Tabular: terrific or terrible? Your opinions, please.

[Steven Lee]

Ok, veering back to the original topic of the thread, here are my thoughts on t-grain films: they are "needy". They require more attention to detail.

For example, Delta 3200 and Delta 400 always required extra care. The former just refuses to build density in some developers vs others, while the latter has a wicked ability to gain/lose graininess (!) based on external factors, more so than any other film I've used. I have not touched T-Max 100 in a long time, but my distant memories of it also suggest that it was a temperamental beast. Fomapan 200 in 120 is strangely succeptable to emulsion defects, way more than other Fomas. And only Delta 100 is as predictable and malleable as FP4+

For this reason, I only use traditional grain films in 6x6 and larger formats. Actually, Delta 100 is the only t-grain film I am still using, and only in 35mm.

 

[Craig]

I've mostly standardized on 2 films: Delta 100 for slower speed and HP5 for higher speed. The only reason for HP5 is it's available in sheet film and Delta 400 isn't. I don't use T Max simply because of cost.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is nothing "temperamental" about TMax films. Their quality control is superb and these films are highly predictable. They just aren't for shoot from the hip types who don't carefully meter, expose, and develop. Delta 100 is the poor man's T-max, but with distinctly lower real-world film speed because you need more exposure to boost it off the toe to the point of the same linearity as TMax. I shoot TMax films in every format from 35mm to 8x10. They were engineered in the first place to be highly malleable to development, so the curve shape can vary depending on what developer you use. The only real drawback to both speeds of TMax film, once you understand them, is the current high cost. (I omit TMZ, the odd duck available only in 35mm).

ACROS doesn't even belong to the same category. It's not even panchromatic, but orthopanchromatic. Otherwise, it's characteristic curve resembles FP4, but it doesn't have the same overdevelopment potential. And how the heck did films like HP5 and Delta 3200 get into a discussion about T-grain emulsions. Never mind. Seeking generic answers about a variety of films designed differently to begin with, just on a T-grain premise, isn't going to get anyone far at all. Each of these films has its own distinct personality, although if necessary, one could beat several of them into submission to resembling one another.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are, of course, correct. I compared XTOL-R to XTOL in that thread I linked, and XTOL-R consistently gives slightly less film speed, but it, in my experience, it is stable and has the acceptable activity level for my needs. As you will see later in this thread, other tgrain films developed in the same tank had very good performance with regard to film speed.

You bring up a very interesting question: how do we know if and how to control our process. The consensus in the literature seems to be that contrast is a really good indicator of performance, including consistency. But how consistent can and should we be?

We have seen that a few different measures of film contrast can produce acceptable results to the photographer who applies them consistently (Contrast Index, Average Gradient, Gamma). We also know what affects the CI, namely developer (composition and dilution), development time and temperature, agitation. But how consistent can photographers be in terms of reproducing the CI from batch to batch?

Henry (1988) exposed six rolls of Panatomic-X Professional (from 2 different batches) and processed in the same manner. The resulting CI ranged from 0.52 to 0.58. The author considered it to be a surprisingly good result, given all the factors that can potentially affect the result.

I did a similar test when trying to determine whether replenished XTOL can be a stable developer for me. I was getting virtually identical results (0.72-0.73 for KODAK and 0.59-0.61 for ILFORD), esp. given the limitations of my densitometer.


These days, I only run my own "control strips" (a piece of film exposed in a sensitometer) only when there is a potentially long-term change in my process, such as recently switching from D-76 to XTOL-R. Otherwise, I don't bother. For C-41, I process Fujifilm control strips at the beginning of each session, which I do about 5-6 times per year.

In the end, it's up to each individual photographer to determine whether to implement process controls, such as control strips, and how often to use them.

The speed change with XTOL or replenished XTOL is not even half a f/stop, to what is the fuss about?

 

[Steven Lee]

They just aren't for shoot from the hip types who don't carefully meter, expose, and develop.

Haha. Let me suggest a possibility that I meter, expose and develop with the same rigor as you. BTW it is not hard to imagine, because these are the skills that only a 12 year old would find appropriate to brag about.

And I can assure you that Delta 100 is more predictable and tolerant for development and exposure errors than T-Max 100. It is less linear, sure. But the lovers of linear response would be happier with a digital camera, and the curve of any film can be bent to one's will.

 

[Moose22]

The speed change with XTOL or replenished XTOL is not even half a f/stop, to what is the fuss about?

I think his whole point was that there's no fuss at all.

He's got a nice, stable developer that is working well for his needs, regardless of the slight differences in speed compared to non replenished, and without too much extra process control effort.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There is nothing "temperamental" about TMax films. Their quality control is superb and these films are highly predictable. They just aren't for shoot from the hip types who don't carefully meter, expose, and develop. Delta 100 is the poor man's T-max, but with distinctly lower real-world film speed because you need more exposure to boost it off the toe to the point of the same linearity as TMax. I shoot TMax films in every format from 35mm to 8x10. They were engineered in the first place to be highly malleable to development, so the curve shape can vary depending on what developer you use. The only real drawback to both speeds of TMax film, once you understand them, is the current high cost. (I omit TMZ, the odd duck available only in 35mm).

ACROS doesn't even belong to the same category. It's not even panchromatic, but orthopanchromatic. Otherwise, it's characteristic curve resembles FP4, but it doesn't have the same overdevelopment potential. And how the heck did films like HP5 and Delta 3200 get into a discussion about T-grain emulsions. Never mind. Seeking generic answers about a variety of films designed differently to begin with, just on a T-grain premise, isn't going to get anyone far at all. Each of these films has its own distinct personality, although if necessary, one could beat several of them into submission to resembling one another.

Drew, I don't recall if you answered before. But when do you use Tmax 100 vs 400?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Haha. Let me suggest a possibility that I meter, expose and develop with the same rigor as you. BTW it is not hard to imagine, because these are the skills that only a 12 year old would find appropriate to brag about.

And I can assure you that Delta 100 is more predictable and tolerant for development and exposure errors than T-Max 100. It is less linear, sure. But the lovers of linear response would be happier with a digital camera, and the curve of any film can be bent to one's will.

Steven Why do you say that about Tmax 100? Also what about Tmax 400?

 

[aparat]

One other thing I want to mention with regard to the Acros II having lower speed than expected in my test is that the film seems to push pretty well. With increased development time, not only do you gain contrast, you also gain some shadow detail. Here's a plot that I think shows it well. If you need a bit of extra speed, say around EI 100, and you can live with higher contrast (around 0.7-0.75), it can be done. The dotted line is at 0.62.

 

[Craig]

I must say I'm very surprised at the Acros speed, I thought it would be closer to box speed.

 

[AZD]

Setting aside curves and such, I like Delta 100 the most out of all the T grain films. Nice tonality, records a lot of detail even with 35mm, doesn’t seem particularly fussy. It’s a winner.

Tmax 400 is growing on me. I used to hate, as in literally despise, Tmax 400. I could never get anything decent from it. In retrospect it was my own fault for poor exposure and processing, which Tri-X could tolerate much better, so that was my default choice for many years. Having a better handle on process today, I really like what Tmax 400 can do. In particular, metallic surfaces and shiny textures seem to render in a subtle and unique way.

I always liked Tmax 3200 and still do. Today film is a conscious aesthetic choice rather than being driven by need, and internet wisdom is to expose it at 800 or 1000 or whatever. Pfff. Being young and dumb before the internet (and older but not much improved since) we immediately racked the dial to 6400 because why not? Admittedly it’s still not the greatest idea, but it was fun and resulted in some very moody looking pictures.

I have managed to get a few decent pictures from Tmax 100, but it’s just not my favorite. I’m working my way through a bulk roll, but here’s the thing, every time I get a decent picture on Tmax 100 I always wish I had used something else, anything else, really.

I haven’t used enough of the other Deltas or Acros to form a meaningful opinion.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Alan Edward Klein I was referring to digital sensors' light response. Every digital camera with a B&W preset generates excellent TMax-100 scans without even needing T-Max 100. That's why I stopped using it. Knowing the moderators sensitivity to hybrid-vs-analog discussion separation, let's drop this analogy and move on.

 

[MattKing]

We aren't that sensitive - the rule is there because we just know how frequently those discussions derail the website, while ending up as being extremely Shakespearean.
In other words,
"... full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

 

[MattKing]

And by the way, T-Max 100 is a very nice film

 

[Steven Lee]

By the way, we have another member publish his densitometry plotting for Acros II right here on photrio.

 

[MTGseattle]

Ok folks. Does anyone care to weigh in on the differences (if any) between late 90's Tmax film and the current offerings. I did a full semester of testing back then, and still have all of the notes from that. If nothing has really changed, I have a pretty good stock of info to jump off from. We didn't do any curve plotting however.

 

[MattKing]

T-Max 400 has definitely been updated. T-Max 100 hasn't.

 

[otto.f]

And by the way, T-Max 100 is a very nice film
View attachment 326998

This is a typical example of T-max 100’s blacks getting locked up soon if you don’t watch out. Very needy film indeed.

 

[relistan]

And by the way, T-Max 100 is a very nice film
View attachment 326998

Very nice!

 

[relistan]

This is the kind of response I expect and get from Delta 100:

 

[Agulliver]

Watching with curiosity. I tend to gravitate to the traditional films, with occasional forays into tabular territory. I find that for my style of photography, a bit of visible grain is pleasing....but the occasionally on a bright day I like to shoot Fomapan 200 or Delta 100 and obtain a totally "clean" image. I've shot less Kodak T-max due to prices but I have enjoyed TMZ (and Delta 3200) in low light or where I want very fast shutter speeds. Actually I think of the two I prefer TMZ.

Wondering if I am just not sufficiently rigorous in my development regimen to get the best out of films like TMY and Delta 400...so watching this thread. Not that I am in any way unhappy with the films I use.

 

[snusmumriken]

Therefore, it would be great if you all could share your more recent experiences with these films, and, in particular, tell us your preferences for different types of photography and different types of workflow.

This will sound as though I shoot loads of film, which I don't; but FWIW, here is my experience over the years. In short, I eagerly adopted tabular grained films when they appeared, but have largely reverted back to non-tabular ones.

Preferences like this probably reflect developer choice. I like to use 2-bath developers, and one might expect that the thinner emulsions of tabular-grained films would not be able to carry over enough developer into the second bath. In practice, I found this not to be a problem. So now I develop all the films mentioned below in Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer. But not Kodak's T-grain films: I tried hard to like those, but no matter what developer I used, I found them harsh in a way I could not control. Also much too expensive here in the UK.

Ilford Delta 100 is a wonderful film: full box speed, fine grain, superb acutance, nice tonality: a total boon for 35mm. Nevertheless, I have been steadily drifted back to FP4+, for reasons that I find hard to define. Of course, I have never taken the same subject at the same time with both films, so this is grossly un-scientiifc and unfair. However, for a while I carried both films in my bag and used whichever came to hand. Drawing impressions from the results of that period, I'd now choose Delta 100 where bitingly crisp detail is important, as it might be for a landscape with vegetation; but for most other subjects FP4+ just seems more beautiful. So I will be particularly interested to see how your curves for these two films compare.

I don't get on so well with Delta 400. Instead, HP5+ has been my staple film for the darker 6 months of the year, and I love it. Latterly I have added Eastman Kodak Double-X, for its very distinctive character.

Ilford Delta 3200 brings the allure of shooting in very poor light, like inside dark English pubs (yeah). I got highest speed/best shadow detail with it using the (now discontinued) Tetenal Emofin developer, but to be honest I don't care much for the look all the same. I now favour HP5+ or Double-X in the same situation, and accept the possibility of camera wobble.

 

[aparat]

Thank you all for sharing your experiences with the tabular grain films. It's fascinating to read the diversity of opinions.

So, Acros II is a newer tabular emulsion, compared to the original ones from the 1980s and 1990s, so why not look at another newer tabular film, the KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 (TMY-2). I have searched for Kodak's characteristic curves, and the most recent I found is from 2016, so it might be for the older TMY film. Still, I think it's nice to be able to compare the two. Looking "by eye," the overall shapes are similar, and Kodak got about the same speed as I did (maybe 1/4 stop more?), though it is hard to tell exactly. Here are the two curves to compare:
Kodak:


My own test (TMY-2):


I think that for a lot of outdoor scenes, TMY-2 can be successfully exposed at EI400, only lowering the EI and cutting development time for scenes of seven stops or more. That's what I typically do, anyway.

@Andrew O'Neill I am working on it. It'll be a few months before the UI is decent enough to show.

@Craig I agree that it is surprising to see the Acros II speed so low. I will, therefore, retest in D-76 and report as soon as it's ready. Thank you for bringing it up!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have done a lot of shooting in high contrast situations : in high mountains, in the desert, in redwood forests when the sun is out and the lighting range extreme, often an 11 or even 12 stop span I want to get actual perceptible tonality in, including the print. Sure, I'd love to have back classic "straight-line" 8x10 films like Super-XX or Bergger 200. But they're gone, and were too grainy for roll film applications anyway. TMX100 and TMY400 are the best thing today we've got for those applications, and are available in almost all film sizes. Plus, due to a quite long scale themselves if properly developed, can be used at full box speed.

But if I substituted Delta 100, which I normally have to shoot at 50 just to launch it off the toe, I'd have to expose it even more to get it to mimic TMX, and at that point, the highlight would start blowing out because the exposure is shouldering off. Not theory. I've tested for all this. Of course, one can resort to stomping on the curve using Minus, Pull, Compensating, Stomp, whatever you want to call it,
but that comes with a significant penalty to intervening tonality separation.

As far as quality control and batch to batch predictability goes, I've densitometer tested for this many times, and have 1000% disagree with Stephen Lee's anecdotal opinion.

And Matt, TMax 100 also underwent a minor tweak way back; it just wasn't visually obvious like with TMax400.

Otherwise.... sigh ..... Films like TMax and Acros have been my bread and butter for years in multiple formats; but I'm very familiar with all the Ilford films too, and find some of the opinions being expressed as just plain half-baked.

 

[relistan]

As far as quality control and batch to batch predictability goes, I've densitometer tested for this many times, and have 1000% disagree with Stephen Lee's anecdotal opinion.
...

Otherwise.... sigh ..... Films like TMax and Acros have been my bread and butter for years in multiple formats; but I'm very familiar with all the Ilford films too, and find some of the opinions being expressed as just plain half-baked.

Drew, I do think you know what you are doing. And I appreciate your consistent contributions about getting quality results. But you're not the only one who knows what they are doing. You are, frankly, making anecdotal statements, too, as far as everyone on this thread is concerned. To you they aren't anecdotal because you've seen your testing. But we haven't. I am sure it's the same for everyone else with their test results. The good thing is that it's totally fine for you to love TMax and for others to dislike it. And for you and all of those other people to have valid reasons. It's about the results and if you get better results with TMax and Stephen or I get better results with Delta then that's good for the film industry. We can financially support the competition and keep quality up across the board. But none of those opinions are invalid or half-baked.