Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
@Andrew O'Neill I am working on it. It'll be a few months before the UI is decent enough to show.
Thanks! I look forward to it!
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!
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.
Actually, it isn't - it was an aesthetic choice at time of presentation. The darkroom print on the wall is similar to that presentation, but being a darkroom print it shows more shadow detail then a greatly downsized digital scan. There are/were a lot of choices available.
This is closer to a straight negative scan or initial work print:
View attachment 327027
@MattKing and why did you keep the original insulting post?
"... They just aren't for shoot from the hip types who don't carefully meter, expose, and develop... "
What is it about this toxic character that keeps him and his boasting here?
I think you will like Delta 100 in it. It is a fantastic combo with XTOL.I was enthused enough that I'm going to try Delta 100 in Mytol as well. Unless both films are significantly different from each other and find different use cases for me, I'll likely settle on one or the other instead of continuing to stock both. Bit of a shame... I just bought 100' of Delta 100 haha. Now I'm thinking maybe I should have bought FP4+ instead.
Hundreds of careful densitometer plots are NOT anecdotal. T-Max were deliberately engineered for technical as well as pictorial applications in the first place, and had to be very predictable right from the start. In large format, until quite recently when prices got intolerable, the largest consumers of large sheet volume cuts of TMax were not photographers per se, but scientific and technical applications. Even improved astronomical plates were made using TMax emulsions early on. Now it's possible to digitally bend the curve of Delta enough using custom film recorders (nothing the public can buy) to mimic TMax in applications like color separation work. But darkroom-wise, these same potential technical applications would be hell with Delta for various distinct reason I don't need to go into here.
The whole point is, TMax is a VERY well thought-out and engineered line or film with loads of technical literature on file about it,
which apparently few here are even aware of. You don't necessarily need to be aware of it for routine applications. But the fact that it exists, and that others like me concur with that due to many years of hard experience as well as a lot of our own technical tests, should count for something considerably more weighty than merely anecdotal. Sorry we can't do anything to alleviate the cost argument.
I not knocking Delta 100 at all, for what it provides; but it sure ain't the same thing.
I've had excellent results with FP4, it's an easy film to work with. But I love Delta 100 in Xtol for the tonality I am able to achieve with it, it gives very pleasing results for me. Delta 100 is my standard medium speed film now.I'll be very interested to see how Delta 100 compares against it's nearest classic grain equivalent, which is presumably FP4+.
It bears remembering that a technically perfect boring photograph is a boring photograph.
One of the most interesting emulsion technologies to emerge since the 1980s is the so-called "tabular grain" technology. Currently, these films are available for sale:
• Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros II (Super Fine - ∑ Grain Technology)
• ILFORD DELTA 100 PROFESSIONAL (Core-Shell™ crystal technology)
• ILFORD DELTA 400 PROFESSIONAL (Core-Shell™ crystal technology)
• ILFORD DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL (Core-Shell™ crystal technology)
• KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 (KODAK T-GRAIN Emulsion)
• KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 400 (KODAK T-GRAIN Emulsion)
• KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX P3200 (KODAK T-GRAIN Emulsion)
• FOMAPAN 200 Creative (T-crystals)
I have tested all of these emulsions. I developed the films in replenished XTOL (XTOL-R) at 20C, using rotary agitation, fixed in Kodafix, washed with Kodak's Hypo Clearing Agent, and processed the resulting data by a custom application. My goal is to present the data in chunks and, if possible, compare the modern emulsions to their conventional counterparts. The important thing to keep in mind is that the results are meant to offer an approximation of the film's performance under controlled conditions, only. It's quite possible, even likely, that the films would perform differently under different conditions and that my test results may not always align with your own pictorial or sensitometric experience. For the sake of brevity, I will be including analysis summaries, only. If you want the whole twelve-page test for each film, please let me know. I will be happy to make them available.
A lot has been written about tabular grain films over the years. For example, here's a quote from Popular Photography (Kolonia, 1992): "T-MAX 400 shows significantly denser highlights when overdeveloped by 30% than Delta or HP5 Plus.". He goes on to say, " As a concession to darkroom workers, Ilford formulated Delta to require less burning in when printing highlight detail than is often required with T-MAX 400." Another quote from the same article: "Ilford engineers state that Delta is less taxing on both film developer and fixer than Kodak's T-MAX." I am sure we can find lots of other information in old journals and forum posts. 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.
Listen up. I choose TMax films when I want a little Mrs. Doubtfire in my highlights, fair enough I'll give you that. But if I'm in a When Harry Met Sally mood only HP5 will do for the shadows, as I'm sure you will agree. For mid-tones if you want The Crying Game you'll need Acros and this is non-negotiable. None of this is conjecture: it has been tested and is very serious.which version of Clint Eastwood you need to be : the rifle expert of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, versus Dirty Harry with his revolver, or the gold bullion thief with blah blah where's my blanket zzzzzz
I agree, Matt. TMY-2 is fantastic, and I feel that it's the cream of the crop!
Is the Fomapan 200 a mixed t-grain and cubic grain film?
Are you looking for responses from regular people or people who deeply understand the chemistry and sensitometry? I am in the former bucket so I will say that I really loved Acros. Now there is apparently an Acros II. Can't wait to try it. I hope that response gives you what you are looking for.
I may not be able to help you since I have done none of the testing that people are talking about. I just expose, develop, and print images according to the instructions I got in my high school journalism class 50 years ago. I can tell you that I love a film because of its lovely character, great contrast, or grain but I cannot tell you how I arrived at that conclusion... other than looking at prints. My observations won't be linked to test results on the images that I am commenting about. You may know that I find a film "contrasty" but you won't know anything about why my negatives are contrasty. You'll know not much more about Acros or Acros II from my artist's comments than you would from the marketing materials published by Fuji.Thank you. Yes, I am looking for responses from all photographers. One of the hardest things for me is trying to reconcile sensitometric data with actual photographic experience. For example, we use colorful words to describe tonality, such as "rich," "smooth," "gradual," etc., but it is not entirely obvious how these terms relate to quantifiable characteristics, such as slope, rate of change, linearity, compression, etc. There is a lot more to it, of course, as we can see from this and many other threads. I find it fascinating.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?