Black and White High Resolution Film

degruyl

degruyl

Just this guy, you know?
Local time
5:43 AM
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
550
Location
Philadelphia
View My Gallery
Does anyone know a high resolution B&W film in 120 format? Basically, I want to try to get the highest resolution possible. I know that sometimes ISO and resolution do not correlate so well, so I thought I would ask.
 
1. hello to the forum
2. my fav - neopan acros + perceptol 1:3.
3. for real? i've got some 4x5 old ortochrom rated 3ISO from my friend - you won't beat this, but I've got even no idea who manufactured this, so it's almost immposible to find out if it was produced in wide rolls..
 
I want to second the Ilford Delta 100. In every 120 camera I have ever used, from a Holga to a Seagull to a Hasselblad, it has given the best results, and it is very forgiving.
 
konicaman said:
The Adox CMS 20 is even higher in resolution, but I don't think it is made en 120
Click to expand...

Forget it. It's a standard 35mm microfilm plus perforation.

degruyl said:
That looks really interesting. How do you develop it?
Click to expand...

It comes with a special developer. Basically it's a low-contrast developer for microfilm so that you actually get some grays out of it. Actual sensitivity is something like 15 ASA.

There is 70mm microfilm, too. I don't know what camera the OP uses, but with a Hasselblad or so he could try and use 70mm microfilm in an A70 back and get the best resolution under the sun. Disclaimer: I haven't given this much thought, maybe there is something obvious preventing this, such as having to add your own perforation to the microfilm. You could also replace the sprocket wheel in the A70 back with a rubber wheel.
 
I've been trying the Rollei ATP in 35mm, which also is available in 120.

It's very similar to Kodak Technical Pan. Very low grain. Very high resolution. At least from my experience.

Also, it's an easy film to handle, although it works best with its own developer.

The data sheet/processing guide is very simple to follow. No prewash, and final wash is just five minutes.

You can buy it from Freestyle.

Here's the data sheet.
 
Efke R25 (based on the ADOX formula) is available in 120 format. Fuji Acros 100 is also pretty good, if a little bland.
 
ZeissFan said:
I've been trying the Rollei ATP in 35mm, which also is available in 120.

It's very similar to Kodak Technical Pan. Very low grain. Very high resolution. At least from my experience.

Also, it's an easy film to handle, although it works best with its own developer.
Click to expand...

Just one remark from a German photo forum: the ATP developer is apparently unusually sensitive to residues in the water, so it's best to do the development stage with distilled water, or you may get black spots on the negatives.
 
rxmd said:
Just one remark from a German photo forum: the ATP developer is apparently unusually sensitive to residues in the water, so it's best to do the development stage with distilled water, or you may get black spots on the negatives.
Click to expand...

I always use distilled water to mix my developer and fix. Tap for rinse, though. I hope that is not a problem?
 
majid said:
Efke R25 (based on the ADOX formula) is available in 120 format. Fuji Acros 100 is also pretty good, if a little bland.
Click to expand...

I like Efke R25 too. And it is easy to use. I do it in Rodinal 1+100 (not stand).

3739846112_4b98912414.jpg
 
Efke/Adox CHS25 is lovely film, but not necessarily much finer grained than tmax 100 or acros. Dev in rodinal or xtol.

The CMS20 is a completely different beast and capable of very good results, but slow and needs careful development to preserve anything like nice tonality in the Adotech developer.

Mike
 
From films that I used in 120 format Pan-F+ and Fuji Acros were the best regarding of resolution. Of course, no tests done, just optical printing 11"x14" with some cropping, using LPL C6600 condenser with Rodagon 80mm. I'd expect Efke/Adox 25 ISO film be also very fine in this regard.
If you plan to scan your negatives it does not make much difference, well processed TX400 would be good enough. Also, many times I got motion blur because of wind and my not sturdy enough tripod. Obviously that motion blur is negligibly for small prints I do but it's comparable with resolution power of film to affect/degrade general resolution.

Regards,
Ed
 
Dear David,

Chuck's right. Delta 100. Highest sharpness of any film available, though not the finest grain (grain and sharpness don't correlate that well either).

Also, what lenses, camera/back (film flatness), tripod, etc., are you considering using? And why do you want the sharpness? Giant prints? Or contact-print sharpness with more modest enlargements (up to about 3x)?

Allow too that tonality is not always ideal with the more eccentric films.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I can support Roger's last statement wholeheartedly. I used to process films at a microscopy centre. It got a reputation for being the best place in town to get Tech Pan, Copex etc processed. I have seen a lot photographers very disappointed after their 'high resolution' (micro) film proved to be somewhere between very hard and impossible to print with normal (pleasing) tonal values. Most of the time when those films looked good the photos didn't show the 'high resolution' properties anyway. But if you can control the lighting 100% go for it. If you can't, Delta 100 or Acros.

Marty
 
Roger Hicks said:
Also, what lenses, camera/back (film flatness), tripod, etc., are you considering using? And why do you want the sharpness? Giant prints? Or contact-print sharpness with more modest enlargements (up to about 3x)?
Click to expand...

I have been taking a lot of texture pictures lately (notably some interesting trees in Mexico), and thought that I could do a bit better with B&W than the color I was using. I am using a Mamiya 7, with one of its lenses. (65, 80, 150 mm). I am generally very happy with this combination.

For what I am trying: just to eek out a lower grain / high resolution picture. Typically printed 8x10, but can be up to 24x30. Not ridiculous with MF.

What I would love to be doing is shooting 8x10 and printing contact prints, but I don't have the intestinal fortitude for that. Nor the equipment.

Tonality is important, and most of these images are relatively bland in tone.
 
degruyl said:
I have been taking a lot of texture pictures lately (notably some interesting trees in Mexico), and thought that I could do a bit better with B&W than the color I was using. I am using a Mamiya 7, with one of its lenses. (65, 80, 150 mm). I am generally very happy with this combination.

For what I am trying: just to eek out a lower grain / high resolution picture. Typically printed 8x10, but can be up to 24x30. Not ridiculous with MF.

What I would love to be doing is shooting 8x10 and printing contact prints, but I don't have the intestinal fortitude for that. Nor the equipment.

Tonality is important, and most of these images are relatively bland in tone.
Click to expand...

Dear David,

For that application, Delta 100 wins hands down. You really can get contact-print-like quality at 3x enlargement (which gives you whole-plate, 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 inches, off 56x72mm Linhof), while for me, once you're much over 3x, it never has quite the magic.

For that matter, between 4-5x and 8-10x, I often find the tonality to be inferior to a 10x or bigger enlargement because of the half-tone effect.

No enlargement size is ever ridiculous off any format, as long as the picture looks right, but I think an awful lot of people print too big because they can, whether the picture needeth it or not: "If you can't make it good, make it big."

Cheers,

R.
 
I'd consider Kodak Plus-X also ... I'm not sure about 120 but it's pretty darned good in 35mm!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom