Tabular: terrific or terrible? Your opinions, please.

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

I can confirm from my experience that T-max is very taxing on fixers and almost requires a two-bath fixing regiment to make certain that the film is fixed to archival conditions. In other words, underfixing is a common processing error with T-max films.

 

[retina_restoration]

Geoffry Crawley had the view that TMX 100 was so fine-grained and the edge boundaries were so smooth that viewers perceived it as less sharp than it really was. There may be some reason for thinking that. Perceived sharpness is based upon both resolution and boundary contrast. It may be the viewers are sensitive to boundary (edge) effects more than resolution. Crawley developed FX-37 and FX-39 to meet the needs of tab grain films, though they can be used with traditional films. They do not produce fine grain, but Crawley felt that they brought out the best characteristics in tab grain films.

I've all but given up on FX-37 - while it does offer a speed boost for most films, it also degrades the tonality of the image: harsh tone separation in the high values and dramatically harsher grain. Take a look at this comparison between a sheet of Fomapan 100 developed in FX-37 VS one processed in Thornton 2-Bath.

The Tmax films don't fare any better in FX-37 either, IMO.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I'm not remotely from the scientific school of photography, despite having grown up with pro-photog parents. My training was rigidly pragmatic - time and temp, general film and developer characteristics, lighting, lenses - I never heard terms like "contrast index" or "characteristic curve" until decades later. Thus, my commentary comes from gut-level experience, not numbers.

When I began my second period of shooting with a Minox submini in 1995 (I'd first had one back in the late 60s), I started with the Agfapan APX 100 factory loads Minox was selling at the time. In a quest for better results, I tried nearly all the 100- and 125-speed films of the 90s, and a number of developers... though I always came back to D-76. I ultimately settled on T-Max 100 as my Minox film after first trying it in a Nikon F2. There was no question, it had the finest grain... which essentially trumped every other concern with the pinky-nail-sized Minox negative.


(T-Max 100, scan from a 5x7 print from an 8xllmm Minox negative)

But there was literally nothing else I liked about T-Max 100. Contrast was harsh, with frequent blocked highlights. Exposure latitude was very narrow compared to old-tech emulsions like Plus-X and Agfapan - which was significant, because I was estimating exposure. (So, I often bracketed: film cost was negligible because I was loading my own Minox cassettes for about a dollar a roll.) Development had to be MUCH more precise re time/temp/agitation vs. the older films, with far more time spent in fixing and washing to get that purple dye out. Enlarging was often a challenge because of the strong contrast...

I just never liked the LOOK of T-Max 100 compared to the older films. But I kept using it in the Minox, since the fine grain allowed for 5x7 prints (a rarity with the other emulsions, I mostly printed them only as 4x5s). But wherever grain wasn't the big concern, I didn't use it. I've never shot it in 35mm, apart from that one test roll (I tried a roll of TMY once too - and found it too contrasty). I finally stopped shooting with my Minox about five years ago and haven't used TMX since.

Are the T-grain films amazing technology? Yes. Do I like using them? No.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Acros II is fine as a b&w film but the worst thing is that you can't use the Ilford wash method with it. The pink dye takes much longer and more water changes to completely remove. Even after 15 minutes of soaking, agitating and changing several times, I can sometimes see a pink color cast when compared to other film.

the pink color cast is annoying but harmless.

 

[Mark J]

This thread would be even more interesting if I could see Aparat's film test curves on Flickr. However despite logging-in, I can't view them, they are apparently 'private'.
Anyone got any tips ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ralph - I didn't have any problem at all clearing Acros II of any residual pink dye. My normal protocol with TF5 fixer. I've posted elsewhere my take on the ii version versus the original, but have every reason to question if Acros II will ever see another run coating due to its astronomical price increase over the original flavor. Never the need for a second fixer bath with any film; TF4 and TF5 archival fixers are intended to be used one-shot - a bit more overall cost, but far more time efficient.

Back to Tmax : Fried Louis - you've got it all backwards. If you've blown out the highlights, it means you've overexposed and/or overdeveloped it. That simple. TMax films have tremendous scene contrast range capacity; FAR more than Plus X Pan ever had. But it builds contrast quicker due to its steeper characteristic curve, and in that respect, penalizes carelessness in exposure or development.
The biggest mistake numerous fans of older films do with TMax is to place the shadow values too high up the curve, just like they did with longer toe films like Plus X before. That habit becomes counterproductive with a film with a steep landing way down there, and relatively little toe. You have to trust the characteristic curve, and how it differs from many other films.

But I can understand things from your own usage standpoint. You apparently don't want to be bothered with a lot of fussy testing to fine-tune your results. So you might as well stick with what works best for you personally.

 

[retina_restoration]

Back to Tmax : Fried Louis - you've got it all backwards. If you've blown out the highlights, it means you've overexposed and/or overdeveloped it. That simple. TMax films have tremendous scene contrast range capacity; FAR more than Plus X Pan ever had. But it builds contrast quicker due to its steeper characteristic curve, and in that respect, penalizes carelessness in exposure or development.
The biggest mistake numerous fans of older films do with TMax is to place the shadow values too high up the curve, just like they did with longer toe films like Plus X before. That habit becomes counterproductive with a film with a steep landing way down there, and relatively little toe. You have to trust the characteristic curve, and how it differs from many other films.

All true. If anything, TMY and TMX have far better detail retention in the highlights than most other films, and certainly more-so than the old school emulsions.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

DREW, we're not in disagreement. TMX and TMY are outstanding films capable of awesome results... but they require more careful exposure and development than the old school emulsions, full stop.

I wouldn't have shot somewhere around 75 rolls of TMX in my Minox IIIS over 15 years if I wasn't getting "better" results than with I could with PX or APX 100. I got hundreds of great pictures that I treasure. But that doesn't mean that I LIKED the more careful handling required, or the LOOK (contrast, gradation, etc.) of the TMX images more than my old favorites.

Now that the smallest negs I'm shooting are half-frame 35mm, I'm happily using films like FP4+, Double-X, and Tri-X and getting nice results. You know, emulsions with more exposure and processing latitude... in line with my non-scientific methods.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Agreed, TMax films generally require more careful metering. They're more like a high performance sports car that can get out of control fast if you're not careful, rather than the usual Ford or Chevy.

 

[Mark J]

OK OK, I can't afford the 5x7 sheet but I just ordered 5x 120 rolls of TMY-2 expired Dec 2022, they will be in the Fuji GW and the Horseman when the sun comes out again.

 

[GregY]

OK OK, I can't afford the 5x7 sheet but I just ordered 5x 120 rolls of TMY-2 expired Dec 2022, they will be in the Fuji GW and the Horseman when the sun comes out again.

You're bound to see good results in those 6x9 negatives!

 

[Steven Lee]

TF4 and TF5 archival fixers are intended to be used one-shot - a bit more overall cost, but far more time efficient.

Can you elaborate? IIRC the bottle states the capacity as 15 rolls per 1L. I am not sure what do you mean by one-shot fixer then. If I interpret your comment literally it means 300ml per roll for people who invert in Paterson tanks?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Means you use it in a single session freshly diluted from concentrate, and don't keep it afterwards. So yes, whatever your inversion tank requires, only mix up that amount at a time and don't re-use it. That's obviously different from how people mix up large amounts of ordinary fixer at a time, and use older fixer in a first bath, and fresh fixer only for a second bath. That traditional method might be more economical in terms of overall chemistry if high volume of film need to be processed; but it's certainly not as economical in terms of time spent and washer usage.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I am using TMY-2 almost exclusively now. But, you must use a compensating developer.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, all kinds of developers work fine with TMY once you fine tune the specific exposure and development protocol. I have good reasons for preferring staining pyro varieties, especially PMK, and frankly, dislike the scrunching side-effect of compensation on the midtones and highlights. So I depart from Zone System practice in that respect. But whatever works best for you, that's OK too.

 

[Prest_400]

A side discussion that occasionally comes to my mind is also spectral sensitivity. Kodak explicitly remarks that T-Max has a "closer to the eye" response and blue skies are rendered darker in comparison to most cubical grain films, which I think is a positive feature. A side advantage for tabular in this case is that there isn't speed loss due to filtering. Acros did so as well, I remember getting a comment about the sky filtering on a print -- none in place but just the film's response.
Does anyone have a comment about the skies on the Deltas?

My current 400 lineup choice is a mess. HP5 (for pushability & price) and Delta 400 on parallel (120) as well as Kentmere 400 in 35mm . I would need to test it all out, but just end up doing photography and applying the best practices as per mfg datasheets, which work well. I am standardising on XT3 (XTOL substitute) which brings great results with the tabulars, but still running HC110 for HP5 and other traditional films such as Foma.

I've never had problems with fixing and hopefully washing, though I am a low volume user. Fresh Ilford Rapid fix at 1+4 around 4-5 minutes has always done the trick and never got any pink dye.

As a fun remark, present any print from any of these B&W films to non-photographers and they will say "nice old school photo".

 

[DREW WILEY]

TMax compared to Delta 100 and other panchromatic films : Yes, blue is rendered a little darker, and greens a little lighter. Acros is in a different category, being orthopanchromatic, so the greens will be even lighter due to decreased red sensitivity; and in the case of the newer Acros II, blues are rendered a little darker just like with TMax.

Regardless, you still have to apply a filter factor whenever shooting TMax films with a contrast filter in place. But it might be a different factor. For example, with a medium green Hoya X1 filter the factor for TMax is 2 stops or EV of correction, while for Delta 100 you need 2-1/2. The unfiltered look of Acros is analogous to a light yellow-green Hoya X0 or Wratten 11 being place when using pan films instead.

 

[Mark J]

Kodak explicitly remarks that T-Max has a "closer to the eye" response ...

That may be true, but I suspect a lot of people don't know what the human eye response is actually like - here it is ( in daylight ) :

Photopic vision - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, given that black and white photography is already an abstraction, there is no clear need to make a film match the eye. With panchromatic emulsion response, you do at least have the option to try a number of different filters and hence interpretations. I do take Drew's point though that having a decent green response decreases the filter factor for green or yellow-green, which I see as a good thing.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

No, all kinds of developers work fine with TMY once you fine tune the specific exposure and development protocol. I have good reasons for preferring staining pyro varieties, especially PMK, and frankly, dislike the scrunching side-effect of compensation on the midtones and highlights. So I depart from Zone System practice in that respect. But whatever works best for you, that's OK too.

Well, I use a condenser enlarger, which tends to increase the contrast of the denser areas, so it helps to offset that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are some people old enough to have gotten discouraged with TMX way back in its first version, which did shoulder off more quickly than the present version. And that was back when printing papers were almost entirely graded, and pyro not popular yet. In the past couple years i've dug up old negatives which were hell to print back then, but are outright easy today due to excellent VC papers, along with my own learning curve not to overdevelop the film.

 

[Brad Deputy]

In my workflow, 2 minutes in Hypo Clear eliminates the pink from my TMX / TMY negatives in 35mm. It turns the Hypo Clear pink, literally. Then 5-10 minute rinse and I have negatives with a light gray only base.

Kodak says the pink should not affect prints in any case.

 

[Prest_400]

TMax compared to Delta 100 and other panchromatic films : Yes, blue is rendered a little darker, and greens a little lighter. Acros is in a different category, being orthopanchromatic, so the greens will be even lighter due to decreased red sensitivity; and in the case of the newer Acros II, blues are rendered a little darker just like with TMax.

Thanks Drew. Side topic that I was reading about Ektar and you brought interesting experience about its green and turquoise nuance abilities, it's appreciated experience.

On Orthopan & Tabular, Acros has been fantastic the few times I have shot it; I have a very pleasing 40x50 cm print from 6x9 Acros in the wall next to me and recall it was fun to see such fine grain on the focuser when trying out an even larger 60-70cm wide enlargement. Might dare to say that it outresolves the Fujinon in my Fuji GW690.
Haven't tried mk II as before its availability I rather went towards supporting Ilford (Delta). Then there is the elephant in the room of price, which competes with color films.
Not tabular but Orthopan: Adox CHS100 II. It has had spotty availability in the different formats, but if they solved the 120 spool manufacturing and other production difficulties, look forward to a possible reintroduction to the market and using this film.

My liking for grain is cyclical. Since 2020 I thought about moving to tabular with Delta 400. It does seem to exhibit different grain characteristics depending on how it is developed (not particularly fine in HC110). In general with incorporating T-grain films in my shooting I also moved developer to XT3 (or XTOL equivalents) which in my limited testing brings great results.

For TMX I have only shot in 35mm, but XT3 following recommendations and "well exposed" at EI 100, trusting the matrix meter of a F90 brought nice results. Printed straight at grade 2 with a full range of tonality and no bulletproof highlights even if it was beneficial to burn in those mediterranean skies.

However, given that black and white photography is already an abstraction, there is no clear need to make a film match the eye. With panchromatic emulsion response, you do at least have the option to try a number of different filters and hence interpretations. I do take Drew's point though that having a decent green response decreases the filter factor for green or yellow-green, which I see as a good thing.

Agreed, and then I realised that perhaps "match the eye" is not the best term, but rather something in the lines of corrected spectral response. Anyhow, early on my B&W shooting I recall learning that most films' blue sensitivity render skies whiter than we see them, with lower contrast between blue sky and clouds compared to what we see. In that line, "B&W" contrast filters seem also named after this, but they are rather spectral response filters.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Brad - leftover pink dye does affect the print when it happens to be a color print, and the TMax film itself is the contrast mask for it. Yes, one can simply null that small amount out with an adjusted colorhead setting. But then you've got a moving target if repeat printings are made over time, because that residual dyes gets progressively faded by the exposing light. It also has an effect of competition with pyro stains and even a bit in terms of VC paper contrast response. So it wasn't entirely correct for Kodak to claim there is no effect to remaining dye. For example, if there were only .10 density of pinkish dye left (mostly magenta, in fact), that would have a distinct effect on VC paper response, giving a visible contrast boost.

Preston - the 120 Orthopan film I once used a fair amount of was Ekfe R25. Slow, but excellent scene contrast range and exceptional detail capacity. I didn't own any Fuji 6X9 RF's yet, but did use a 6x9 roll film back on my 4x5 Ebony folder, along with superb Nikkor M and Fuji A lenses. But I was generally disappointed in the mountains with Agfa 25 or Pan F, due to their much poorer shadow gradation due to a longer toe. Pan F has just about the worst S-curve of any film today I can think of, but can be outright wonderful in falling snow or rain, in fog, or other low contrast settings.

 

[Mark J]

Do you think that Ilford's characteristic curve in the datasheet is actually inaccurate ? I have used quite a lof of Pan F+ in 120 format, it generates really nice edge definition in Pyro, but I don't use it for general wide-range landscape shots. To be fair ( also ) my personal taste doesn't require lots of shadow detail.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, there's nothing wrong with the Ilford data sheets. The problem is just with the tiny size of the characteristic curves printed in them, often with the extremes lopped off and not enough grid lines. These published curves can tell you quite a bit, but one has to know how to properly read them, or else understand what is left out from them. Yes, Pan F+ has lovely edge definition, especially in pyro. I don't know much about Wales; but I presume it's often overcast or foggy much like our coast here, and under those conditions Pan F can be a wonderful performer. It's dynamic range is basically about the same as color slide film. But up in our mountains here, which reach over 14,000 ft in altitude, and out in the deserts, scene contrast range can be extreme, and a difficult challenge even for FP4. Likewise, our redwood forests here can go from "natural softbox" lighting when the fog is in, then rapidly up to 12 stops of range once the sun breaks out later in the day.

It not just a problem per shadow detail. A very long toe film like Pan F simply doesn't have much gradation down there. It just goes bland. Only a steeper toed film will deliver a nice drop off the cliff into graphic bold blackness, if that's what you're after. What Pan F does is render a wonderful silvery quality to the margins of its very limited straight line. It's only good for about a 4 stop range before things start looking off, even souped in pyro.

We also have a problem with incessant wind most of the year along the coast. And when the wind starts up on high mountain passes, even a heavy tripod can picked up and tossed. So if the only option left is to hand shoot the image with my 6X9 RF, I'm going to want a faster film anyway, specifically either TMX100 or TMY400.