35mm equals 6x7!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

Gotcha. I knew you'd look.... ;-)

Actually, in the circumstances I'm about to describe, it does; that surprised me.

For quite a while when I was shooting in marginal light with 35mm I'd wondered if I'd be better off with faster film in a larger format, and then of course when shooting with the larger format I'd wondered about slower film in 35mm. Some very good results with Ilford's new Delta 400 prompted me to do a direct comparison shooting the same subject on Delta 400 35mm at EI 800 developed in Ilfosol-S 1:14 and Delta 3200 6x7 at EI 1600 developed in Ilfosol-S 1:9.

Ilfosol-S and Delta 400 seem rather well-matched. I'm using the 1:14 dilution so development times are sufficiently long in this summertime's high temperatures. Ilfosol-S has given the finest grain and best sharpness I've seen with Delta 3200, while the real speed is a little lower than DD-X etc.

Delta 400 at EI 800 and Delta 3200 at EI 1600 fairly closely match in curve shape, densities etc, but charts and graphs aren't where it's at for this comparison. I photographed a real live human being at f2 in 35mm and f2.8 in 6x7.

The resulting 8x10 prints are a bit of a shock. They're just about identical. Tonal rendition, grain, sharpness, "clarity"....are virtually the same.

The bottom line is that I've found that while I won't lose anything by shooting in either format, I won't gain anything by shooting 6x7 D3200 at EI 1600, while otoh with 35mm D400 at EI 800 I'd gain using a much smaller, lighter, faster-to-work-with camera. I'll extrapolate that shooting 6x4.5 or 6x6 (cropping) would give _worse_ results than 35mm.

And that just plain amazes me.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 01, 2001

Answers

It's surprising a bit, but not beyond a reasonable understanding... This result is useful for wedding, etc.

Similar comparison could also be made for a little modest case. Delta 400 at EI 400 in 35mm compared to HP5+ at EI 800 in 6x7, etc. Do you have similar result, or some speculation?

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), September 02, 2001.


John;

You are correct for situations with low light, due to the ever- increasing quality of film. I can get results with Fuji Provia F and my good lenses that are indistinguishable from pix from my Rollei or Mamiya 645 with other films.

BUT, given 645 and Provia F 120, the results push 4x5 right?

Ah progress and bigger and bigger prints.

Thanks for doing the leg work. Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), September 02, 2001.


> Delta 400 at EI 400 in 35mm compared to HP5+ at EI 800 in 6x7, etc.

That's a comparison I haven't done...otoh I'd be inclined to use Delta 400 120 at EI 800 rather than HP5+ unless Delta 400 wasn't available or I had a lot of HP5+. My speculation is that 6x7 HP5+ pushed in a PQ developer would show better grain, sharpness etc than Delta 400 in 35mm.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 02, 2001.


John, I am trying to understand your thesis. if I should use a slower and finer grained film with 35mm, I can duplicate these results using a faster, grainier, yet larger formatted film in 6x7? or, an 8x10 produced by a fine grained 35mm negative, can be duplicated by finding a sufficiently inferior film in 6x7? makes sense, and I should be able to find, possibly, a film of such poor quality that my 8x10 negatives will yield contact prints of the same quality.

the hypothesis is skewed by the process parameters. set your target print size larger and ultimate magnification becomes a large contributor. methinks, the deck is unfairly stacked as you play it.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 02, 2001.


> John, I am trying to understand your thesis. if I should use a slower and finer grained film with 35mm, I can duplicate these results using a faster, grainier, yet larger formatted film in 6x7? or, an 8x10 produced by a fine grained 35mm negative, can be duplicated by finding a sufficiently inferior film in 6x7? makes sense

Yep, that's the gist of it. Or let me explain differently; in the past I found that going to Delta 3200 in 6x7 for EI 1600 was worthwhile, even with a max lens aperture of f2.8 (compared to f2 in 35mm) and gave somewhat better quality overall than HP5+ in 35mm at EI 800 for the same print sizes. Or to state it differently, D3200 in 6x7 at EI 1600 and f2.8 was superior to HP5+ at EI 800 in 35mm at f2, with the intent of maintaining the same minimum shutter speed.

It appears to me that new Delta 400 has changed that imbalance; I obtained equal overall print quality.

I realize the parameters are rather narrow, but they reflect the situation I shoot in a lot.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 02, 2001.



I just came out of the darkroom and the new Delta 400 negatives are beautiful. EI250, Ilford Ilfolsol S, 1:9, 9:30 minutes at 68 degrees. that combination is fast, probably rate it EI320 next time. I was running a test on my new Zeiss 110FE f2, and made identical images on Kodak TXP EI250. using HC110B, there looks to be a healthy 2/3 stop difference. Delta 400 is the faster, and I like the grain better. and, it is scanning delightfully well. now, if Ilford would only beef up the base to 4.7-mil to match TMax.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 02, 2001.

> negatives are beautiful.

Yes, I'm more impressed with it the more I print it.

> that combination is fast

FWIW I got 1/3 stop faster than HP5+ in Ilfosol-S.

> if Ilford would only beef up the base to 4.7-mil to match TMax.

I agree; one roll put a big fight going onto a Jobo reel tonight. It's a bit too thin and springy.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 02, 2001.


John, thanks for your comment.

So do you mean that Delta 400 pushes to EI 800 just as well as HP5+ does? My idiot camera film has been HP5+ developed in ID-11 1+1 or sometimes Microphen 1+1, but it sounds like Delta 400 is just as good for such a purpose now?

Also, what's special about Ilfosol-S? Now you are using it for pushing films and processing Delta 3200. It it really suited for such a job, compared to your (used to be?) favourite D-76H and Microphen?

I usually prefer chemicals whose formulae are published and I know what's in it, but if Ilfosol-S is so special, I might try it some day. (Some people say it's not phenidone but ascorbate formula, some say phenidone is in it but it's such a small amount that it is not listed in MSDS, etc.)

-- Ryuji Suzuki (rsuzuki@rs.cncdsl.com), September 03, 2001.


> So do you mean that Delta 400 pushes to EI 800 just as well as HP5+ does?

In my so-far brief experience with it, I think it pushes at least as well and probably better. I've never been very happy with pushed HP5+; it's always appeared slightly too gritty and slightly too thin, even when developed in Microphen or DD-X. These effects certainly aren't severe or obvious but just enough to make me hope for and look for better results.

Also I think part of the difference is the curve shape; while HP5+ gives dead-straight curve shapes in most developers I've tried, Delta 400 shows a fairly strong shoulder that makes bright highlights easier to print or burn in, especially when it's pushed a little. I get that shoulder with both D-76H and Ilfosol-S.

> Also, what's special about Ilfosol-S?

I got to thinking about Xtol and some of the advantages of it and recalled that Ilfosol-S is a PQ/ascorbate developer and thought that maybe it would give some of the positive aspects of Xtol without the "dreaded Xtol failure."

My first try was with HP5+; results were essentially the same as I've been getting with D-76H. I didn't see any significant advantages.

Another thread led me to take a look at D3200 at slow speeds, something I'd never explored before. It worked ok at EI 800-1000 in D-76H with very nice tonality but was so gritty I'd never want to use it in 35mm. While I was messing around I tried it in Ilfosol-S 1:9 and was shocked; it was still pretty grainy but _lots_ better than in D-76H and actually looks very much like TX 30 years ago.

> Now you are using it for pushing films and processing Delta 3200. It it really suited for such a job, compared to your (used to be?) favourite D-76H and Microphen?

I don't think it's suitable for more than perhaps a one-stop push; there's really no gain in "real" speed so it's still simply a situation of underexposure and overdevelopment but it appears that the "cost" in terms of graininess and loss of sharpness is slightly lower than using Microphen or DD-X.

D3200 is special; for EI 1600 I think the decreased graininess is a worthwhile tradeoff for the slower "real" speed compared to Microphen or DD-X, while above that I think too much shadow density would be lost. Fortunately, above that I rarely go.

> I usually prefer chemicals whose formulae are published and I know what's in it

I do too, and like to avoid the trap of entirely depending on a chemical that may suddenly become unavailable.

I was going to refer you to a pdf doc on Ilford's web site that listed Phenidone, hydroquinone and ascorbate in Ilfosol-S but the page has been changed and unfortunately the only film developer doc listed now is for DD-X.

You can tell it's late summertime here in Florida; too hot and muggy to go outside much unless it's raining so it's a good time to be fiddling around in the air-conditioned darkroom. ;-)

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 03, 2001.


John, How does the new Delta 400 do with shadow detail at EI 400? I'm used to the good shadow detail that TriX provides, but since I switched to XTOL a year ago, my big enlargements don't seem to have the crispness that they used to (in HC110B). I could just return to HC110, of course, but I like the tonal smoothness that XTOL (1:1) provides. However, I am potentially interested in D400. I gave APX400 a try, at the suggestion of John Browlow. It does have a tighter grain structure in XTOL, but the shadows are just too weak for conventional printing (he loves it for the way it scans). It seems to be a curve-shape problem rather than underexposure, at least in my hands. How does D400 compare to TriX rated normally, in your opinion? Thanks!

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), September 04, 2001.


> D400 compare to TriX

I can't answer that one; I haven't used TX in at least 20 years.

In D-76H and Ilfosol-S I find Delta 400's EI 400 rating to be valid with normal development. To be specific, EI 400 in D-76H 1:1 and EI 500 in Ilfosol-S 1:14, but that 1/3 stop difference might just be an error or variation; I ignore it and just shoot at EI 400.

Shadow density and contrast are about the same as HP5+ in those developers, and my results show that new Delta 400 is at least 2/3 stop faster than old Delta 400. Also it doesn't have the decreased red sensitivity that made me dislike old Delta 400.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 04, 2001.


I've been fighting/loving new Delta 400 since it came out. I've had quite good results and some very bad ones as well. To me it seems much more sensitive to technique than most other films. Its so different from D100 or the old D400. Generally the problems I've had have been with highlights blocking up to densities that are unscannable and unprintable. I've done some experiments with very short times in DDX and Xtol followed by a sodium metaborate bath as a sort of divided developer with some OK results. Also DiXactol in its one and two bath versions. Good in MF but a bit crunchy in 35mm. What seems to work best for me so far is DDX diluted 1+9 (one-to-nine), minimal agitation and development times. This film is really spectacular in MF rated at 400 or 800 using DDX 1+9. Its looking nice in 35mm as well. I think its going to be my standard fast film.

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), September 05, 2001.

Thanks, John, for completing such a test- i was curious as to the results myself.

I think it would be worth noting that 35mm lenses generally have much higher resolution than medium format, and definitely large format-

THE CLOSER THE LENS IS TO THE FILM, GENERALLY THE SHARPER IT CAN BE DESIGNED- Carl Zeiss' 80/2.8 for the 6x6 can't reach half the resolution of a Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 for 35mm.(Test results by Popular Photography, Nov.'95, pg.82,83; LENSES @ f/8, Tmax 100; Zeiss 50/1.4 = 110 lines/mm, 80/2.8 = 47 lines/mm.

Obviously grain size would keep us from taking the above to an extreme- but presents the question for me-

What is the Ideal Format?

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), September 05, 2001.


> What is the Ideal Format?

If you have the answer, tell me! ;-)

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 06, 2001.


Henry, unlike HP5+, Delta 100, the old Delta 400 and TMX, all of which usually have a straight-line curve shape _way_ out there, the curves I'm getting with new Delta 400 show a pretty strong shoulder above about Zone IX or so; I'm wondering if what you're seeing isn't excess density but true blocking. By blocking I mean that contrast goes pretty low, and without contrast there isn't detail.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 06, 2001.


I have no commentary to add to the main subject, but...

"Ideal format" used to mean 6x9cm (2-1/4 x 3-1/4in), either on 120 rollfilm, or on sheet film as in small Speed Graphics, Lihhofs, etc. I think the idea was that that negative size was a reasonable compromise between small-camera convenience and large sheet-film neg quality. Also, it could crop nicely to a variety of aspect ratios.

I believe the term was popular back in the 50s, when most pros (apart from those photojournalists using Rolleiflexes and Leicas) were still using 4x5 cameras for nearly everything important. Of course, with today's films and lenses, a 6x9cm negative contains the amount of detail you needed a big 5x7 or 8x10 negative for back in those days...

-- Michael Goldfarb (mgoldfar@mobius.com), September 06, 2001.


Hi John,

I think you may be right when you say, "the curves I'm getting with new Delta 400 show a pretty strong shoulder above about Zone IX or so" I have not done formal tests, rather a lot of informal (semiformal?) ones and the result is that I found that being really careful to NOT overdevelop/overexpose this film gives me better results.

But being really careful is not how I always use 400 speed film in 35mm. I expect it to do anything I want, when I want, with minimal hassle - I ask a lot from it. (too much sometimes, I guess)

I just hung to dry some 35mm D400 shot at 400 developed in Divided D76. They look good wet. I'll write again after I have a better look at them.

btw:I enjoy reading your posts.

Henry

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), September 09, 2001.


> careful to NOT overdevelop/overexpose this film

I know what you mean. I think for me it'll turn out to be Delta 400 for some types of work and HP5+ for others. It's awfully nice to have such a choice. ;-)

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 10, 2001.


Henry,

Just read your response in which you say that you use New Delta 400 in DDX at 1+9 (one measure of DDX to 9 measures of water). Have you got dev times for this at various speeds? - I only have the 1+4 times published widely.

-- Ed Hurst (BullMoo@hotmail.com), September 14, 2001.


DDX 1+9: Here are the specifics on DDX 1 part + 9 parts distilled water. New Delta 400 rated at 400, 72 degrees F for 10 minutes, rated at 800 - 12 minutes.30 secs. initial agitation, 1 inversion each minute (simply turn it over, then put it down).One roll in a 2 roll tank with enough developer to cover the one roll.

Divided D76: I've scanned the Delta 400 (rated at 400) I developed in Divided D76 (from The Darkroom Cookbook) and its really nice. This appears to be a useful method for controlling high contrast and may be good for general use as well.

I mix this by teaspoon measure. For a liter (or quart) of each part mix at 110 degrees F using distilled water: Part A is 1 tsp Metol, 6 tsp Sodium Sulfite. Part B is 6 tsp Sodium Sulfite, 1.25 tsp Borax. Develop for 5 minutes in Part A, pour that off (no stop or rinse) then pour in Part B give it 5 minutes in that. In both solutions I agitate for the first 30 secs. then once a minute. Let us hear how this works for you if you try it.

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), September 14, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ