Shutterbug57

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?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

T-max film has been around longer than digital, so they aren't trying to mimic digital or draw in digital shooters. Some B&W film shooters just prefer minimal grain. Myself, I prefer good old Tri-X to Tmax 400. If you really love grain, try the Tmax 3200.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I no longer use film but "back in the day" I always wanted as fine a grain as I could get. If there was no apparent grain in the final print, I was a happy man.
For what it's worth, when I owned a camera store, Acufine developer was a steady mover, as was Panatomic X film

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I agree, John. I grew up in film and still have a couple of old Kodak 35mm cameras.. I had a Nikon F2 Photomic for many years and shot tons of Tri-x and (cant remember the Kodak ASA 100) other b&w films. In color, I primarily shot slide and developed it and printed it at home (It was Cibachrome). I had a full darkroom and enjoyed the challenges of developing film, enlarging and printing. Now, the old film cameras are in a display case and I shoot Nikon Digital. I have a Nikon D7000, D7100 and D610 and love them but sometimes miss getting into the processing.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Shutterbug57 - While I like Tri-X and T-Max, the most enjoyable experience I had shooting film was during a period of my life when I had migrated to the southwest and was living in Tucson. Although I tried other cameras, my go-to camera was a Contax G1 with a 45mm f/2 lens. With help and encouragement from a club known as Tucson Camera Collectors and from a very good local lab, I experimented with different films and eventually settled on Ilford Delta 100 and 400 speed. Shooting images of Tucson’s flora, fauna and great southwestern mission architecture, I asked the lab to develop my film in such a way as to enhance the smooth warmth of the images. I guess that means, I allowed some grain, but preferred not to have the grain overwhelm the subject matter. Tucson was a city of grain, sand and grit not only in its foundation, but in the architectural styles and materials used throughout the area. That mild graininess was also evident in the common textiles and fabrics, especially those featuring vibrant Mexican and, often more subtle, Native American influence. My point is that folks’ choice of certain films may depend to some degree on the geographic area where their subjects are located. If I had been living in New York City, I might have made different choices. /Ralph Wallace

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

In the first few years of this century, Kodak tried all kinds of things, presumably to remain relevant as digital progressed. Many of them, such as CD {which you could send in to get a mediocre CD of scans of the pictures}, HD, and a black&white film using C41 chemistry, were short-lived, but Tmax seems to have acquired a market.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Fine-grain film is, and always has been, used to preserve fine detail in big enlargements.

Kodak recommended T-Max 100 as a replacement for Panatomic-X.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I shoot film regularly, and grainy images is generally not something I find desirable. Similarly, when I opt to use a digital camera, I don't do so because of a special fondness for digital noise. To me, choice of medium is primarily based on the medium's strengths, not weaknesses.

BebuLamar

I like film but don't like the grain. The finer the better.

whwiden

I like b&w film for its tonal qualities, at least as I perceive them. Particularly how one can extract detail from highlights. Properly exposed and developed, the grain is not too prominent even in 400 speed film, at least to my eye. I usually expose at a value less than box speed. However, when grain is more prominent in some shots for whatever reason, I don't worry about it as I am still getting the tones I like.

I do like Ilford 50 iso film and will use that, particularly in brighter conditions, and it is pretty clean, desireable for some types of landscapes.

But, as grain does not bother me, I do not seek out a film primarily for that reason.

In a large print with viewing distance a yard or more away, the grain is not really a factor. That is more a pixel peeper issue. I do not use tmax because I understand it is a more modern emulsion that may not be as well suited to Rodinal as other 100 speed films.

Shutterbug57

OK, so I find myself at the odd end of the thread here. I like the throw-back look of Tri-X. Different strokes I guess.

whwiden

Not odd. A classic look.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

As a photo journalist of the 70's I am happy to report that I no longer have so spend time working over corrosive chemicals for hours at a time. Two of my best photo journalists friends died in their 40's with cancer. I am not sure it was the chemicals but I am very, very, happy using post processing in the open air of my home. I will never go back to film.
I remember having to wait until my shots were developed to see the results of my early experiments. Now when I try something new I see the results in real time, and I can make the necessary adjustments to get the shot right. As for quality, my D500 blows away my Nikon film camera's. I am happy my film days are behind me. The future is digital baby.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

If you can find it tech-pan would be the finest grain film possible
It's what I shot processed into 11X14 prints and won many a competition up against 2-1/4 shooter

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Your question is a little off base. At least to historical context. All the T-max Films pre-date Digital as a popular medium. I was using, or trying to use T-Max 100 & 400 many years ago. I never really liked the negatives I obtained from them. Extra fine grain and all, but I found them nearly unprintable. Perhaps I needed a cold head enlarger or something. I've mainly shot with Kodak Plus-X or Tri-X since 1977. These days I'm slowly investigating Ilford HP5 and FP4 films. There used to be or are even finer grain films like Technical Pan (ISO 25), Panatomic-X (ISO 32), and Kodalith film.

You may be on to a few points in there, such as comparing grain to noise. Having worked with film from 35mm to 8x10" I'm fairly used to the look for film derived prints and rather like a bit of grain showing. So I'm not nearly as digital noise paranoid as many photographers today. Though "chromatic" noise is pretty annoying. And lets face it gallery and portfolio images of masters from years back have grain showing.