Bob Michaels
nobody special
I realize this thread is about film sharpness. Once again, I am marching against the mainstream. Back in the days I tried shooting with TechPan (hated the curl) Panatomic X, and Pan F. I realized that image sharpness was not important to me. I ended up shooting with ISO 400 film exclusively. HP5, Neopan 400. Tri-X all seemed to work the same for me. So I ended up always using one of those for everything. I learned to appreciate never having the wrong film and I know how they worked.
Example, here is a very high contrast scene with blinding sun. White shrimp boa / very black captain with cap pulled down. Shot with one of those ISO 400 films. I knew there was no way to meter the scene but I did know the tolerance for over exposure without blowing highlights and underexpose without losing detail. So I could mentally eyeball exposure by experience.
Example, here is a very high contrast scene with blinding sun. White shrimp boa / very black captain with cap pulled down. Shot with one of those ISO 400 films. I knew there was no way to meter the scene but I did know the tolerance for over exposure without blowing highlights and underexpose without losing detail. So I could mentally eyeball exposure by experience.
Cascadilla
Well-known
Two points: 1) If you need totally sharp, grainless images then 35 mm is likely to be a poor choice. Films obviously vary in grain and sharpness and some are better than others, but 35 mm film is small and will require considerable enlargement so it will never look like large format no matter how good the film. 2) The rest of the process matters--is the camera working properly, is the exposure correct, was the image made with a good tripod and is the lens truly sharp and used at an optimal aperture? Film is only one variable in obtaining sharpness; it matters, but it isn't the only variable.
Slow film has inherent sharpness and fine grain but brings with it the necessity for a lot of light to allow for high enough shutter speeds for good sharpness in the final image. I long ago standardized on ISO 400 B&W films for all formats that I use--35 mm, 120 and 4x5 and choose among them depending on what the final image has to look like. Large prints from landscapes or still lifes point to 4x5. The ability to move fast and work in low light indicates 35 mm. 120 is for in between situations where something less cumbersome than 4x5 is necessary to get interesting images.
Slow film has inherent sharpness and fine grain but brings with it the necessity for a lot of light to allow for high enough shutter speeds for good sharpness in the final image. I long ago standardized on ISO 400 B&W films for all formats that I use--35 mm, 120 and 4x5 and choose among them depending on what the final image has to look like. Large prints from landscapes or still lifes point to 4x5. The ability to move fast and work in low light indicates 35 mm. 120 is for in between situations where something less cumbersome than 4x5 is necessary to get interesting images.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I remember APX25 (and100). They were my favorite films back in the day. Shot the last of my freezer rolls of APX over 10 years ago...(probably over 20 years ago)....and they were expired then.
Just an indication of how long we've been suffering in a truly diminished world.
Just an indication of how long we've been suffering in a truly diminished world.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Loss of materials has been an ongoing part of the story of photography essentially since its beginning.
Frederick H. Evans gave up photography entirely when the supply of commercial platinum, palladium and pt/pd papers ended because of supply chain disruptions caused by WWI - most platinum group metals were (and a lot still are) mined in Russia, and with the upheavals, they were not available.
Adox CHS 100 II has very similar tonality to original APX 100, finer grain, and better sharpness.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I mentioned the APX mainly because I have 30.5 m of original APX 100 in the fridge.
After I retire (next month?) I plan to load it into cassettes.
By then Freestyle should ship my ADOX developers.
Who needs a time machine? 😉
Chris
After I retire (next month?) I plan to load it into cassettes.
By then Freestyle should ship my ADOX developers.
Who needs a time machine? 😉
Chris
Freakscene
Obscure member
I still have a pile of 30m cans of APX 25 in the freezer. It’s part of my retirement plan.
Once you have some photos, please show us what you get.
Sanug
Established
ý
I would prefer Adox HR-50 if sharpness and fine grain is the goal, and if CMS 20 is too special or not sensitive enough. I am quite sure it will be difficult to beat HR-50 by any other ISO 50 film.
I don't have a comparision to APX. CHS 100 II is sharp with good anti halation, but the grain is the weak point of the material, even developed with XT-3.
I would prefer Adox HR-50 if sharpness and fine grain is the goal, and if CMS 20 is too special or not sensitive enough. I am quite sure it will be difficult to beat HR-50 by any other ISO 50 film.
Freakscene
Obscure member
I was only responding to the loss of the original APX films. Neither it nor APX100 is/was particularly sharp, largely because of the grain being quite coarse for a 100 speed film, although both look a lot sharper than TMX.
If you want fresh film and you want really sharp, CMS 20 is absolutely the way to go.
Last edited:
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Is CMS 20 still available? I thought I read it had been discontinued and I haven’t seen it at my usual US suppliers in a long time..
