sharpest film currently on the market?

Is my understanding correct that Kodak's TechPan is part of the
past? If so, what is the sharpest, or smallest grain film out
there these days? I took this image with a DSLR:

http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/images/black.jpg

I would like to make it 20x30 or larger, but the 4 MPixel image
simply will not hold up to that type of enlargement.

Sam

"Sam Carleton" wrote

Is my understanding correct that Kodak's TechPan is part of the
past?

Still available. B&H still has some, IIRC, put the $3.49/roll
export stuff is but a memory. I think they want $9/roll.

If so, what is the sharpest, or smallest grain [normal] film out
there these days?

If you want to do sharp then nothing competes with square inches of film.
I would rent a 'blad or a Sinar for a weekend.

I took this image with a DSLR:
http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/images/black.jpg
I would like to make it 20x30 or larger,

Gustibus non est disputatum.

but the 4 MPixel image simply will not hold up to that type
of enlargement.

No, it won't. Neither will Tech-Pan in 35mm, the largest I would go
is 16x24" with TP, and then you shouldn't look too close.

If you want detail, then 4x5 TMax will enlarge very nicely to 20x30.
I have a 20x24 from 4x5 TMX print of the interior of the Bayeux cathedral
hanging on the wall and I need to 10x loupe to really see the detail.

You will have to drug the dog, I imagine, if you use a 4x5.
There is a firm in NY that sells dead puppies for cute doggy shots ...

Though, if you got 2 people to scratch the dog's belly and coo, the
pooch might let you hold it's snout still enough to take the shot.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"Bakhuys" wrote in message
...

[...] Never did any 4x5. But I believe for sure that a 4x5 HP4 looks
pretty much the same as 35 mm Pan F for everyting less than say 13 x 18 cm
(even with a 5x loupe!)

You should try the 4x5 before making such a judgement.

Sam Carleton wrote:

Is my understanding correct that Kodak's TechPan is part of the
past? If so, what is the sharpest, or smallest grain film out
there these days? I took this image with a DSLR:

http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/images/black.jpg

I would like to make it 20x30 or larger, but the 4 MPixel image
simply will not hold up to that type of enlargement.


"Sharpness" is a rather vague undefinable photo term.
Acutance (edge sharpness) is likely more appropritate,
and combined with a fine grained film with high
resolving power can produce very "sharp" detailed
images. Lot's of variables though, including the
developer, camera/lens/tripod MTF, and the subject.
Also format (negative size), meaning the larger the
format the better the detail, and your image is highly
detailed.

Technical Pan is the finest grained, highest resolving
film ever made. Nothing can match it, especially if
you shoot 35mm. Certainly no digital camera, regardless
of pixel resolution (I saw a 6MP image output to 16x20
yesterday; it was very unsharp.) But it's also a very
slow film and requires a POTA developer. A t-grain film
like T-Max or Delta has high resolving abilities, medium
speed, and depending on the variables you can obtain
pretty sharp images. With large format I develop TMX in
Rodinal (for high acutance.) But rodinal also tends to
increase granularity, so if shooting smaller format I'd
probably use microdol-X (finer grain.)

"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote:

"Bakhuys" wrote
"Nicholas O. Lindan" wrote in message
"Sam Carleton" wrote
I would like to make it 20x30 or larger,
If you want detail, then 4x5 TMax will enlarge very nicely to 20x30.

Seems overkill to me :-)
135 format Ilford Pan F (still not yet discontinued I believe) gives nice
results up to 30 x 40 cm with the naked eye. Maybe you have to switch to MF
for really sharp and even larger pictures with Pan F. But LF?

30 x 40 cm == 12 x 16 inches
51 x 76 cm == 20 x 30 inches

Agreed, one can get a nice looking 11x14" print from 35mm.

When you get to 20x30 it needs 4x5" negatives.

it really depends on the subject and other variables.

A 4x5" enlarged to 20x30" has the same quality as a 35mm
negative enlarged to 5x7" (~13x18cm).

Viewing distance is also a factor.

I have an old 36" Dagor I have always been meaning to make a 20x24
camera for. A simple one: a 2x4 frame covered wrapped in black
garbage bags, scale focus - that sort of design philosophy. With
a 20x24" negative you don't have to worry about getting a large
format enlarger, as you do with an 8x10.

Which is why I stick to 4x5 (convenience.) However, I've
seen 35mm enlarged to that size and is of good quality.
Again, it depends on many factors.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

"jjs" wrote in message
...

"Bakhuys" wrote in message
...

[...] Never did any 4x5. But I believe for sure that a 4x5 HP4 looks
pretty much the same as 35 mm Pan F for everyting less than say 13 x 18
cm (even with a 5x loupe!)

You should try the 4x5 before making such a judgement.


Probably that would be better, but what about my statement?

A 13 x 18 cm print requires approx. 6 times enlargement from a 35 mm
negative. With 50 lines/mm on the negative, which is not unrealistic with
excellent optics and Pan F, it is still more than 8 lines /mm on print
which is all you need: it compares to the resolution of the human eye! Whats
the resolution of photographic paper? Not much more. A loupe maybe still
shows some differences, oké, you're right about that. But it's hard to
believe it makes any visible difference at that small size. Did you compare?

"Nicholas O. Lindan" a écrit dans le message de
ink.net...
I ran a WBOT [whole bunch o' tests] on TMX, PanF and APX25 Vs TechPan.

Nothing else came even close to TP in resolution.

Once the discontinuation of TP became evident, I ran my own tests on same
subjects to try to find a substitute (all 35mm):
- TP in Technidol using Kodak's "shaker" agitation
- PanF in XTol 1+1
- TMX in XTol 1+1
- Acros in XTol 1+1
The last three processed by rotation. Developers/dilutions were not chosen
to desperately obtain the finest grain possible but because they are what I
use commonly.
Partial prints were made at 16.5x magnification (complete prints would have
been 16x24").
There was a clear difference in favor of TP (both grain and resolution) but
I wouldn't say it was so enormous.
Anyway, like always with films, personal taste is the final judge.
Not to mention lens quality and shooting conditions are essential when going
low-speed/high-resolution films.

I didn't find a real and complete substitute for TP but found acceptable
replacements in terms of sharpness and grain.
If I bought several TP rolls (well, bulk rolls, 45m for TP ...) and put them
in the freezer, this is not only for resolution/grain characteristics but
also, and perhaps more, because its special spectral response that gives a
particular "glow" to the skin.

Actually, Sam seems to work in 35mm, so unless he buys another equipment (MF
or LF), he has to go with it.
He doesn't seem to look at the prints with a loupe either.
So, I see mainly two options for him:
- He can do what many have already done: buy TP before it's gone completely.
- But, I would suggest he tries also other low-speed films, he may find one
that fits his needs.

Tech Pan's grain is like crisp hot toast when blown up to
20x24, everything else is lumpy cold oatmeal in comparison.

It's just a matter of magnification, I'm pretty sure you can see "lumpy cold
oatmeal" TP grain if you push it over its limits ...

If I can find where I hid ("Tidy up, she says ...") the test prints
I will post them. It's interesting.

I've thrown away my test prints but. if needed. I can reprint and scan them.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

Regards,
Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch

"Bakhuys" wrote in message
...

"jjs" wrote
You should try the 4x5 before making such a judgement.


Probably that would be better, but what about my statement?

A 13 x 18 cm print requires approx. 6 times enlargement from a 35 mm
negative. With 50 lines/mm on the negative, which is not unrealistic with
excellent optics and Pan F, it is still more than 8 lines /mm on print
which is all you need: it compares to the resolution of the human eye!

That's a fair enough question and to answer it we would have to post
examples. Maybe _I_ should try Pan F! At the risk of damaging my first
argument which I cannot prove without examples, I submit that some pictures
achieve better acutance with grainer film. Acutance is not all about lp/mm.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


Sam Carleton wrote:

Is my understanding correct that Kodak's TechPan is part of the
past? If so, what is the sharpest, or smallest grain film out
there these days? I took this image with a DSLR:

http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/images/black.jpg

I would like to make it 20x30 or larger, but the 4 MPixel image
simply will not hold up to that type of enlargement.


"Sharpness" is a rather vague undefinable photo term.
Acutance (edge sharpness) is likely more appropritate,
and combined with a fine grained film with high
resolving power can produce very "sharp" detailed
images. Lot's of variables though, including the
developer, camera/lens/tripod MTF, and the subject.
Also format (negative size), meaning the larger the
format the better the detail, and your image is highly
detailed.

Technical Pan is the finest grained, highest resolving
film ever made. Nothing can match it, especially if
you shoot 35mm. Certainly no digital camera, regardless
of pixel resolution (I saw a 6MP image output to 16x20
yesterday; it was very unsharp.) But it's also a very
slow film and requires a POTA developer. A t-grain film
like T-Max or Delta has high resolving abilities, medium
speed, and depending on the variables you can obtain
pretty sharp images. With large format I develop TMX in
Rodinal (for high acutance.) But rodinal also tends to
increase granularity, so if shooting smaller format I'd
probably use microdol-X (finer grain.)

What does POTA stand for?

On 2005-01-21, Bakhuys wrote:

"laura halliday" wrote in message
oups.com...
Tech Pan is gone, but there is still some old stock around.

I too would go for TMax 100 or Neopan Acros, and would, as others have
suggested, shoot a larger format - at least 120.

Grain does funny things when you go big. 4x5 HP5 looks kinda neat when
you print it.

Whatever the size of the negative there is always a size of enlargement
where grain will be visible (especially with a loupe, Sam! :-)). Never did
any 4x5. But I believe for sure that a 4x5 HP4 looks pretty much the same as
35 mm Pan F for everyting less than say 13 x 18 cm (even with a 5x loupe!)

I don't want a 13 x 18 cm, but a 20 x 30 INCH!!!! 35mm T-Max 100
would be fine for a 13x18 cm print, I want a poster of the image.
Oh, and here is the link to the image, again:

http://www.miltonstreet.com/scarleton/images/black.jpg

The idea is to get a poster size of the image.

Sam