Talus
pan sin sal
I’ve had great result with TMAX 100 and 400, as well as Acros 100. Developer makes a difference and scanning tool as well. If you’re really after sharp then it may be worth thinking about moving to 120.
Want Would You Say Are Sharp 35mm Films?
- Thread starter 8bit Barry
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 49
- Views 3K
wlewisiii
Veteran
Heh, I do still have three rolls of 36 exposures of Tech Pan that expired in 2002 in the fridge. I have no clue what to do with them for real.
EI?
Diafine? D76?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
In case if not sure, I just enter it in the browser search and hit enter. The trick is to have google as search engine.
This is what came as one of the top search returns:
Kodak Technical Pan - Discovering the Joys of Expired Film - By Theo Swinscow
The whole process of trying this film encapsulates many of the things I like about film photography and why I tend to prefer it to digital photography
www.35mmc.com
Hilmersen
Established
With CMS20 I expect it to be better than digital in every aspect (except speed and color...and dust ;-) ) I am not comparing to m11m....but might very well be the case. Scanning has been the limiting factor for me, even using a 3x macro.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
ISO20 is not too practical, nor 12 Euro per roll. But it is good option, these days.
I'm just from the days of Shanghai 100 been something like two $ and even scale focusing folder giving plenty of resolution by easy, fast to scan flatbeds from Epson.
Hilmersen
Established
12 euro isn't too bad if you compare it to an m11m - or medium format - but I do see your point. I mix it up with Foma and Ilford... (Not)Suprisingly I end up with a high rate of keepers on the cms-rolls... And, the clean look is not something you always want - but I love it for portraits and snow in sunshine-pictures. That I have the option to use this film, has made me much more relaxed regarding grain and non perfect look of other films....I can just use the others films without trying to get every last bit of performance out of them. After a vacation I always look forward to finding out what I'll find on the cms rolls....
santino
FSU gear head
The biggest problem with those super high resolving films is, that it is really hard to focus the image with the enlarger, since there is virtually no grain visible 😉
Dayrell bishop
Well-known
Kodak 5302 in rodinal , canon eos 620 sigma 150mm macro . great film but hard not to use a tripod v7oo.
.
Coldkennels
Barnack-toting Brit.
Another 5302 shooter! Never thought I'd see the day.Kodak 5302 in rodinal , canon eos 620 sigma 150mm macro . great film but hard not to use a tripod v7oo..
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Old AGFA APX25 and APX100 were pretty sharp, especially developed in Rodinal.
Chris
Chris
8bit Barry
Member
8bit Barry
Member
I managed to order some new 35mm film today...
Ultramax 400 out of a budget curiosity
Kodak ProImage 100 - I have no idea what this is like
Ilford XP2 - as its my goto...
Fomapan Action 400 - I am curious about this budget film
Ultramax 400 out of a budget curiosity
Kodak ProImage 100 - I have no idea what this is like
Ilford XP2 - as its my goto...
Fomapan Action 400 - I am curious about this budget film
Freakscene
Obscure member
Yes, I’ve used all manner of copy and duplicating films. At equivalent CIs Tech Pan in Technidol was slightly finer grained. A lot of the beauty of these films was that you could develop them from very flat with a very low CI, to very contrasty with a high (very high! if you wanted) CI. The grain changed only slightly with differences in CI too.
You’re not magnifying anywhere near enough to see the grain. I used to inspect these sorts of films at 250x or 500x on a microscope to check the grain.
One problem was that with incredibly fine grain but only moderate acutance, it was really hard to focus the negatives for enlargement. In technical photos I really encouraged users to ensure that there was a scale bar projected on the frame (a lot of microscopes and other technical equipment could expose one onto the frame). At least then there was a definite edge to focus on.
TMX is another film where Kodak sacrificed acutance for fine grain. And when developed for acutance, it tended to look ugly (in my view). Delta 100 has more grain but is much sharper. Panatomic-X was definitely sharper, but Kodak didn’t want to keep making it after TMX became available.
Last edited:
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
I liked Pan-X. Miss it. I don't think I have any left in the freezer.
Is Ektar still available? Ektar 25 was supposed to be the sharpest color film available. Ektar 100 was dang sharp too. Expensive though.
I have 2 rolls of Adox CMS in the freezer....so it requires their special developer? Hmmm.
Is Ektar still available? Ektar 25 was supposed to be the sharpest color film available. Ektar 100 was dang sharp too. Expensive though.
I have 2 rolls of Adox CMS in the freezer....so it requires their special developer? Hmmm.
Alpsman
Well-known
If I want fine grain, for architectureal or long distance, then I prefer Rollei Retro 80S or 400S developed in Ilfosol 3 or Rollei Super Grain. Whichever is available.
Jonathan R
Well-known
Your words 'smooth' and 'detailed' trouble me. If by 'smooth' you mean grain-free, bear in mind that to get the same size image on your screen, a 35mm negative is bound to look grainier than a MF shot, simply because it is enlarged more (sorry, that's obvious); and that in digitising a grainy image your scanner will also exaggerate its apparent graininess, which may not be a concern with MF, but becomes more so with 35mm.
Any film emulsion has a characteristic resolving power, in part determined by its inherent graininess. But other factors can smudge the 'detail' the film might potentially resolve, notably camera shake and subject movement. So the emulsion doesn't totally determine the amount of detail resolved, but your choice of emulsion will affect the importance of those other factors. Apologies, I'm sure you already realise all that - but in trying to un-pack what you mean by 'detailed', it's worth pointing out that grain and sharpness are not incompatible. Sharpness is really an illusion. Surprisingly, grain can actually enhance apparent sharpness, by the way it renders edges. Tri-X, for example, has a reputation for this. With the right kind of subject it really pops. Have a look at the work of Arthur Steel, for example, to see what Tri-X can do in 35mm. But this has a lot to do with the size and contrast of the important details in the subject. A chromogenic film like XP2 will seem 'smooth' (if you mean almost grainless) with the same 400 ISO - but may lack that pop. (Actually, XP2 produces a look that doesn't appeal to me, but your taste may well differ.)
Personally I like Delta 100 for subjects that need crisp detail - such as landscapes - with fine grain and pleasing tonality. When Delta 100 first came out, it straightaway stopped me messing with slower films like Pan F and Technical Pan. As you are in the UK, that 100 ISO speed means you will frequently be up against detail-destroying factors like slow shutter speed and camera shake; large taking aperture and shallow depth of field; and subject movement. With 35mm you will be juggling these considerations far more than you are with MF. I often have to change films mid-roll.
Seems to me there are two possible outlooks on 35mm:
1) It's small format, and I shouldn't try to do with it what I know MF will do better. I'll concentrate on subjects that are better suited to its strengths.
2) It's amazing what 35mm can do, considering it isn't MF. I'll concentrate on doing everything I can to maximise that performance, within the constraints of the format.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Thanks for the link to Steel's work. I had not heard of him before.
Pioneer
Veteran
With the landscapes I typically shoot then tonality is more important but if sharp is that critical then carry a tripod and cable release. For me ISO 100 films like Kodak TMax or Kodak Ektar are usually plenty good enough if I need sharp but even my medium format folding camera produces sharper images than most of the 35mm cameras or film I use. Adox CMS 20 may be the only exception to this but I haven't used enough of it to say for sure and you will almost surely need that tripod to get the best out of that film.
julio1fer
Well-known
Adox KB-14 was fine, as APX 25 and maybe Tech Pan, but these are no more.
For commonly available films I would recommend Ilford Pan F+ and Kodak TMax 100. I use home-made Beutler developer for these films, but a two-bath such as Diafine should work well.
Your comment about XP2 - it is a C-41 film. Scanners do a better job with C-41 films because they can use ICE to improve the image. It makes sense to look at the end result of your process, there is more to consider than the technical specs of film.
For commonly available films I would recommend Ilford Pan F+ and Kodak TMax 100. I use home-made Beutler developer for these films, but a two-bath such as Diafine should work well.
Your comment about XP2 - it is a C-41 film. Scanners do a better job with C-41 films because they can use ICE to improve the image. It makes sense to look at the end result of your process, there is more to consider than the technical specs of film.
x-ray
Veteran
Unfortunately Panatomic-X, KB14, APX25 and Efke 50 are gone along with Neofin Blue developer. But Ilford Pan-F is still here and is very good along with Acros 100 and TMax 100. All are excellent!
Similar threads
- Featured
- Article
- Article
