Highest resolving power BW film, chemistry, paper.

[Henning Serger]

Hello Top-Cat,

I am doing lens, film, developer (and lately sensor) tests for more than 20 years now, on a scientific basis (and was involved in such test programmes professionally in the past as well).
We have some thousand test shots here and have tested almost all films of the market during the years.
So I certainly can give you exact answers:

I just read on wikipedia that Velvia 50 has an especially high resolving power for color slides - this made me think about something.

It is right that Velvia 50 has quite high resolving power both with lower and higher object contrasts.
But both Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F have higher resolution, especially with medium object contrast. These two films with newer emulsion technology profit from finer grain compared to Velvia 50, resulting in finer detail definition.

We have tested these films with an relative low object contrast of 1:4 (two stops). Lenses were Nikkor AI-S 1,8/50 (long barrel version) and Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f5,6.
Both lenses have the same performance in the center at f4 and f5,6, but the Zeiss is generally better at the corners and at f2.

Resolution:
Velvia 50: 110 - 125 linepairs per millimeter (lp/mm)
Velvia 100: 125 - 140 lp/mm
Velvia 100F: 125 - 140 lp/mm
(the first, lower value is representing clear seperated linepairs, the second higher value represents the limit where you can still see a contrast difference between the linepairs).

Zeiss also did very detailed scientific resoultion tests with different films and their Zeiss lenses. The results were published on their website in the camera lens news 17, 19, 20, 24 and 30.
I highly recommend to read it.
Their tests were primarily made with object contrast in the 1:32 - 1:64 range (5 - 6 stops).
With Velvia 50 they got 160 - 170 lp/mm.
That is the value Fuji has published for this film for an object contrast of 1:1000 (10 stops).
That is all right and not an contradiction because:

1. Resolution is dependant on object contrast, but it is not a linear relation, but following "the law of diminishing returns". It is an asymptotic curve.
It doesn't matter much whether you have 6 or 10 stops object contrast, the resolution is almost the same.
But it does matter whether you have 0,5 or 2 stops object contrast. In this range there is an almost linear relation.
See camera lens news no. 30 for further details.

2. The resolution values Fuji has published are very conservative, especially the ones of their color films. I've seen results from a collegue who achieved even higher results at medium contrast than Fuji has published for high contrast.

Further results of other ISO 100 color films (our tests with object contrast of 1:4 and Nikkor and Zeiss 50mm lenses):
Provia 100F: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Astia 100F: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Sensia 100: 120 - 135 lp/mm
E100G: 120 - 135 Lp/mm
Elitechrome 100: 120 - 135 lp/mm
Elitechrome 100 ExtraColor: 115 - 125 lp/mm
E100VS: 115 - 125 lp/mm

Fuji Reala 100: 105 - 115 lp/mm
Ektar 100: 90 - 105 lp/mm

Personally, I don't really use analog for color (at least not yet), but I've been playing around with B&W for a while, and especially with medium format (I just love my 645 system, as well as my little 50s folding camera). So I thought, maybe there's a B&W film with especially high resolving power, and so I searched wikipedia for the same without any good answer (only Maco).

So I'm asking, what film, still available for sale in major stores (such as Tri-X, T-Max, Delta, Efke or APX) has the highest resolving power? Same goes for chemistry, and paper.

Yes, there are some BW films with significantly higher resolving power than the best color slide films.
Test results from Zeiss (object contrast see above):
Spur Orthopan UR / Adox CMS 20 (that is Agfa HDP 13 microfilm): 400 lp/mm
Agfaortho 25: 250 lp/mm
Agfa APX 25: 200 lp/mm
KodakT-Max 100: 180 lp/mm
Fuji Neopan Acros 100: 160 lp/mm

Our test results with significantly lower object contrast of 1:4 and Nikkor and Zeiss 50mm lenses:
Spur Orthopan UR / Adox CMS 20: 240 - 260 lp/mm
Agfa Copex Rapid: 165 - 200 lp/mm (dependant on developer, Spur Dynamicspeed 32, 64, Spur Modular UR New)
Rollei ATP: 165 - 200 lp/mm (dependant on developer)
Kodak TMX: 135 - 150 lp/mm (with fine grain and higher resolving developers like HRX-3, RLS, Microdol X)
Ilford Delta 100: 135 - 150 (as well with HRX-3, RLS, Microdol-X)
Fuji Neopan Acros: 120 - 130 lp/mm (HRX-3, RLS, Microdol-X)
Agfa APX 25: 135 - 150 lp/mm (in Rodinal 1:50)

Paper:
Modern BW paper is not the bottleneck for resolution.
We did lots of test prints with APO enlarging lenses and Ilford Multigrade IV and Adox MCP/MCC and the resolution loss in the optical printing process is rather minimal, about 5 - 10%.
So, if you are working properly, you can print most of the high resolution onto paper.

Chemistry:
With higher resolving developers like Spur HRX-3, Rollei RLS / CG 512, Microdol-X (1+3),Finol or Perceptol (1+3) you can gain about 5 - 10% higher resolution values compared to developers like Rodinal or D-76.

For microfilms and technical pan films (they are not the same, different technology, different applications) you need special developers for combining high resolution and normal contrast for daily photography.
We have tested different developers and found the new Spur developers by far the best for these films.
Spur Orthpan UR / Adox CMS 20 with Spur Modular UR New developer (Part A2 + part B): very good charateristic curve and tonality at ISO 4 - 5, five minutes development time.
Agfa Copex Rapid with Spur Modular UR New (part A1 + part B):
ISO 32-40 and excellent characteristic curve and tonality. Excellent shadow detail and highlight separation. Better results concerning tonality than with lots of conventional film / developer combinations.

For photographers who were so far unsatiesfied concerning tonality with CMS 20 or Agfa Copex Rapid with diluted Rodinal, TD-3 or Pota we recommend the Spur Modular UR New (or new Adotech II for CMS 20) for much better results.
Real technological progress has taken place in the area of special developers for micro- and tech pan films (new ATP DC A/B developer, also made by Spur, for the ATP tech pan film).

High resolution film vs. TMX:
There was one statement that you can see the resolution advantage of the high resolution films (CMS 20, Agfa Copex Rapid, ATP) only in big enlargements.
That is not true.
The difference is very obvious and clearly seen even in 20x30 cm (cm, not inch!) enlargements.
The high resolution films have significantly finer grain, resulting in smoother tones as well, and a higher resolution of low contrast details. And this advantage is very obvious at smaller enlargements. Detail rendition is better.
I can always tell whether my smaller 20x30 cm prints are from a Delta 100 or TMX, or from Agfa Copex Rapid, ATP and CMS 20.

I hope this information was helpful for you.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

This very well done document, which I recently quoted in another thread, will give you some resolution values for various colour and B&W films (lp/mm and dpi, page 11 and page 14) and, most interestingly, will give you "cross" values for film and lens, given film resolution and lens resolution (page 16).
....

Hello Fabrizio,

sorry to say, but the document by T. Vitale is not at all very well done, it is quite the opposite. Lot's of severe mistakes.
Especially the part about resolution.
It is obvious that he himself has never done any scientific resolution tests.
And he makes two essential mistakes with the formula for the system resolution of lens + film:

1. The values he gives for lens resolution (aerial resolution) are not realistic and much too small.
Many prime lenses are diffraction limited in the center, that means their resolution is limited only by the diffraction of light.
The diffraction limit of white light is about 250 lp/mm at f5,6, and about 400 lp/mm at f4.
Dr. H. Nasse, chief optical designer at Zeiss, has confirmed this many times. Most prime lenses are much better than photgraphers think.

2. This formula is only a "rule of thumb". It is not suitable for exact calculation of resolution in lp/mm values.
In general this formula gives too low values, even if you use realistic lens and film resolution values.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Johnson]

Thank you for posting this data Henning.Since Zeiss Camera Lens News before No 25 is no longer available for download this is now the only original data available.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Useful information, but measured "resolution" should not be confused with the other significant factors which comprise the apparent sharpness of final images, such as resoultion, edge effect, contrast distribution over the length of the curve etc. Extremely fine-grain microfilms often look less sharp in a print because of poor edge effect and their relatively poor gradation in shadows and highlights. Choice of
developer is also a factor and is especially related to microcontrast. So there is simply no substitute for
actual printing and visually discerning what "looks" sharper.

 

[removed account4]

i never understand threads like this ... it isn't that resolution isn't the be all-end all of photography
film, paper or lenses ..
but just the same, it is fun to read and try to understand how the other side lives

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For many years Leitz toured around the US (and probably other countries) giving demonstrations of their lenses. Their developer of choice was Ethol T.E.C. and the film was developed during the presentation and shown to the audience. Sorry I can't remember the brand of film used but it as a conventional slow speed film perhaps made by Agfa.

BTW, Ethol T.E.C. is still being made.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you for posting this data Henning.Since Zeiss Camera Lens News before No 25 is no longer available for download this is now the only original data available.

Alan, you are welcome. I am glad if other members here can profit from this information.
May be I can find some time in the future and write a much more detailed article for all you apug-members (here in the article section). Then I would also include all the test results from Zeiss, which were published in the former camera lens news.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Drew,

Useful information, but measured "resolution" should not be confused with the other significant factors which comprise the apparent sharpness of final images, such as resoultion, edge effect, contrast distribution over the length of the curve etc.

that's right, but I think all the participants in this thread know this.

Extremely fine-grain microfilms often look less sharp in a print because of poor edge effect and their relatively poor gradation in shadows and highlights.

If you have got such results than you have definitely used the wrong developer and / or wrong development technique.
I have never had sharpness problems with Kodak Technical Pan, Rollei ATP, Agfa Copex Rapid and Adox CMS 20 / Spur Orthopan.
My results with all these films were always significantly sharper than my results with APX 25, Efke 25, Rollei Pan 25, Ilford Pan F+, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and Kodak T-Max 100.
But I have prefered / used the special, dedicated developers for these films. That is essential for these film types to achieve best results and exploit their full potential.
For best tonality, best shadow detail and highlight separation the latest Spur developers, which are designed for the current Agfa microfilms and the Agfa / Rollei technical pan film, should be used.
So far the best developers for these film types I have used in more than 25 years of taking photographs with such films.

Choice of
developer is also a factor and is especially related to microcontrast. So there is simply no substitute for
actual printing and visually discerning what "looks" sharper.

Right, I have done that for more than 25 years. Taking photographs with these films and conventional films in different shooting conditions, and then making prints in my wet darkroom (or projecting them on a big screen).
From this experience I draw my conclusions.

Beste regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

i never understand threads like this ... it isn't that resolution isn't the be all-end all of photography
film, paper or lenses ..

Of course resolution is not the be all-end all of photography. That is a "Binsenweisheit" .
We all know that.
It is one parameter between others.
But for certain applications it is an important parameter.
For example I like my pictures big, brillant and impressive:
Therefore I prefer quality slide projection (BW and Color) and bigger print formats made in my wet darkroom.
In this bigger formats I profit from films with higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain.
For example in projection I can very clearly see the much better detail rendition of Astia 100F, E100G or Provia 400X compared the lower resolving Rollei CR 200 slide film. It's a huge difference.

Another example: With the combination of 35mm Agfa Copex Rapid, developed in Spur Modular UR New developer, I achieve better detail rendition (resolution, sharpness) and shadow detail (ideal characteristic curve) compared to my 6x6 medium format shots of APX 100 in Rodinal 1:50 and FP4+ in ID-11 and HRX-3.
I get medium format quality with 35mm film. Can use all the advantages of my sophisticated 35mm system without compromising in picture quality.
And all that with 45% less costs (I am not a very rich photographer ) compared to MF.

With this film developer combination in medium format (the film is available in 120, too) I come quite close to 4x5" performance. But with significant less cost.

I am a pragmatic person: I look at the visible advantages in my daily photography.
That is the reason for me as a photgraper to use certain materials.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[cmo]

Of course resolution is not the be all-end all of photography. That is a "Binsenweisheit" .

Right, that's why no analog forum is filled with discussions about 'which film/developer', 'which lens' and all digital forums do not contain 'pixel peeping' discussions

Too many people miss too much fun trying to find the holy grail. :joyful:

And all that with 45% less costs (I am not a very rich photographer ) compared to MF.

Talking about costs, in the german apug forum Jörg Bergs did the maths:

Two Spur DSX films 135/36 with the special chemistry cost roughly 24 Euros ($34). Many people would not call it 'cheap' if it costs 0,33 Euros ($0.48) every time the shutter clicks.

In fact, for a 120 size Tmax 100 or Acros and a good developer I do not pay more per shot. Less costs compared to medium format? I cannot understand that.

Development of a normal b/w film is almost foolproof. By contrast, these special films need extra attention and extra care in processing, plus some initial tests in the beginning, e.g. additional films - not to mention all those Summicrons and Planars and a good tripod as consequential costs

So, maybe it's right for you because you have the knowledge and the equipment, but I believe that for the majority of photographers this is just one more area of activity that keeps them from having fun in photography.

While I am writing this I am looking outside. I see wonderful weather and will get my old camera with a normal film now and have fun

 

[georg16nik]

Henning, thank You for sharing with us! Looks like You had lots of fun with the tests
I mostly use Agfa Copex Rapid, Adox CMS 20, ATP 1.1. Also some Rollei 80S too !
Totally agree with what You said about why use 35mm high resolution films.
Now, since Adox introduced CMS 20 in 120 format, then it obviously make sense to shoot high resolution films in bigger formats as well.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Clemens,

Talking about costs, in the german apug forum Jörg Bergs did the maths:

and he did it wrong and had to admit that at that time.
And now that calculation is much more wrong because there is a new developer on the market which is even significantly cheaper.

Your calculation is completey wrong and has nothing to do with the real prices.
You should check the real, current prices of the current products.

Less costs compared to medium format? I cannot understand that.

It's so easy, then let's do the math (prices are from a german online store who has the films mentioned in stock):

10 Ilford FP4+ 120 films= 36,90€ that's 3,69€ per film

Development costs: differ from 10 Cents to one Euro per film whether I use Rodinal, ID-11, RHS or DD-X.

10 Agfa Copex Rapid 135 films: 40,52€ that's 4,05€ per film
20 Agfa Copex Rapid 135 films: 74,97€ that's 3,75€ per film

My test results (and that of other photographers) showed that 35mm Copex Rapid surpassed 6x6 FP4+.

I have 36 pictures on 135 film.
I need 3 120 films to get 36 6x6 pictures as well.

For the same number of pictures I need one 135 film and 3 120 films.

So film costs: 3 x 3,69€ = 11,07€ for 120 FP4+.
1 x 4,05€ for Agfa Copex Rapid.

Developer cost: Spur Modular UR New developer for Agfa Copex Rapid:
Part A1 500ml: 20€
Part B 500ml: 33,50€

With recommended dilution for my enlarger / contrast I need 50ml Part A1 and 10ml Part B for one film.
That is 2,67€ development cost for one film.

Total Agfa Copex Rapid: 4,05€ + 2,67€ = 6,72€ (or 6,47€ if I buy 20 film pack).

Total FP4+ 6x6: 11,07€ + 0,10€ (cheapest case)= 11,17€
11,07€ + 1€ (worst case)= 12,07€

Dependant on the developer I use for my FP4+ development, Agfa Copex Rapid 135 + Spur Modular UR is 40% to 45% cheaper than FP4+ 120.

Development of a normal b/w film is almost foolproof. By contrast, these special films need extra attention and extra care in processing, plus some initial tests in the beginning, e.g. additional films -

Sorry, that's wrong as well.
Working with Modular UR New is easy and not more difficult as development with standard developers.
You have said in several threads in different forums that you have never used these films, and never used this developer.
I have.
I know what I am talking about.

not to mention all those Summicrons and Planars and a good tripod as consequential costs

Nonsense.
I have only one Planar. I am using these films with my Nikkor and Sigma lenses in 35mm photography, and with my Yashinon and Sekor lenses in medium format.
You easily achieve better quality with these films with normal lenses, even with zoom lenses.
Shots with CMS 20 and my Nikon and Sigma zooms for example show better detail than my Zeiss Planar shots with T-Max 100.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[georg16nik]

I trust Henning is talking about Macodirect.de and he is correct about the prices.
Ilford FP4 120
10 Film (€ 3,69 / film) - http://www.macodirect.de/ilford-120br10-filme-p-134.html
Agfa Copex Rapid 135-36
10 films (€ 4,052 / film) - http://www.macodirect.de/agfa-copex-rapid-13536br10-films-p-2279.html
Agfa Copex Rapid 135-36
20 films (€ 3,75 / film) - http://www.macodirect.de/agfa-copex-rapid-13536br20-films-p-2280.html

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, thank You for sharing with us!

You are welcome.

Looks like You had lots of fun with the tests

Most fun I have using these films in my daily photography (as well as my other favourites Delta 100, TMY-2 and the color films I am using).

I mostly use Agfa Copex Rapid, Adox CMS 20, ATP 1.1. Also some Rollei 80S too !
Totally agree with what You said about why use 35mm high resolution films.
Now, since Adox introduced CMS 20 in 120 format, then it obviously make sense to shoot high resolution films in bigger formats as well.

The film world is not only good to 35mm shooters, but to medium format shooters as well.
ATP and Agfa Copex Rapid have been on the market in 120 for a longer time, and now CMS 20 is available in 120, too.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Henning - I'm pretty comfortable with said specialty films, developers. Also in the past I have used Kodak
Tech Pan for normal scenes and gotten results about as good as can be expected. The seeming lack of
detail and my disappointment in these films is due to their poor mackie line effect and relatively poor tonality. With miniature cameras like 35mm, 6x7, or 6x9, where extreme resolution is vital, I personally
prefer the characteristics of Efke 25, which is a film you apparently didn't compare. Pan F is also useful
if the contrast range isn't extreme. Generally when I want real detail and great tonality simultaneously,
I simply shoot 8x10 or even 4x5. But R25 does truly help bridge the gap with the small cameras. With
its twelve-stop range without sacrificing microcontrast, it's a film worthy of your list too.

 

[cmo]

Your calculation is completey wrong and has nothing to do with the real prices.
You should check the real, current prices of the current products.

It's getting really weird now, don't you think?

Let's have a look at your calculation:

10 Ilford FP4+ 120 films= 36,90€ that's 3,69€ per film

Alright, I use Tmax 100 and 400, I paid 3,10 per film. My standard developer is XTol, purchased for 7,90 per 5l package. The way I use it - 1:1 - I can develop 50 films with it.

That's 0,27 Euros for one shot 6x6cm.

10 Agfa Copex Rapid 135 films: 40,52€ that's 4,05€ per film
20 Agfa Copex Rapid 135 films: 74,97€ that's 3,75€ per film

For the cost calculation you chose a relatively expensive FP4...

My test results (and that of other photographers) showed that 35mm Copex Rapid surpassed 6x6 FP4+.

For the quality comparison you chose a relatively grainy FP4. You better compare results with an obvious choice, a state-of-the-art t-grain film like Tmax 100, Delta 100 or Acros. Comparing high-resolution films with traditional films shows that your test results are based on a comparison of apples and oranges.

What should I say?

Oh, I need to return your sentence:

Your calculation is completey wrong and has nothing to do with the real prices.

Who did?

Sorry, that's wrong as well.

Forgive me, but after such an angled and arbitrary comparison of prices and results I put a question mark here, too.

Working with Modular UR New is easy and not more difficult as development with standard developers.

Okay, let's check that...

From the datasheet:

"1) Due to the properties of the film base, flare may penetrate the cartridge along the perforation from the tip end of the film (only with 35 mm films). This may spoil the first shots. In order to avoid this, the film should be kept in an opaque film can and must not be exposed to light before or after exposure."​

Simple, just load your camera in the darkroom

Did you say "not more difficult"? I say "lightpiping". It's not the Curse of the Mummy, it's even worse: a polyester film base.

Polyester, to say it once again and very clearly, has one big advantage: it's much cheaper than triacetate. Well, for the manufacturer, not necessarily for the customers

All the other advantages stated by manufacturers are completely irrelevant for 99.9% of all photographers, but lightpiping is a big disadvantage for 100% of all photographers.

"The developer components Part A1 and Part A2 are very durable due to their low pH-value; just like any other developer, however, they are subject to oxidation. In order to utilise the high shelf life, concentrates should be poured into clean (brown) glass bottles – full to the brim if possible – and stored in the fridge after first opening the original bottle. You should use a variety of glass bottles with different volumes (e.g. 250 ml, 150 ml, 100 ml and 50 ml) for this. You can re-use these after rinsing for the same purpose. In case you cannot fill the bottle to the brim, we recommend the supplementary use of protective gas."​

Now, when was the last time I had to store developer in the fridge?

Oh, yes, I remember: never.

Will all photographers do that? I have my doubts.

Will the children of these photographers find the bottle and drink the content? I hope not.

Photo chemistry does not belong into a place where families store their food and drinks. It must be stored in the darkroom, in a closet or on a shelf, but definitely behind locked doors and thus out of reach of children. Suggesting to store photo chemistry in the fridge is preposterous.

"If you leave the opened developer in the original bottle, the use of protective gas is hardly useful, because the original bottle is made of non-gas-tight synthetic material..."​

Wait a minute, the developer is delivered in a bottle that is not gas-tight? So, how long will it last, unopened? What about mold? Many of us will remember that this extremely small (one man?) company named Schain (alias "Spur") had a developer named HRX, and there was a lot of trouble with fungi...

"Different Parts A are needed for the respective emulsions. Part A1 is needed for SPUR
DSX/Agfa Copex Rapid; Part A2 is needed for SPUR Orthopan UR/Adox CMS 20 and
for Rollei ATP 1.1. Part B is the same with all emulsions.
The Parts A1 and B are needed for the absolutely schlieren-free development of the SPUR
DSX/Agfa Copex Rapid roll film"​

Great, even more complication. Just when I thought it couldn't be more confusing.

But the show is not over yet:

"Due to the new type of schlieren-free development the gradation control can no longer be exercised through development times only; it has to be exercised through dilution and inversion tact in addition. Thus, a different dilution for condenser and diffusor contrast is required when preparing the working solution!​

So, with all other films you can simply change development time to change contrast, and with this one you need to change dilution and agitation?

Once again, a premiere. And I think I understand why:

Development times that are longer than suggested are not advisable, as longer development times cause silver precipitation that may deposit on the emulsion layer!"​

Oops.

When did I have that with other films and developers? Let me think... never.

"In regions with hard water the WS has to be prepared with deionised water!"​

Nice to mention that, some companies forget it from time to time and blame their customers for not knowing that...

In this case one question remains: when is water rated as "hard"? In what unit? Millimol per liter or, in Germany, °dH, or ppm CaCO3 (the unit used in the USA)?

Oh, there is no number and no unit for a number, therefore this is nebulous for normal users.

Enough?

No.

"Due to different development dynamics, high resolution techniques are invariably more sensitive to schlieren and other artefacts than conventional development techniques.​

Don't you think this is a BIG difference compared to normal films and developers? So, it's the same old problem since the first "Gigabit" film.

That is why you are strongly advised to use a tank of optimal size when you develop roll films: if you need 500 ml WS, do NOT use a tank larger than 500 ml. If you use Jobo tanks for example, never use Multitank 1540 (which is made for 1 litre of WS). You would have to use Unitank 1520 (which is made for 500 ml of WS). The same goes for other makes.​

Nice. So, the size of the tank influences the result? Interesting, what about the material? Steel vs. plastic, an old discussion, and what about Paterson compared to Jobo, AP and old Agfa tanks?

I never had that with any films and developers before. But technical progress cannot be stopped

When developing 35 mm films, be careful not to pour too heavily; pour moderately. Heavy pouring may result in inadvertent density variations at the sprocket holes! Also, you should process only one 35 mm film per tank and development. Two 35 mm films per tank at most."​

Another novelty, the last time I had 'density variations at the sprocket holes' was about 1980, with a developer that had gone bad.

"You must not rinse after developing. You may either use an acidic stop bath or fix immediately after developing."​

Some people will rinse or have a stop bath that is not acidic enough. What happens then?

Well, so far about your statement:

Working with Modular UR New is easy and not more difficult as development with standard developers.

Let's summarize:

1. The film suffers from lightpiping.
2. Developer must be stored in the fridge (which is absurd)
3. Developer must be diluted with deionised water.
4. The photographer has to mix the components, depending on type of film, type and size of the tank (maybe, I am not sure... what about the weather?)
5. Wrong agitation means uneven development, schlieren etc. (that's what the datasheet says).

Those are no issues with other films and developers:

1. Pointless.
2. Pointless.
3. Pointless with most developers.
4. Pointless with most developers.
5. Pointless unless you force it by doing it really, really wrong.

You have said in several threads in different forums that you have never used these films, and never used this developer.

Right, and reading the datasheet of this new wonder warthog eliminated the last bit of wish to try it.

This can has been kicked down the road so many times... if I would get a dollar for every time I hear a sonic boom from the next all-time resolution record by Spur and others I could pay the debt of Greece, Ireland and the USA, and after that I could still buy enough normal films and chemistry for the rest of my life.

I know what I am talking about.

So do I.

Let's agree to disagree.

This film and developer is not for the average Joe, but it makes some experts happy. If it works for you and some other guys, fine. But, please, don't evangelize, don't compare apples with oranges and don't tell half the truth.

 

[removed account4]

Of course resolution is not the be all-end all of photography. That is a "Binsenweisheit" .
We all know that.
It is one parameter between others.
But for certain applications it is an important parameter.
For example I like my pictures big, brillant and impressive:
Therefore I prefer quality slide projection (BW and Color) and bigger print formats made in my wet darkroom.
In this bigger formats I profit from films with higher resolution, better sharpness and finer grain.
For example in projection I can very clearly see the much better detail rendition of Astia 100F, E100G or Provia 400X compared the lower resolving Rollei CR 200 slide film. It's a huge difference.

Another example: With the combination of 35mm Agfa Copex Rapid, developed in Spur Modular UR New developer, I achieve better detail rendition (resolution, sharpness) and shadow detail (ideal characteristic curve) compared to my 6x6 medium format shots of APX 100 in Rodinal 1:50 and FP4+ in ID-11 and HRX-3.
I get medium format quality with 35mm film. Can use all the advantages of my sophisticated 35mm system without compromising in picture quality.
And all that with 45% less costs (I am not a very rich photographer ) compared to MF.

With this film developer combination in medium format (the film is available in 120, too) I come quite close to 4x5" performance. But with significant less cost.

I am a pragmatic person: I look at the visible advantages in my daily photography.
That is the reason for me as a photgraper to use certain materials.

Best regards,
Henning

hi henning

i agree with you to a certain extent ..
but some folks take things to such an extreme
that photography is less about making photographs
and having a good time, and more about what the emulsion
base is made of, and inexistent things like rays from deep space
that make film go bad in the freezer in 10years nonsense that
is in the here and now that prevents people from taking a camera
and pressing the shutter.

you have found what you need in your situation that works for you,
and that is great, using a format and film and developer to get
the results you need is what photography is all about ...
but people always look for a silver bullet to make their images "better".
or " look like --- xyz photographer " or whatever ... and they spend
so much time spinning their wheels instead of learning ( as YOU DID )
what film and developer &c works for them, that it always makes me wonder
what the purpose is.
is it to get a perfect image, or an image that is perfect ...

john

ps - you are right, Binsenweisheit .. plato told the truth

 

[Leigh B]

Many people would not call it 'cheap' if it costs 0,33 Euros ($0.48) every time the shutter clicks.

Hmmm...

Every time I click the shutter on my 8x10 it costs me $12.00 (Ilford FP4+ including processing).

- Leigh

 

[georg16nik]

It's getting really weird now, don't you think?

Let's have a look at your calculation:



Alright, I use Tmax 100 and 400, I paid 3,10 per film. My standard developer is XTol, purchased for 7,90 per 5l package. The way I use it - 1:1 - I can develop 50 films with it.

That's 0,27 Euros for one shot 6x6cm.
..........

cmo, are You talking about the prices at Macodirect.de ?
Because, Kodak T-MAX 100 120 costs 3,67 € / Film if You get 5 Films..- http://www.macodirect.de/kodak-tmax-filme-p-75.html
The usually price for 135 format is 4,49 € - http://www.macodirect.de/kodak-tmax-13536-p-622.html right now it goes with a special offer price but even if we use those prices it doesn't get closer to 3,10 € per film, as You suggest..
Please, show us the store where You buy it from, I am curious.

..........

"In regions with hard water the WS has to be prepared with deionised water!"​

Nice to mention that, some companies forget it from time to time and blame their customers for not knowing that...

In this case one question remains: when is water rated as "hard"? In what unit? Millimol per liter or, in Germany, °dH, or ppm CaCO3 (the unit used in the USA)?..........

Yes, we know most folks dont know what hard water is, and don't use deionised, distilled water..
There was a thread started recently by michaelbsc about "Distiller vs. Reverse osmosis for water.." - (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

So, here it goes, in regards to hard water:
Soft water: 0–60 mg/L
Moderately hard water: 61–120 mg/L
Hard water: 121–180 mg/L
Very hard water: ≥181 mg/L

The unit of water hardness is dGH..
Something like 1 dGH equals 10 milligrams (mg) of calcium oxide (CaO) per litre of water or 0.17832 mmol per litre of elemental calcium and/or magnesium ions or 1 dGH = 17.848 ppm

So, water matters.

 

[Роберт]

About prices I think Henning is very correct and updated in his calculation.

But I do not want to use CMS 20 because the actual iso rate is very low. I would prefer the ATP1.1 and then in a slightly higher iso rate of 25-32 in the new ATP-DC A(1)/B, also from Rollei/SPUR.

And what would be the calculation instead of using Efke 25 film in 120 roll film format. It's a film I can get very easily and rather cheap too. (Eur. 2,35 each). When developing with care in a reel I did not have any problems at all.

In the past I had some issues with the H.R. films in the low contrast document developers. But it was related to my (tap-) water quality. To many Mangane and Iron. So I switched to a Brita (TM) tap water filter to make deionised water myself. It cured all problems in an easy way. So I do not expect any problems with the new type developers too.

In 120 roll film format I am using 6x7cm (Efke 25) now and I would like to compare the ATP1.1 - ATP-DC A/B with it on my M7 with almost all Leica glass too. In fact iso 25-32 (I am using Beutler A+B in 1+1+10 and very cheap, less then Eurct. 0,10) against ATP1.1 in 135-36 (also iso 25-32) in the new developer which is not really cheap but when it's effective for about the same price it would be very good.

Best regards and Danke Schön für alle Info so weit.

Роберт

 

[cmo]

cmo, are You talking about the prices at Macodirect.de ?

No

And I don't name shops or mailorder companies here because it could be rated as stealth marketing, especially if the same people repeat the same shop name over and over again and even more if that company's name is the synonym for surreptitious advertising in numerous forums.

So, here it goes, in regards to hard water:
Soft water: 0–60 mg/L
Moderately hard water: 61–120 mg/L
Hard water: 121–180 mg/L
Very hard water: ≥181 mg/L

You missed one point. I said that there is no information in the datasheet that tells the average user which level of water hardness means that he must use something else than tap water to mix the developer.

The unit of water hardness is dGH..

Only in Germany. In ancient times. And, by the way, your table is in mg/L and not in dGH

Something like 1 dGH equals 10 milligrams (mg) of calcium oxide (CaO) per litre of water or 0.17832 mmol per litre of elemental calcium and/or magnesium ions or 1 dGH = 17.848 ppm

So, you think that the average Joe is able to compute that?

Even the 'chemical brothers' in this forum - including myself - don't always grok simple things as you can read here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Do you really believe that an average darkroom hobbyist will get the water hardness issue right?

Or the size-of-tank issue?

Or the mixing instructions?

Or the recommendation to not handle the film cartridge like a normal film cartridge?

Or the recommendtion to agitate the tank in a 'modest' way?

Or the recommendation to never develop too long but instead adapt dilution and agitation?

Or the recommendation to store photo chemistry in the fridge, right beside the baby's food?

So, water matters.

In the first line, simplicity matters.
A good, unambiguous datasheet matters.
And sincerity matters.

All that counts if such a product is praised as "not more difficult as development with standard developers".

This makes a good scenario for a darkroom disaster for many amateurs, and they will mess up their photos.

So, do you agree that this film and chemistry are for experienced users?

 

[cmo]

Hmmm...

Every time I click the shutter on my 8x10 it costs me $12.00 (Ilford FP4+ including processing).

- Leigh

Now I know why there are no motor drives for 8x10" cameras

Just calculating... in average, I shoot one roll 135/36 per day, sometimes a lot more... street photography, you know...

36 shots *30 days * $12.00 = $8,640 per month

 

[georg16nik]

No
And I don't name shops or mailorder companies here because it could be rated as stealth marketing, especially if the same people repeat the same shop name over and over again and even more if that company's name is the synonym for surreptitious advertising in numerous forums.

Ok, You can PM me
I saw that at fotoimpex the t-max brutto price is a bit lower than the macodirect but still far away from the above mentioned 3,10 €

You missed one point. I said that there is no information in the datasheet that tells the average user which level of water hardness means that he must use something else than tap water to mix the developer.

Yes, there are no basic chemistry facts in the data sheet.

So, you think that the average Joe is able to compute that?

No, the average Joe thinks water is simple.. to him - its safe to use it for anything as long as its not colored and doesn't smell. He could hardly grasp the concept of organic/inorganic content, gases, bacterias, parasites etc etc

Even the 'chemical brothers' in this forum - including myself - don't always grok simple things as you can read here:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

In one of the threads around here, somebody said that film chemistry was designed to be used with tab water...

Do you really believe that an average darkroom hobbyist will get the water hardness issue right?

This makes a good scenario for a darkroom disaster for many amateurs, and they will mess up their photos.

So, do you agree that this film and chemistry are for experienced users?

high resolution films are definitely for experienced users.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The inescapeable fact is that films like Agfa Copex and other document films were never designed for making continuous tone negatives. Yes, you can fiddle with special developers but the results are never completely satisfactory. There is more to a fine print than the absence of grain, there is also tonality, something which these films lack.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Drew,

Henning - I'm pretty comfortable with said specialty films, developers. Also in the past I have used Kodak
Tech Pan for normal scenes and gotten results about as good as can be expected. The seeming lack of
detail and my disappointment in these films is due to their poor mackie line effect and relatively poor tonality.

if your former results with Kodak Technical Pan were not so satisfiying, you should not automatically transfer these results to the current high resolution films and new developers (you said "these films").
They are different to Kodak Technical Pan.
And due to my tests and experience in daily photography, the current films (ATP, Agfa Copex Rapid, Adox CMS 20) deliver better results with the dedicated Spur developers than Kodak TP, especially concerning tonality.

With miniature cameras like 35mm, 6x7, or 6x9, where extreme resolution is vital, I personally
prefer the characteristics of Efke 25, which is a film you apparently didn't compare. Pan F is also useful
if the contrast range isn't extreme. Generally when I want real detail and great tonality simultaneously,
I simply shoot 8x10 or even 4x5. But R25 does truly help bridge the gap with the small cameras. With
its twelve-stop range without sacrificing microcontrast, it's a film worthy of your list too.

I've tested Pan F+, Efke 25 and some other slow speed films as well, but it was not added on my list above simply because I wanted to keep my already quite long posting as short as possible.
Efke 25 is a very good film. Compared to Agfa Copex Rapid in Spur Modular UR New the Agfa gives better shadow detail, better characteristic curve, higher resolution, better sharpness and 2/3 to one stop higher speed (dependant on the developer you are using with Efke 25).
And the production quality / QC of Agfa is better than Fotokemika.
That are the reasons why I prefer the Agfa / Spur combination.
Efke 25 gives a unique look due to it's sensitisation, which I like for some applications.

Best Regards,
Henning