nice tight grain...

[Gary Briggs]

What B/W film gives nice tight grain?

I have a mamiya 6, 50&75
2 bessas r2a, r3a with cv 40 and zeiss 35/2.8, 50/2

I don't develop, in my neck of the woods Dodd camera uses Ilford developer.

Mostly interested in the mamiya for b/w, the tones send me 🙂
35mm not so easy by comparison.

 

[loquax ludens]

In no particular order, here are a few that I think have wonderful tight grain. Fuji Neopan Acros 100 and Kodak T-Max 100 are very fine grained and sharp films. Ilford Pan F 50, Adox CHS 25, EFKE 25 are also fine grained.

Basically, most any film under 100 ASA will have a pretty fine grain, some moreso than others.

Results can vary a lot depending on choice of developer. I've never used Ilford developers. I use HC-110, Rodinal or Adox APH 09, T-Max developer, and Pyrocat HD.

 

[Jaans]

Are you after tight grain or small grain?

 

[Aristophanes]

If you don't develop, the Ilford XP2 Super is a good choice.

 

[Calzone]

I'd go with Arcos and Pan F. Be aware that in 120 you will need an 8X lupe to see any grain. Some people say that Arcos looks digital because of the lack of grain, but I say it makes MF look like large format because of the level of detail.

BTW with my Diafine process I get Tri-X to have almost no grain, and to see it I have to compare it to my Arcos negatives to perceive it, and again that's with an 8X lupe.

Cal

 

[.... _]

what is the definition of tight grain? its a meaningless question without your definition of what tight means.
I would suggest you try several ilford films to see which gives the result you like best with your labs processing. And since they use ilford developers I would suggest you use ilford films for optimum results. That means FP4 Plus, PanF plus for oldstyle fine grain look. Delta 100 for new fine grain look (very fine and smooth but sharp). HP5 for oldstyle grainier look or delta 400 for new style grainier (less than HP5) look. XP2 if you want grainless scans (assuming high quality scan) although FP4, PanF and delta 100 are very fine grained. If you want some grain mood in the image then HP5 or Delta 400 are very good.

 

[venchka]

The Ilford films are nice. HP5 in particular for any format larger than 35mm.
I have more experience with Kodak Tmax products & Xtol developer.
If you have time to flatten the film, 120 Efke 25 is gorgeous.
Ariast.EDU Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200) is lovely too.
There are no bad films. Only bad photographers. Like me mostly.

 

[KenR]

I have standardized on Tmax400 (in HC110 dil H) for my medium format cameras. For me, it gives a nice combination of speed, sharpness and grain. I find Tmax100 very tough to work with - less exposure latitude and IMHO the grain and sharpness is not as pleasing. But you have to try them in order to judge the results for yourself.

 

[John Bragg]

Any film can have a multitude of looks dependent on developer choice and personal technique. Look at using a standard film like FP4 or Tri-X and start with a standard fine grain developer like HC-110 or D76 used one shot. Those combinations should satisfy most tastes. If you need more grain then use Rodinal or Neofin Blue or for less use perceptol or microphen or Xtol.

 

[.... _]

I have standardized on Tmax400 (in HC110 dil H) for my medium format cameras. For me, it gives a nice combination of speed, sharpness and grain. I find Tmax100 very tough to work with - less exposure latitude and IMHO the grain and sharpness is not as pleasing. But you have to try them in order to judge the results for yourself.

Interestingly HC110 has often been described as having mushy looking grain. However, I'm in agreement with you, it's a wonderful developer and gives really nice looking prints when wet printed.
The problem a lot of people have is that they judge the quality of their work by studying the look of their negatives and not how the negative actually prints. HC110 negs print with a really nice tonality but with enough grain to give some character, especially for medium format and larger.

 

[John Bragg]

I think HC-110 has a solvent effect similar to D76 and dilution can reduce this giving fine but crisp grain. I use dilution H instead of the "normal" silution B and seem to have no problems with mushyness.

 

[Trius]

The OP stated that he doesn't develop his own negatives, so the effect of developers is irrelevant unless his lab offers him choices.

I agree that a definition (or at least description) of "nice tight grain" would be helpful.

If I had to guess, I would say the lab likely uses Ilfotec Rapid or ID-11. Unless it's a different Dodd, they can be reached at http://doddcamera.com/contact-information.html ...

Since they seem to be committed to film, asking someone at Dodd who is knowledgeable (e.g., the lab manager) would seem to be a good idea.

 

[.... _]

I think HC-110 has a solvent effect similar to D76 and dilution can reduce this giving fine but crisp grain. I use dilution H instead of the "normal" silution B and seem to have no problems with mushyness.

I don't think mushyness is a problem unless you are making judgements about negative grain. For me negative grain is an irrelvance if it prints well and HC110 negs do print well. Infact when I use it, I use at about 1+60 whatever dilution letter that equates to. The neg can look as mushy as you like but if it prints really well then who cares what the neg grain looks like.

 

[charjohncarter]

I have standardized on Tmax400 (in HC110 dil H) for my medium format cameras. For me, it gives a nice combination of speed, sharpness and grain. I find Tmax100 very tough to work with - less exposure latitude and IMHO the grain and sharpness is not as pleasing. But you have to try them in order to judge the results for yourself.

Yes, this is 'tight' whatever that means, but if it means something else then TriX in HC-110h will also give 'good' grain. And even with 35mm.

 

[Trius]

I always liked HC-110 for how it rendered grain, even at Dilution B. It wasn't the smallest, but acutance was good, and the mid-tone gradation was really, really nice.

 

[Argenticien]

I enjoy the Efke 25 and 50 speed films; they are beautiful. They have these drawbacks though: some quality control problems (glitches in the emulsion); sometimes extremely curly (Dodd's problem, not yours, if you're not home-developing 🙂); and typically not available locally. (Freestyle is sole importer, as I understand, so you must either mail-order from them or convince a local store to stock it from Freestyle, thus making almost no profit on it themselves. So said my local store.) Ilford Pan F (50) is nice and typically solves all the above problems. (Or only 2 of 3 in my case; my local store doesn't stock this either! They say ASA 50 speed sells so little that it's not worth them offering it!)

Stump below was Efke 50 if I recall correctly; lettuce was Efke 25, both with Mamiya C330S and 80/2.8.


Stump by Argenticien, on Flickr


img001 by Argenticien, on Flickr

(I've posted these before elsewhere. The lettuce is probably the most grainless picture I've ever made with film. Please pardon my Newton rings though!)

--Dave

 

[znapper]

This thread reminds me of the thread where one guy asked for the "creamy look", without really specifying anything else. 😛

 

[Trius]

I've posted this before (at smaller size), but this is 35mm Pan F+ @ EI 40, Rodinal 1:100, Hexanon AR 40/1.8. I can't imagine it looking "worse" in another/Ilford developer ...

 

[hamradio]

whatever 'nice' and 'tight' grain is, lucky shd100 sure doesn't have it.

that's 6x7, too. I imagine 35mm would be unusable.

 

[Gary Briggs]

I didn't do a good job defining 'nice tight grain'.
I seldom get access to a computer that allows me up post, can't do it at home....don't know why. The 'less than 10 characters' message comes up, though I had typed a big paragraph.
Anyway, I guess I'm trying to have my 6x6 cake and eat it too.
I know the 35mm is not going to have the smooth grain/great tones of the mamiya 6, just trying to find something that comes close.
I really need to develop !
The things you guys do are so damn interesting.
Acros looks so good on the MF, and so bad on 135, probably due to Dodd using ilford developer ?!
Thanks for all you replys, I will try the things you all suggested