T-grain films in Paterson FX-50: any experience?

I can hardly see the grain from Neopan 400 in FX-39 at 8x enlargements.


Jan T wrote:
Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100?
Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both?

"UC" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
|
| Jan T wrote:
| Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain
| one.
| Enlargement of negatives of both, with +- identical gray parts in the
sky
| showed about the same granularity in both pictures.
| But with drawbacks for the 200: blocking highlights and _not_ IE200,
just
| above 100.
|
| Then, I suggest Delta 400 or Neopan 400 in FX-39.
|
|
| |
| | Huh?
| | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100?
| |
| |
|

I've used Foma 200 in 35mm and 120. I shoot it at box speed under
normal conditions, and develop in either 510-Pyro, or Hypercat with
excellent results. Grain is difficult to quantify, which is why it's
most often discussed in relative terms, but in my experience, Foma 200
is about as grainy as conventional 100 speed films, with the developers
I use, which are tanning/staining, acutance developers. You can read
about 510-Pyro and Hypercat at digital Truth, where I've submitted a
short article, and some development times for Foma 200.



UC wrote:
I can hardly see the grain from Neopan 400 in FX-39 at 8x enlargements.


Jan T wrote:
Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100?
Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both?

"UC" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
|
| Jan T wrote:
| Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain
| one.
| Enlargement of negatives of both, with +- identical gray parts in the
sky
| showed about the same granularity in both pictures.
| But with drawbacks for the 200: blocking highlights and _not_ IE200,
just
| above 100.
|
| Then, I suggest Delta 400 or Neopan 400 in FX-39.
|
|
| |
| | Huh?
| | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100?
| |
| |
|

Jan T wrote:
Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100?
Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both?

Both.


"UC" schreef in bericht
oups.com...
|
| Jan T wrote:
| Don't forget the 100 is a classical emulsion, while the 200 is a T-grain
| one.
| Enlargement of negatives of both, with +- identical gray parts in the
sky
| showed about the same granularity in both pictures.
| But with drawbacks for the 200: blocking highlights and _not_ IE200,
just
| above 100.
|
| Then, I suggest Delta 400 or Neopan 400 in FX-39.
|
|
| |
| | Huh?
| | Please explain. The 200 speed film was as fine grain as the 100?
| |
| |
|

In article .com,
UC wrote:

Jan T wrote:
Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100?
Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both?

Both.

I agree. What they won't be, though, is useful at EI 400 -- at least
not if you want shadow detail, instead of absolute minimum grain.

The last test I did on the Ilford film gave me a working speed of about
260. The Fuji stuff is a bit better. But the only "400" speed films
I've ever seen live up to their labelling are HP5+ and TMY; and TMY
only manages that if you develop it in Xtol.

Still, you'll get results comparable to what you'd get from an old
technology 100 or 125 speed film, with about a stop more speed. That's
nothing to sneeze at.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
In article .com,
UC wrote:

Jan T wrote:
Do I hear you claim these 400 asa films won't be grainier than APX100?
Is this due to the cristal technology or the developer or both?

Both.

I agree. What they won't be, though, is useful at EI 400 -- at least
not if you want shadow detail, instead of absolute minimum grain.

The last test I did on the Ilford film gave me a working speed of about
260. The Fuji stuff is a bit better. But the only "400" speed films
I've ever seen live up to their labelling are HP5+ and TMY; and TMY
only manages that if you develop it in Xtol.

Still, you'll get results comparable to what you'd get from an old
technology 100 or 125 speed film, with about a stop more speed. That's
nothing to sneeze at.

Yes, that's precisely the same as my results. IE in the range of
250-320 with most ISO 400 films in Acutol, 200-250 in FX-39.



--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky