Want Would You Say Are Sharp 35mm Films?

8

8bit Barry

Member
Local time
8:26 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2025
Messages
44
Can anyone provide me with your personal experiences with films that are detailed and smooth for 35mm?

As a relative newcomer to 35mm with a range of MF cameras I have scanned over 10 years, I have had a less than inspiring time with Gold 200.

I changed to a roll of XP2 and I was really surprised at just how much sharper / detailed the film looked from the same RF camera / lens when scanned through my LS9000.

As 35mm film has a significantly smaller area, I now realise how little I know about ‘sharp’ 35mm films and also how critical this is for me to enjoy the medium.

Could you recommend me some of your favourite sharper more detailed 35mm films to consider?
 
For b+w Ilford delta 100 , kodak Tmax 100, Fomapan 100 is quite good for a cheaper film , Adox cms 20 is said to be great but I have never used it because you need a special dev that doesn't keep well . As for colour neg films Kodak ektar , Kodak proimage both in 100 iso . Any colour film in 35 mm needs near perfect exposure.
 
For maximum sharpness in 35mm: any slower black and white film, developed in Rodinal. I gave up on 35mm C41 a long time ago.

I'm a big fan of Pan F+ when I can use 50ISO film. Fomapan 100 is my general-use standard, and works in almost any scenario.

I just got my first roll of Adox CHS 100 II back from the lab (I sent that one out - my darkroom is out of use for a bit), and I'm really impressed with that. Don't know what developer they used but I'm looking forward to developing it myself:

Leica IIIf - Roll 104 - Adox CHS 100 - Southsun (8E).jpg
 
Here is Ektar. Very fine grain. Haven’t had a bad lab development or scan with this film in 35mm. While C41 colour negative film generally can be overexposed with abandon, I would never go two stops with Ektar, like I did with Fuji Superia, which was also fine enough, but one stop is OK. With Ektar in this camera, IIIF, 1/200s at f8 works on a scorching sandy Australian beach. This was likely one stop more, f5.6, for the back and valance of the bench. I have shot it at 50 ISO sometimes. Underexposure is usually miserable with colour negative film.

I loved Fuji Superia now discontinued. The recent Fujifilm 400 looks slightly different, but still very good. I haven’t used it yet. Ektar is expensive.

U28906I1547517542.SEQ.0.jpg
 
Last edited:
My favourite for black and white: Adox HR-50.

Orwo NP15 was incredibly good, Kodak Panatomic X as well. Both are discontinued since a long time and rare to find NOS (still worth to buy if not overpriced).

Colour: Ektar 100. I'm very sad about the discontinuation of Ektar 25 and Kodachrome.

Slide: Fujichrome Velvia 50.
 
Not very practical for you, but Kodak Technical Pan 25 was the sharpest film available - unfortunately the only way you can likely buy it now is as long-expired rolls on eBay.
 
If you want sharp images using 135 film you will need low ISO films like Ilford PAN F or even better Rollei RPX25 for BW. The latter is my preferred film for 8x11 Minox. However, to avoid any blur, you either need a tripod or a very good skills holding the camera while taking the photo because you end up with rather slow shutter speeds if you stop down your lens to f/8 - 11 even under good light conditions.
 
maddoc said:
If you want sharp images using 135 film you will need low ISO films like Ilford PAN F or even better Rollei RPX25 for BW. The latter is my preferred film for 8x11 Minox. However, to avoid any blur, you either need a tripod or a very good skills holding the camera while taking the photo because you end up with rather slow shutter speeds if you stop down your lens to f/8 - 11 even under good light conditions.
Click to expand...
Agree re Rollei 25. Gorgeous film.
 
For what little the film matters, Pan F, XP2+ or Ektar.

You'll get more out of good technique and glass than from the film though. Stop down, use a tripod, a cable release and as slow a shutter speed as possible if that's your goal.
 
For monochrome, I'm focused more on tonality than film sharpness, per se. Camera factors while shooting like tripod or no tripod, shutter speed, and camera/film movement when the shutter opens and/or mirror (DSLR) slaps with my medium format gear. For film, box speed ISO rating e.g., slow vs fast films, developer choice, agitation and timing can give different perceived sharpness. A nice discussion on grain and acutance, film speed, and developers/development method vs your perception of image sharpness and the specific aesthetic that you prefer can be found here:

www.photrio.com

acutance vs grain, I don't understand

Hello, I was trying to sort out options in choosing film developers, there are so many out there, multiplied by the number of films, it's bewildering... I know what grain is. I shot a few rolls of delta 3200, I've seen it. Acutance, in my understanding, is the ability of a film to draw...
www.photrio.com www.photrio.com
 
Vince Lupo said:
Not very practical for you, but Kodak Technical Pan 25 was the sharpest film available - unfortunately the only way you can likely buy it now is as long-expired rolls on eBay.
Click to expand...
Tech Pan was the finest grained, but it was definitely not the sharpest. Kodak sacrificed a lot of sharpness for finer grain. APX25 or RPX25 were/are sharper.

We developed so much Tech Pan at the Uni photo lab where I worked that I ran a permanent Technidol line. Tech Pan was great for its intended purposes. Tech Pan, used by breathless undergraduates for pictorial purposes rather than its intended technical uses, was one of the banes of my existence.
 
I wonder if I still have those 3 or 4 rolls of Tech Pan in the fridge... I should go shoot some landscapes with them, just for you, if I do :devilish:
 
The sharpest I ever used was a combination of Agfa Copex rapid film and Spur Nanospeed developer. I guess both don’t exist anymore.
 
Freakscene said:
Tech Pan was the finest grained, but it was definitely not the sharpest.
Click to expand...
Have you ever used the Eastman duplicating films? I've been using 5302 as an ortho film, rated at 6 ISO, and the absolute lack of grain in that is astonishing. If Tech Pan was even finer grained than that... blimey.

Here's a full frame, shot with a Summar on a tripod, and developed in Rodinal:

Leica IIIf - Roll 106 - Fine Grain 5302 - Rodinal (13 - ES).jpg

And here's a tight 1:1 crop:

Leica IIIf - Roll 106 - Fine Grain 5302 - Rodinal (13 - E-CROP).jpg

Having wet printed from this film stock, I suspect the "grain" here is mostly digital noise from the scan. It's incredibly grainless. Not the sharpest film in the world, and there's no anti-halation layer, so bloom and flare are both prominent. And, of course, you've got the tonal shifts inherent with ortho film. But it's a joy to shoot and print from.
 
CMS 20 in its own developer is extremely sharp. I have not had the chance make a print in the darkroom, but it viewing the film under a microscope reveals tons and tons of information. I have 24mpx dslr scans of 1/3 of the negative (i.e. 3x scan), and the scanning is still the limiting factor. I love how it handles highlights when exposed at 12 iso (haven't tried it at 20 iso).
 
Cinefilm D marked. 50 ISO. Colors are so-so in C41 or even in ECN-2, but they are as sharp as 135 film could be.
100 TMAX @50 also very "sharp". In Kodak developers.

Just don't expect same amount of details as from digital.
135 film is not about details, but color, grey gradations a.k.a. dynamic range .

JIC, if you come from digital, some YT bosos calling dynamic range the recovery of wrong exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom