Searching for a film+dev combo for a modern look

[stompyq]

I'm looking for opinions on the best 35mm Film+developer combination for a modern B&W look. Specifically, I'm looking to get low grain+clean blacks+smooth roll-off in the highlights. Some people seem to call this the more digital look? Anyway. I'm well set with 120mm but getting this combination has been a little elusive with 35mm.

I have already eliminated Acros because of the cost (sadly)

 

[Bingley]

TMax 400 developed in Perceptol? That’s what I use. Chck out Erik van Straten’s photos... he is a master of that combo.

I’ve never used Xtol but the results I’ve seen look crisp and sharp w low grain.

 

[stompyq]

TMax 400 developed in Perceptol? That’s what I use. Chck out Erik van Straten’s photos... he is a master of that combo.

I’ve never used Xtol but the results I’ve seen look crisp and sharp w low grain.

Thank you!! I have not tried this combination and will research it. Do you dilute perceptol? or use it straight? I'm trying to avoid xtol because of the odd size it comes in but will give it a go if I have to.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Tmax 400 is the best 400 speed film ever made. It has VERY fine grain, beautiful tonality, high sharpness, and it works well in a lot of developers.

I've gotten the best results from it in D-76 1+1. Tmax Developer gives beautiful tonality with Tmax 400 but a lot more grain than D-76.

 

[Freakscene]

TMY in Xtol 1+1 or 1+3. But Acros is best (sorry) for a ‘modern’ look.

Marty

 

[retinax]

How come no-one is recommending Tmax or Delta 100? The op is looking for small grain, and while TMY does have fine grain, these two are finer. I'm somewhat confused by the comment on smooth highlight roll-off. How is that something digital is known for? Digital can clip highlights in a harsh way, although I understand it has become a non-issue with modern sensors, as long as one doesn't overexpose. Or do you mean grain-free highlights?
Btw I don't see how any film would not give clean blacks. Just a matter of adjusting the black point, be it digital or in the darkroom, which is easier with enough exposure so that there's plenty of shadows l separation, i.e. one doesn't fight to get shadow details and real black.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

How come no-one is recommending Tmax or Delta 100? The op is looking for small grain, and while TMY does have fine grain, these two are finer. I'm somewhat confused by the comment on smooth highlight roll-off. How is that something digital is known for? Digital can clip highlights in a harsh way, although I understand it has become a non-issue with modern sensors, as long as one doesn't overexpose. Or do you mean grain-free highlights?
Btw I don't see how any film would not give clean blacks. Just a matter of adjusting the black point, be it digital or in the darkroom, which is easier with enough exposure so that there's plenty of shadows l separation, i.e. one doesn't fight to get shadow details and real black.

I've always considered 400 speed films better suited to 35mm photography than 100 speed films. With 100 films, the light even during the day unless its bright sun, is not bright enough for easy handholding unless you shoot at wide apertures and sacrifice depth of field. If I have to use a tripod, I'd rather shoot medium format, which gives FAR better quality than any 35mm camera can, no matter what film is used.

 

[Freakscene]

How come no-one is recommending Tmax or Delta 100? The op is looking for small grain, and while TMY does have fine grain, these two are finer. I'm somewhat confused by the comment on smooth highlight roll-off. How is that something digital is known for? Digital can clip highlights in a harsh way, although I understand it has become a non-issue with modern sensors, as long as one doesn't overexpose. Or do you mean grain-free highlights?
Btw I don't see how any film would not give clean blacks. Just a matter of adjusting the black point, be it digital or in the darkroom, which is easier with enough exposure so that there's plenty of shadows l separation, i.e. one doesn't fight to get shadow details and real black.

TMY has a straighter curve, less blue sensitivity and the red sensitivity cuts off at a lower wavelength. It looks more like what the OP has asked for. Grain isn’t everything, and is often better managed by exposure and development than people think. TMY has plenty fine grain.

Marty

 

[retinax]

I've always considered 400 speed films better suited to 35mm photography than 100 speed films. With 100 films, the light even during the day unless its bright sun, is not bright enough for easy handholding unless you shoot at wide apertures and sacrifice depth of field. If I have to use a tripod, I'd rather shoot medium format, which gives FAR better quality than any 35mm camera can, no matter what film is used.

I see this exactly the same way you do. Mostly 400 speed film in 135. But some people like to use large apertures, or are out in open sun a lot. The OP hasn't said anything about film speed he prefers, but apparently eliminated Acros just because of cost.

TMY has a straighter curve, less blue sensitivity and the red sensitivity cuts off at a lower wavelength. It looks more like what the OP has asked for. Grain isn’t everything, and is often better managed by exposure and development than people think. TMY has plenty fine grain.

Marty

I didn't understand the OP to be looking for a straight curve. Smooth highlight roll-off sounds like the opposite to me. Is that color sensitivity characteristic universally considered "modern" looking? I mean sure, it's very far from old looking as in orthochromatic look...

 

[KenR]

Tmy400

Tmy400

I keep trying 100 speed films for 35mm but always come away disappointed. Somehow the grain/sharpness equation, for me, favors TMY400. No matter what developer I try (D76, HC110 and recently FA-1027) seem to give me results that I find more pleasing with the TMY. I agree that of the 100 speed films that I have tried, Acros 10O seems to have that same combination of low grain and high sharpness, but as others have said, I am put off by the price per roll. That’s why I just bought a bunch of the TMY.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I mostly shoot 400 speed film as well, but compared to the Tri-X and HP5 that I normally shoot, to my eye FP4 gives the "low grain+clean blacks+smooth roll-off in the highlights" look the OP is seeking. And it's roughly the same price as Tri-X or HP5. Yes, it's 125 and too slow for indoor use, but I have no problems handholding it outdoors. (Of course I live in Florida so the tropical sun here may have something to do with that).

I have my film developed at a lab so don't have control over the developer. I've found I tend to get better results back from the lab when using traditional emulsions like Tri-X, HP5, and FP4 than with the T-grain films. I think FP4 is the best bet for a low-grain in a traditional emulsion.


Example (Pentax Spotmatic, 28mm f/3.5 Super Multi Coated Takumar, yellow filter, FP4+ @125 developed by Fulltone Photo):
000010680036 by Aaron Alfano, on Flickr

 

[Rob-F]

I'd have said Delta 100 or Delta 400 in XTOL as a likely first choice. But Chris Crawford's assessment of T-Max as best reminds me I need to try it again one of these days. I quit using it some years ago because I didn't feel it had enough contrast. It seemed flat to me. I should probably try it again.

 

[Freakscene]

I see this exactly the same way you do. Mostly 400 speed film in 135. But some people like to use large apertures, or are out in open sun a lot. The OP hasn't said anything about film speed he prefers, but apparently eliminated Acros just because of cost.

In bright light you can shoot TMY at 100-500 and get any of those as the real speed (as opposed to pushing or pulling and ending up with altered contrast) by switching developers. TMY is affordable, fine grained, has decent reciprocity characteristics (though nothing comes close to Acros for really long exposures) and looks super modern, clean, well-separated tones all the way from the shadows to the highlights.

I didn't understand the OP to be looking for a straight curve. Smooth highlight roll-off sounds like the opposite to me.

Developed in dilute Xtol you can record 15+ stops of real information with TMY. If you know how to expose and develop, and scan or print, you can retain detail way out into the highlights. Smooth roll-off is mostly about understanding the interaction between materials and techniques, and the idea that films with straight density curves like TMax have 'abrupt' highlights comes from a time when printing papers had high highlight contrast to accommodate traditional films with a very s-shape curve. It was always a fight. Modern papers match modern films better, and scanning allows almost anything you can imagine, at least until the files fall apart.

Is that color sensitivity characteristic universally considered "modern" looking? I mean sure, it's very far from old looking as in orthochromatic look...

.

All modern films have reduced blue sensitivity compared to older films, and a sharp far red/IR cutoff. The more extreme ones like Acros or Adox CHS II have low visible red sensitivity and are orthopanchromatic.

Marty

 

[charjohncarter]

stompyq, this polemic is an endeavor to ascertain what is your modern look. Maybe you could post an image in which you demonstrate what you really want us to discuss.

 

[Majki]

stompyq, this polemic is an endeavor to ascertain what is your modern look. Maybe you could post an image in which you demonstrate what you really want us to discuss.

Exactly!
Interesting theme, but why without any visual references? 🙂

@pulp_picture

 

[Greyscale]

I've always considered 400 speed films better suited to 35mm photography than 100 speed films. With 100 films, the light even during the day unless its bright sun, is not bright enough for easy handholding unless you shoot at wide apertures and sacrifice depth of field. If I have to use a tripod, I'd rather shoot medium format, which gives FAR better quality than any 35mm camera can, no matter what film is used.

Film speed choice also depends upon which equipment used. Certainly, with a modern camera with a fast shutter, 400 ASA film will offer more flexibility than a slower emulsion. But when your top shutter speed is less than your film speed, the faster film becomes a handicap. And by modern, I am referring to most cameras made after 1950 or so. You need to match the film to the limits of your choice of camera.

Back to the topic: If you want a modern look to your film work, use a modern camera with a modern lens with a modern film, and process it in a modern developer. The rest is going to depend on artistic choices during every step of the process, and I doubt that there is any single "modern look", an example of what look you are after would be helpful.

Or, just overexpose Portra by two stops and shoot everything wide open.

 

[agentlossing]

I can't figure out what you mean by a "modern" B&W look either, except maybe that you don't want rough and grainy, Moriyama-esque, lots of deep shadows and white highlights? Just an overall smoother look? I'd say Ilford Delta films are a good option, try FP4+ as well. Not sure what best developer to pair those with as I haven't experimented very much on that front yet. But I'd take a look at FP4+ for slower film and Delta 400 for slightly faster.

 

[jerrybro]

I'd have said Delta 100 or Delta 400 in XTOL as a likely first choice. But Chris Crawford's assessment of T-Max as best reminds me I need to try it again one of these days. I quit using it some years ago because I didn't feel it had enough contrast. It seemed flat to me. I should probably try it again.

I found I could make TMX or TMY look exactly the way I wanted to by changing exposure, developer, development and dilution. It did take some time to figure it all out though. I tended to use TMY in 120 and 4x5 and TMX in 35mm. I wasn't doing a lot of 35mm at the time though.

My developers of choice ended up being TMax-RS and D23.

 

[Freakscene]

I found I could make TMX or TMY look exactly the way I wanted to by changing exposure, developer, development and dilution. It did take some time to figure it all out though. I tended to use TMY in 120 and 4x5 and TMX in 35mm. I wasn't doing a lot of 35mm at the time though.

My developers of choice ended up being TMax-RS and D23.

With those you can get normal contrast from EI 100-500 and can push to 3200 with increased but manageable contrast. Erik van Straten’s Perceptol method here: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2742975&postcount=2 also works with D23.

Marty

 

[julio1fer]

As others said, not sure of what is a “modern” look. TMX and Beutler would probably come close enough.