First off, this is not a film is better than digital, or digital is better than film thread. This thread assumes that both have their place and attempts to look at the point of intersection between them. Secondly, this thread is dealing with B&W imaging.

It seems that film makers are trying to compete with digital - on digital’s terms. Films like T-Max seem to be trying to give film an ultra-smooth grain to achieve the look obtained in a low ISO digital shot. I don’t get it. If I am going to expend the cost and time to shoot film, I want the film to be a player in the image.

I like both film and digital for different reasons. I like film for what it is and the artistic choices it provides. Shooting B&W, I want to see the film, as well as the image. There are reasons to use several films, however, I tend to migrate towards Tri-X and Hp5 as my main B&W films. If I want a grainless B&W image, I will just shoot it in digital as it is cheaper, faster & less messy.

Who is the target audience for these low-grain films? Is it photographers that started in digital and want to try film, but are uncomfortable with grain because they see it as the analog version of noise - and therefore it must be stomped out? Is it the business solution for what to do with excess capacity - only makes sense if there is a market. Are there film shooters that just want a smooth image but don’t want to go digital? Are film makers trying to provide a smooth continuum from grainy films, like Tri-X to the more transparent background of digital and films like T-Max are the answer?

I am interested in your thoughts. To what question are films like T-Max the answer?

Growing up in a digital world, you got it backwards. In fact, in the pre-digital world grain was considered the enemy. We played a tradeoff game between high ISO and grain. The higher the ISO of the film, the larger and more objectionable the grain. I remember when Kodak had three main emulsions that most photographers used. Plus-X was a medium speed film (I think it was ASA 125?) with medium grain, Tri-X was the fast ISO 400 or ISO 360 film with more pronounced grain and Panatomic-X was an ISO 32 film that was used when small grain was essential. There were many other films too such as Royal-X pan that had a very high ASA; 1600 if I recall correctly. Its grain was like golf balls by comparison to Tri-X. Those were the most used films for 35mm and medium format. If you counted the sheet film types, there were more that two dozen. One of the many reasons that the 4 X 5" format was popular in those days was that less enlargement was require to make a given size print and therefore the grain was enlarged less and in most cases not noticeable.

As time went by, Kodak and others came out with developers such as Microdol and much later T-Max that produced smaller grain with existing films, but we could never completely eliminate the enemy, grain.

The fact is that the desire for a grainy look today has grown out of a nostalgia for something that was undesirable in its own time.

Growing up in a digital world, you got it backwards. In fact, in the pre-digital world grain was considered the enemy. We played a tradeoff game between high ISO and grain. The higher the ISO of the film, the larger and more objectionable the grain. I remember when Kodak had three main emulsions that most photographers used. Plus-X was a medium speed film (I think it was ASA 125?) with medium grain, Tri-X was the fast ISO 400 or ISO 360 film with more pronounced grain and Panatomic-X was an ISO 32 film that was used when small grain was essential. There were many other films too such as Royal-X pan that had a very high ASA; 1600 if I recall correctly. Its grain was like golf balls by comparison to Tri-X. Those were the most used films for 35mm and medium format. If you counted the sheet film types, there were more that two dozen. One of the many reasons that the 4 X 5" format was popular in those days was that less enlargement was require to make a given size print and therefore the grain was enlarged less and in most cases not noticeable.

As time went by, Kodak and others came out with developers such as Microdol and much later T-Max that produced smaller grain with existing films, but we could never completely eliminate the enemy, grain.

The fact is that the desire for a grainy look today has grown out of a nostalgia for something that was undesirable in its own time.

I am a professional commercial/portrait photographer who has worked with black and white films and processing methodologies for a lifetime. I started messing around in my basement darkroom at the age of 12, my first studio apprentice job started off in the darkroom and I spent the better part of 50 years shooting film and working in the darkroom, so I hope y'all will enjoy my take on this question.

Due to market demands and business practicalities, I made the complete transition into digital photography about ten year ago and finally and somewhat reluctantly closed down my black and white darkroom and my analog/chemical color lab at my studio.

Suffice it to say that digital photography is a vastly different medium but for all intents and purposes, I can reproduce, replicate or imitate most of the effects and qualities that I archived with film in the digital medium- and then some! So I don't pine for the “good old days”. The aesthetics of printing are still the same and the degree of manipulations in digital work are even grater in scope that those that were obtainable in the old process. I do miss some of the old classical papers and chemicals and some of the craftsmanship involved in the process but we all need to use what is presently at our disposal. It is not easily practicable to manufacture traditional silver based printing papers but some workers are still willing to mix certain developer form “scratch” formulas if the can obtain the basic chemicals in photography types. So.. this is all I will say about digital, for the most part, because now, to stay on topic, we are gonna talk FILM!

First I will tell y'all something about FINE GRAIN. I have discovered long ago, that many medium to even high speed films can produce very fine grain results if processed very precisely and the WET TIME, during processing is minimized. There is a processing fault called RETICUALTION that is usually recognized in its extreme form caused by significant processing errors due to accidental high temperatures in the chemicals or especially the final washrag of the film. Severe reticulation shows up as extremely course grain that occurs when high temperatures in the chemistry or wash water causes the emulation to swell and begin separating from the film base. Most experienced dark room operators will not over heat or “boil” the film but this kind of emulsion swelling and resulting coarse grain can occur in more subtle ways if there is too much of a temperature differential between the chemical baths, if the acidity in the stop bath or the fixer is too high thus shocking the emulsion witch is in an alkaline state when it leaves the developer, if the film is overly immersed (for too long a time) in the stop bath, fixer, the hypo clearing agent, the wash water and/or the wetting agent.

So...here's my big secret. I was getting large format-like results as to acutance (sharpness) and virtual grain-less-ness with most films up to ISO 400 or even pushed to 800 or more- even in 35mm and medium format. I did this by simply maintaining consistent and precise temperature control at 68°F (20°C) in all the film processing solution right down to the wash water. Here's a few more tips and precautions: I maintain the same precise control on the TIMING in each bath as well. Most workers will be very accurate on development times but get a but get a bit sloppy in the other baths. Unnecessarily extended wet time brings about more graininess. Avoid using stop bath, fixer or hypo clearing agent as holding baths. Reduce the acidity in the stop bath or just use plain water and get the film into the fixer ASAP. Use standard fixer rather that rapid fixer- it has less tendency to shock the emulsion. The fixing time just needs to be the same as the clearing time- not longer- just make sure the kind of milky look of the film is gone and the bluish dye in the base is cleared. The function of hypo cleaning agent or other washing aids is to cut down on washing time, neutralize any remaining acidity in the film. It does this by softening the emulsion so it is wise to strictly control the time and temperature that is advised by the manufacturer and not extend the time unnecessarily. The same goes for Phot-Flo or similar wetting agents. Usually 30 second to one minute is the maximum time the film should remain in this solution. Rough squeegeeing and heat drying should be avoided. A very soft viscose sponge should be used if squeegeeing is required and room temperature air drying is best. Advanced workers may consider obtaining, improvising or building a filtered air drying cabinet. In-line wash water filtration is helpful in that water impurities or very hard water can also effect negative quality or cause staining. After using a washing aid or hypo eliminator, washing time shroud not exceed 5 or 10 minutes.

I usually would mix and dilute my processing chemicals with de-mineralized or distilled water to avoid staining and premature oxidation of the chemicals- they last longer.

AGITATION: Remember, you developing tank is not a Martini-shaker or a cake mixing bowel. Agitation in all processing baths is necessary for even processing and proper activity of the chemicals, however, over or violent agitation will cause many inconsistencies, streaks, over development and unnecessarily course grain. In most rotary/spool type tanks, an alternating rotating and up and down GENTLE agitation should be carried out for 5 seconds every 30 seconds or 10 seconds every minute- depending on the film/developer recommendations. The same time increments or sequences is recommended for tank/film hanger processing with GENTLE vertical dip-and dunk movements and rocking actions with tapping to dispel air-bells.

Processing temperature can be controlled and held by use of a water jacket, that is, you can use a sink or improvise a tank to contain all of your developing tanks and chemical containers. Filling this vessel with enough water of the proper temperature, can maintain temperatures for hours. Serious and advanced workers will want to invest in a temperature control valve of faucet system which automatically maintains water temperature and flow by means of a bi-metallic or electronic system. There are also thermometer wells that can be easily installed on an ordinary mixing faucet whereby water temperature can me monitored and controlled manually.

It takes a bit of patience and effort but this kind of processing will yield finer grain and the grain that does appear will be tighter and more pleasing. Grain clumps result for faulty processing. Precision processing will also yield better density and contrast control and enable easier printing.

Film type and brands? Well- y'all film buffs gotta admit that there is not nearly the kind of choices we had back in the day- most of it, alas, is gone. Listen folks, I, an many of my contemporaries (old photographers) can write books on film characteristics- not only grain but characteristic curves, D log E charts, chromatic sensitives of black and white films film and developer combinations but most of this stuff and the literature are long gone. It it is what is is and you have to work with what you have if you are still interested in crafting images with film.

Use to be, the rule of thumb was that slow speed fine grain had a bit more intrinsic contrast – like Plus-X and Pantomimic-X. Faster films like Tri-X had coarser grain and less contrast- some preferred the better potential for gradations of tone. The T-Max line came about as a result of what was touted as T-Grain manufacturing technology which ostensibly offered high speed and less grain. If both films lines are still available (?) I feel it is a matter of taste and which compatible chemicals are still readily available unless you are willing and able to mix things from scratch. In the olden days, films that were specified as “Professional”, at least by Kodak and Fugi, usually had a base that had a surface or “tooth” for (manual) negative retouching- this oftentimes had a bit more accompanying grain. The T-Max line was touted as being more “scan-able” for integration into digital retouching, editing and printing.

As for nostalgia- my all time favorite general purpose black and white film was, believe it or not, Verichrome-Pan, perhaps a cult favorite among pictorial photographers. At a modest ISO of about 100, it had incredible latitude, outrageous tonal range and tight and fine grain. Processed D-76 1:1, it yielded great sharpness and tonality even at significant degrees of enlargement. Verichrome-Pan processed in Pyro- MAGIC! Shadow detail up the wazoo!

Films like Technical Pan were virtually grain-less but there were very slow and kinda weird in that the had ultra-red sensitivity so it would render normal skin tones as almost porcelain white- if that's what you like. It could be processed in high a contrast method so that it would turn it into lith-film.

Now, suppose you like GRAIN! Ain't nothing wrong with that! Here's the deal and the history. In the late 1950s and early 1960, there was a great revolution in photojournalism, war coverage and press photography. Existing light became the buzz word and flash- was beginning to get a bad rap for artificiality and flatness in lighting. Large format press camera gave way to medium format usage and finally 35mm became the mainstay for news photographers and photojournalists. Everyone wanted to be able to photograph “a black cat in a coal mine at midnight” kinda thing. F/1.0 and f/.95 lenses began to emerge but when depth of field and hand-hold-able shutter speeds were required, the trend went toward very fast films and pushed processing in “dynamite” developers. Tri-X, Royal-Pan-X or Kodak “Recording Film 2475” pushed to ISO 3600 or more in Diafine (Red), Ethol, UFG or Acufine yielded negatives with golf -ball like granularity but who cared, the object was to get the image and tell the story- “who needs stinking shadow detail and fine grain”! Got so that press images that were not shot during a riot or in a war zone under the cover of darkness, were expected to be grainy nonetheless, otherwise they might have been interpreted or misconstrued a “not authentic enough”. In some cases it became an affectation or artifice. I worked at a newspaper for a time and my editors used to say who cares about grain- we are printing with a 55 line screen on “toilet paper” meaning a basically low resolution reproduction method on newsprint paper. Some photographers routinely forced course gran or printed images through a Mortensen kinda texture screen.

Other photographers hold the viewpoint that grain is like brush strokes in oil paintings or scratches on etchings- it's just part and parcel of the medium of film- I'm cool with that. I suppose it depends on the mood you want to create, the subject matter and the style you wish to adopt. There were and still are printing papers with surface textures that somewhat add to the look of a grainy image- you are the artist and it's up to you.

Another aspect of grain control is the type of light source in your enlarger, that is, if you are still printing in an analog/optical enlarger. A (rare) point source lamp house maximizes the rendition of grain structure. Next in line is a a condenser enlarger. A diffusion enlarger or a cold light type of lamp-house will minimize grain as well as dust and surface defect that may be on the negative. Grain is also accentuated by using an enlarging paper of a higher than normal contrast grade.

I hope this helps. Best regards.

Ed