MXP
Established
I have made some great results with the Fuji Neopan 100 but if I want a BW film which has significant finer grains and can resolve more lpp/mm can you suggest a film? .......think I need to go down to a ISO 50 or 25?
Think TMX100 is about same as Neopan 100.
EFKE maybe? ......or is this emulsion so old that there not much to gain?
I have used films like Gigbabitfilm but I want one which a lab can develop with standard developer.
Think TMX100 is about same as Neopan 100.
EFKE maybe? ......or is this emulsion so old that there not much to gain?
I have used films like Gigbabitfilm but I want one which a lab can develop with standard developer.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Delta 100 is sharper, and Acros is finer-grained, but sharpness and fine grain are often inversely correlated, i.e. you may get less sharpness with a finer-grain film or developer.
Remember also that for ANY film, you will get higher resolution with minimum exposure and development.
Cheers,
R.
Remember also that for ANY film, you will get higher resolution with minimum exposure and development.
Cheers,
R.
venchka
Veteran
First, you don't mention the developer you are currently using.
So many variables. Lens on camera. Exposure. Development. Enlarger alignment. Enlarging lens.
You could spend a lot of time money & effort in your quest and maybe not find any difference. I would think that making the effort to develop the film yourself and doing the proper testing to find your personal film speed and minimum developing time for a chosen developer would be very satisfying.
There's more to a photo than lp/mm and fine grain. Look at the work of Sam Haskins in his book "Cowboy Kate & Other Stories."
There are many many happy Fuji Acros users who love the look of the film developed in Kodak Xtol diluted as much as 1:3. More than a few like the look of Fuji Acros developed in a mixture of Kodak Xtol and Agfa Rodinal. Kodak D-76 is a very good, readily available old standby.
Take the time to find your personal favorite.
So many variables. Lens on camera. Exposure. Development. Enlarger alignment. Enlarging lens.
You could spend a lot of time money & effort in your quest and maybe not find any difference. I would think that making the effort to develop the film yourself and doing the proper testing to find your personal film speed and minimum developing time for a chosen developer would be very satisfying.
There's more to a photo than lp/mm and fine grain. Look at the work of Sam Haskins in his book "Cowboy Kate & Other Stories."
There are many many happy Fuji Acros users who love the look of the film developed in Kodak Xtol diluted as much as 1:3. More than a few like the look of Fuji Acros developed in a mixture of Kodak Xtol and Agfa Rodinal. Kodak D-76 is a very good, readily available old standby.
Take the time to find your personal favorite.
MXP
Established
When I closed down my darkroom I decided not to work with chemicals anymore. So I get my films developed at a lab. I like the Neopan a lot. I have a Coolscan 9000 I use for scanning with very good results and then I print on an Epson 2400. My results are better that way with 24x36 than when I dit it 100% analog in the darkroom. I can do a perfect A3+ from a 24x36 scanned at 4000 dpi. It was just if someone could recommend a standard BW film which could do it better. Agfa APX 25 is discontinued etc......so it was just if I had overlooked a very good BW film. My enlargers from that time was a Durst 605 Color and an Omega D6 (very nice). Still have the enlarger lenses.....various Componons, Rodagons and Nikkors. But that is history now........but I look at the lenses now and then
......the 50/2.8 Componon-S was my favorite for 24x36.
venchka
Veteran
Better is so subjective. Only you can know that.
What developer is the lab using? What time/temp? Perhaps someone here has experience with that developer and other films.
There really aren't any bad films or bad developers. Just personal opinion on what works for each invidual.
What developer is the lab using? What time/temp? Perhaps someone here has experience with that developer and other films.
There really aren't any bad films or bad developers. Just personal opinion on what works for each invidual.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Any film that can be developed at a lab with regular chemicals will only be marginally different. EFKE 25 and other comparable films have similar or slightly larger grain than Acros. The only films with much higher resolution are modified document films like Gigabit or the Rollei Tech Pan replacement and these need special developers or modified technique. Alternatively you could develop Acros, Delta 100 or TMX in FX-2 or one of the other high acutance developers. But these can decrease resolution by enhancement of edge effects.
The easiest way to enhance apparent sharpness and also to get better tonality is to use a larger format.
Marty
The easiest way to enhance apparent sharpness and also to get better tonality is to use a larger format.
Marty
mh2000
Well-known
aside from some people's problems with it, I honestly feel that for the "best" ISO 100 b&w film (especially for scanning) that it has to be TMX. It really is just great film. Delta is a very close second, but TMX is about as good as it gets IMO. Yes, you have to get your process down, but you have to do this with any film. You can do a lot with TMX and Delta to tailor your result to your needs. Now that the Kodak dinosaur is on its side and practically dying... I like throwing them my business anyway...
Turtle
Veteran
for me delta 100 has the best combo if fine grain and acutance. Tmax and Acros are too mushy unless an acutance developer is used such as FX-39. Delta 100 comes out very nicely in Xtol 1+1/1+2 and D76. still has bite.
MXP
Established
Never tried Delta 100. So think I will give it a try and compare results with Acros Neopan 100. I could find no RMS or resolution figures in the PDF data sheets.