Film & Developer Combinations.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Some photographers may find these links of interest which feature some popular B&W film developers.

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml

[Ornello]

Some photographers may find these links of interest which feature some popular B&W film developers.

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml

Based on the results they report and the statements they make, I'd give this little credence. They did not, it appears, test Paterson products, which are clearly state-of-the-art developer formulations.

FP4 and Plus-X are both faster than T-Max 100 and Delta 100, and both are slightly grainier. To say that Plus-X looked 'flat' means that more development is indicated, as contrast is dependent on development. I wish that people who conduct such tests were actually informed and competent

But since the people involved openly admit to using the scientifically discredited zone system, I am not at all surprised by anything they say.

I have performed similar tests with most popular B&W films, and I find that Pan-F and Neopan 100 Acros are just about equal in fineness of grain, closely followed by T-Max 100 and Delta 100. Pan-F is about 32-40 speed, whereras Acros is about 50-64, and Delta 100 and T-Max both about 80. FP4 and Plus-X are about 100-125, and are grainier than the former products, but only slightly so. Any of theses films will make 8x enlargements without noticeable graininess except on very close examination of smooth areas.

In order of fineness of grain/speed (EI):

Ilford Pan-F/ EI 32-40
Fuji Neopan Acros 100/ EI 50-64
Kodak T-Max 100/ EI 80
Ilford Delta 100/ EI 80
Ilford FP4/ EI 100-125
Kodak Plus-X Pan/ EI 100-125

[Keith Tapscott.]

Some photographers may find these links of interest which feature some popular B&W film developers.

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml

Based on the results they report and the statements they make, I'd give this little credence. They did not, it appears, test Paterson products, which are clearly state-of-the-art developer formulations.

I would agree, but as Iris is running a commercial B&W processing service, she is probably opting for developers that are easily available. Trying to get hold of Paterson developers is like chasing rainbows.
(About time they made an announcement on their site of if or when they`re returning).
I fowarded the post to discuss how some films may perform better in certain developers than others rather than a discussion of the zone-system.

[Ornello]

Some photographers may find these links of interest which feature some popular B&W film developers.

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml

http://chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml

Based on the results they report and the statements they make, I'd give this little credence. They did not, it appears, test Paterson products, which are clearly state-of-the-art developer formulations.

I would agree, but as Iris is running a commercial B&W processing service, she is probably opting for developers that are easily available. Trying to get hold of Paterson developers is like chasing rainbows.
(About time they made an announcement on their site of if or when they`re returning).
I fowarded the post to discuss how some films may perform better in certain developers than others rather than a discussion of the zone-system.

Well, yes, some film/developer combinations are better than others, but this is hardly news.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Out of curiosity, how do you find the sharpness of 100 Acros compared to FP4 Plus? Grain is finer with 100 Acros, but acuity is also important.

[Ornello]

Out of curiosity, how do you find the sharpness of 100 Acros compared to FP4 Plus? Grain is finer with 100 Acros, but acuity is also important.

Are you asking me? I think they are both excellent, with the Acros being perhaps slightly finer-grained (at the cost of about 2/3 of a stop slower speed). The color sensitivity is better with the Fuji product, in that greens are rendered a little lighter and more naturally. The sharpness is comparable to my eyes.

[Keith Tapscott.]

Out of curiosity, how do you find the sharpness of 100 Acros compared to FP4 Plus? Grain is finer with 100 Acros, but acuity is also important.

Are you asking me? I think they are both excellent, with the Acros being perhaps slightly finer-grained (at the cost of about 2/3 of a stop slower speed). The color sensitivity is better with the Fuji product, in that greens are rendered a little lighter and more naturally. The sharpness is comparable to my eyes.

I don`t use 4x5 very often, but when I do, I would like the convenience of the Fuji QuickLoads even though more expensive. The slight difference in speed doesn`t matter much for still subjects or for a portrait with good lighting. Nice to know they are comparable.

[Fotohuis]

In order of fineness of grain/speed (EI):

Ilford Pan-F/ EI 32-40
Fuji Neopan Acros 100/ EI 50-64
Kodak T-Max 100/ EI 80
Ilford Delta 100/ EI 80
Ilford FP4/ EI 100-125
Kodak Plus-X Pan/ EI 100-125

Well, I can agree with the sequence.
Indeed, missing the Paterson developers and indeed difficult to get (or not at all here in Holland). I am also missing the SPUR developers, same story, great developers and also more difficult to get.
Great preformance in combination with Acros 100, Delta and Tmax. films!
We are going to test the differences for Acros 100 versus Rollei PAN 25 film. The same we did already with Delta 100 and Rollei PAN 25 film. I expect a smaller diference now.

[Ornello]

In order of fineness of grain/speed (EI):

Ilford Pan-F/ EI 32-40
Fuji Neopan Acros 100/ EI 50-64
Kodak T-Max 100/ EI 80
Ilford Delta 100/ EI 80
Ilford FP4/ EI 100-125
Kodak Plus-X Pan/ EI 100-125

Well, I can agree with the sequence.
Indeed, missing the Paterson developers and indeed difficult to get (or not at all here in Holland). I am also missing the SPUR developers, same story, great developers and also more difficult to get.
Great preformance in combination with Acros 100, Delta and Tmax. films!
We are going to test the differences for Acros 100 versus Rollei PAN 25 film. The same we did already with Delta 100 and Rollei PAN 25 film. I expect a smaller diference now.

I might add that there is really no need for Pan-F today. Neopan 100 Acros develops much slower, and is thus much easier to control. The grain of Acros is almost indistinguishable from that of Pan-F.

[Keith Tapscott.]

In order of fineness of grain/speed (EI):
Ilford Pan-F/ EI 32-40
Fuji Neopan Acros 100/ EI 50-64
Kodak T-Max 100/ EI 80
Ilford Delta 100/ EI 80
Ilford FP4/ EI 100-125
Kodak Plus-X Pan/ EI 100-125

We are going to test the differences for Acros 100 versus Rollei PAN 25 film. The same we did already with Delta 100 and Rollei PAN 25 film. I expect a smaller diference now.

I read a test report in Black & White Photography magazine of a comparison with Delta 100 compared with Rollei 25 and the differences in grain were negligible. It seems almost masochistic to sacrifice two stops of speed with out any significant benefit. The image definition was also crisper with Delta 100. The speed benefit of 100 Acros over Rollei 25 is surely more useful.

[Ornello]

In order of fineness of grain/speed (EI):
Ilford Pan-F/ EI 32-40
Fuji Neopan Acros 100/ EI 50-64
Kodak T-Max 100/ EI 80
Ilford Delta 100/ EI 80
Ilford FP4/ EI 100-125
Kodak Plus-X Pan/ EI 100-125

We are going to test the differences for Acros 100 versus Rollei PAN 25 film. The same we did already with Delta 100 and Rollei PAN 25 film. I expect a smaller diference now.

I read a test report in Black & White Photography magazine of a comparison with Delta 100 compared with Rollei 25 and the differences in grain were negligible. It seems almost masochistic to sacrifice two stops of speed with out any significant benefit. The image definition was also crisper with Delta 100. The speed benefit of 100 Acros over Rollei 25 is surely more useful.

T-Max 100, Delta 100, and Acros 100 are as slow as one needs to go today. I don't care for T-Max films in general, and so I would prefer either the Delta or Fuji material. In fact, I seldom use anything but ISO 400 materials, as they are so good nowadays that it scarcely seems necessary to use anyhting slower..

[Wirehead]

I read a test report in Black & White Photography magazine of a comparison with Delta 100 compared with Rollei 25 and the differences in grain were negligible. It seems almost masochistic to sacrifice two stops of speed with out any significant benefit. The image definition was also crisper with Delta 100. The speed benefit of 100 Acros over Rollei 25 is surely more useful.

It also seems masochistic when your resolution limit is likely not the film in those situations. This became quite clear when I found that I couldn't make any effective judgements about film grain using my 6x7.

I think it's an illusion brought upon us by certain groups of photographers who are still stuck in the world where you could tell a clear difference between Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64. Result? In the shrinking market, 25-50 speed film still sells just fine.

Ilford has talked about making a new Delta 25, by the way.

Can you please define the units your numbers are given in, ornello?

[Keith Tapscott.]

I read a test report in Black & White Photography magazine of a comparison with Delta 100 compared with Rollei 25 and the differences in grain were negligible. It seems almost masochistic to sacrifice two stops of speed with out any significant benefit. The image definition was also crisper with Delta 100. The speed benefit of 100 Acros over Rollei 25 is surely more useful.

It also seems masochistic when your resolution limit is likely not the film in those situations. This became quite clear when I found that I couldn't make any effective judgements about film grain using my 6x7.

None of us should concern ourselves with this anymore, we should be looking at this instead. ( Only joking).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz6XjXu-oT8

[Ornello]

I read a test report in Black & White Photography magazine of a comparison with Delta 100 compared with Rollei 25 and the differences in grain were negligible. It seems almost masochistic to sacrifice two stops of speed with out any significant benefit. The image definition was also crisper with Delta 100. The speed benefit of 100 Acros over Rollei 25 is surely more useful.

It also seems masochistic when your resolution limit is likely not the film in those situations. This became quite clear when I found that I couldn't make any effective judgements about film grain using my 6x7.

I think it's an illusion brought upon us by certain groups of photographers who are still stuck in the world where you could tell a clear difference between Kodachrome 25 and Ektachrome 64. Result? In the shrinking market, 25-50 speed film still sells just fine.

Ilford has talked about making a new Delta 25, by the way.

Can you please define the units your numbers are given in, ornello?

I am not sure I understand your question. "EI 80-100" should be clear enough. Delta 100 is no less sharp, I think, than Pan-F, and only the tiniest bit grainier. The Fuji Acros has better color sensitization, though, than either. Grass looks lighter with the Fuji material, and to my eyes more natural. B&W films have traditionally shown foliage and grass too dark because of the lower sensitivity to green compared to blue and, to a lesser extent, red. The Acros film is nearly ideal for anyone who does not need a film faster than about EI 50-64. I do, so I don't use much of anything but ISO 400 films (exposed at about EI 250-320).

[Jay DeFehr]

Ornello,

since you obviously consider yourself informed, and competent to quantify film/developer characteristics, I wonder if you could describe for us your methodology for testing film speed, grain and sharpness?

Jay