me wrong, I like grain as well, in some applications it can make an image pop. Alot of grain is not what I like in a portrait but it works for most everything else.
Maybe less grain isn't what I'm after, maybe it's a different look or grain structure, or just testing the winds.
I think grain is the edge film has over digital, digital has noise not grain and it looks bad as far as I'm concerned. You can use software to add grain into a digital image but it doesn't look the same (see example below). I will still shoot Tri-X but may try something else for a while too.

Todd

[pshinkaw]

Todd:

From what I've seen of you work so far, you may be ready to try your hand at medium format. Tr-X in 6X6 format would be a dramatic change from what you are doing now.

I'm not suggesting you go whole hog and get a Fujica G690 or a Mamiya 7. Try something modest like a good TLR or a Russian Iskra to start with. When you get up to 120 size film, grain stops being a subject of discussion and tonality becomes the topic. You can get started for under $100.

-Paul

[GeneW]

If you like shooting Tri-X for most subjects, but find it a little too grainy for a small number of shots, you could try a grain reducer (noise reducer) such as Neat Image - http://www.neatimage.com/

There is a free version of this on the site. NI allows considerable control over how much reduction you get.

Other than that, the C-41 B&W's tend to be fine-grained and creamy if not underexposed. Undoubtedly worth trying to see if you like the results. They have a different tonal scale than Tri-X, so expect a slightly different look.

Good luck with your quest and keep us posted!

Gene

[pshinkaw]

I've tried Neat Image. Ity's worth trying, but will take some effort to master. I still think of it as an image salvage tool. The goal should be to get your best image on film first.

That's why I advocate the medium format approach. However, there is a trade-off. With the larger MF camera you are less likely to have it available when you need it. With the 35, it will be available. Sometimes you have to make compromises. I carry an Olympus XA in my briefcase. An Iskra or Moskva would be a little more than I want to tote around all the time. Sometimes I select equipment based on the lens or film I want to use, but sometimes it is based on the negative size I need.

-Paul

[Todd.Hanz]

pshinkaw,
actually I have a Hassy' (6x6) and a Koni Omega (6x7) as well as some other large format cameras (4x5). I use 35mm for the size difference and the wider apetures available, thanks though, I have been itching to run some rolls through one of them.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Todd,

I know you wanted a 400 ISO film, but here is an example of what I use. T-Max 100 developed in D-76 1:1. I'll see if I can find a couple of other examples to post.

Wayne

[Todd.Hanz]

Wayne,
That looks really good, is this 35mm?

Todd

[Wayne R. Scott]

Todd,

Here is one shot on Ilford HP-5 developed with Ilford equivalent of D-76 the name escapes me right now.


Wayne

ID-11 is the name of the developer.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Todd,

Here is one shot with Tri-X Developed in D-76 1:1. This is shot on 645 format as is the first one I posted with T-max. The HP-5 is shot on 35mm.

Wayne

[Wayne R. Scott]

Todd,

One more shot on T-max 100 Developed in D-76 1:1. These are scans of prints so they may be lacking in quality on the web. This one is also shot in 645 format 120 film.

Wayne

[Wayne R. Scott]

Todd,

Last one. This is shot on T-Max 100 developed in D-76 1:1 on 645 format.

Wayne

[Todd.Hanz]

Wayne,
thanks for your effort scanning all of these. I like the looks of the HP 5+ image, all the others are very nice as well even for scans of prints. I might try out some HP 5+ and see what I can make of it, I am also looking at trying out some Neopan 400 from Fuji.

Todd

[Doug]

Another thought is FP4 souped in Diafine. That gives EI=250, not quite up to 400, but equal to the EI I use for Ilford XP2. I don't have any samples scanned to show, unfortunately, but it's a very nice combination. And Diafine is amazingly convenient and easy to use.

[back alley]

Here is one shot on Ilford HP-5 developed with Ilford equivalent of D-76 the name escapes me right now.

i think it's 'id11'

[Russ]

Originally posted by Todd.Hanz
I would be interested in knowing which film everyone suggests that would have a tighter grain structure compared to Tri-X. I am looking for examples (pics) or experiences with different developer/film combos. I know alot of members use HP 5 and would be interested in your thoughts as well as C-41 process films. My only caveat is I would like it to be a 400 speed film with an "available"developer.
I use Acros 100 when I can but that isn't always an option. I feel like I can control the tonal range of Tri-X pretty well, I am just thinking about other possibilities. here is a recent example: (scanned on a flatbed, which is another issue altogether)

Todd

About 5 years ago, I discovered the wonderful Fuji Neopan 400 film. Much nicer, tighter grain and tonality than Tri-X or HP-5. It's all I use now. Fantastic stuff, and cheaper too. I burn it @ 320, through a deep yellow (#15) filter for my street shooting.

Russ

[Brian Sweeney]

"Back in the Day" I used to shoot nothing but Panatomic-X developed in Microdol-X. Well, the latter is still around...

Kodak Microdol-X Data Sheet (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j4027/j4027.jhtml?id=0.1.16.14.30.14.7.24.14&lc=enc)

I also used it on the Tri-X shot on occasion, and got good results. Anyone use this combo anymore?

[GeneW]

Originally posted by Brian Sweeney
"Back in the Day" I used to shoot nothing but Panatomic-X developed in Microdol-X. Well, the latter is still around...

Kodak Microdol-X Data Sheet (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j4027/j4027.jhtml?id=0.1.16.14.30.14.7.24.14&lc=enc)

I also used it on the Tri-X shot on occasion, and got good results. Anyone use this combo anymore?
That brings back some memories! I was a Pan-X fan back then -- used to bulk load it. I got some really nice results with Tri-X in Microdol-X 1:3 rating the film at 200. Very smooth grain but perhaps not quite as crisp as D76 or Rodinal.

[Russ]

Yeah, the Panatomic-X, was great. They discontinued it when they came out with T-Max 100. I prefer the Delta's over the T-Max line. But man, the negs and prints from the Neopan 400, are so beautiful! The Neopan, is not a Tabular style film. It's the old style emulsion. Perhaps that helps in achieving it wonderful tonality.

Russ

[back alley]

i much prefer the delta films over t-max.
t-max always seemed more 'harsh' to me and way harder to control.

joe

[Wayne R. Scott]

Brian,

I have been playing with Microdol-X with 35mm HP-5+ and 120 T-Max 100. I'll see about scanning some of the HP-5+ negs so Todd can see (sorta) what the images look like.

I am not sure what every one means by T-Max being hard to work with. I must be pretty slow.

Wayne

[Russ]

Originally posted by backalley photo
i much prefer the delta films over t-max.
t-max always seemed more 'harsh' to me and way harder to control.

joe

Joe

I agree completely. The T-Max films are too finicky. The Delta's are so much easier to work with, plus, I prefer their tonal scale.

Russ

[Wayne R. Scott]

Here are a couple of HP-5+ 35mm shots that were developed in Microdol-X. HP-5+ was rated at ISO 400 for what it is worth. I don't know how to post 2 photos in the same post , so these will be in seperate posts, sorry.

Wayne

[Wayne R. Scott]

Here is the second one.

Wayne

[Brian Sweeney]

Wayne, Beautiful Portraits.

Unless "very poor" refers to finances AND NOT photographic skill, I think a name change is necessary to protect the egos of the rest of us!

[Todd.Hanz]

Nice tonal range, that looks like a good film/developer combo.

Todd

[Wayne R. Scott]

Originally posted by Brian Sweeney
Wayne, Beautiful Portraits.

Unless "very poor" refers to finances AND NOT photographic skill, I think a name change is necessary to protect the egos of the rest of us!

Aw, Shucks Brian. It warnt nuthing special. Yes, I do feel the cruel pinch of financial want. So many cameras and so little room and so little money.

Wayne