Maybe a broad question, but the holy grail for me lately has been sharpness, rather, accutance, by which I mean an image which is 'crispy', with sharp separation between points of contrast. What, in general, affects sharpness? For example, over exposure degrades sharpness; handholding does too. Pyro typically aids in getting sharper negatives, as does Rodinal; but most fine-grain developers do not. Enlargement is a big factor, but I have seen 11x14 enlargements from 35mm sharper than anything I've ever printed in 6x7.

From a material/chemical/technical PoV., what has aided you the most in achieving sharp images, especially in 35mm, the format where sharpness seems to matter the most because of its ultimate limitations (i.e., enlargement ability...)?

Please comment however you see fit...

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), May 30, 2000

Answers

Shawn,

In addition to all the sharpness enhancing in-camera techniques you've mentioned (proper focus, optimum lens aperture, solid tripod, correct exposure, MU, cable release, and so on), and also later choosing the proper developer for your film, I've found that a slightly thin, underdeveloped negative gives greater sharpness. Good luck, Sergio.

-- Sergio Ortega (s.ortega@worldnet.att.net), May 30, 2000.

I went through this same thing recently (OK, the last decade) and the answer for me was to stop using t-grain films. That may go against conventional wisdom, but that's what it took. I'm now using FP4+ and am very pleased. The next part of the equation was higher dilution of the developer (XTOL 1:3) and less agitation- 10/60 instead of 5/30. Until this change I was beginning to questiont the quality of my optics. Making the change was like getting a whole new set of lenses. Also, shoot and print nearly full frame, but you already knew that :-)

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), May 30, 2000.

Get The Film Developing Cookbook by Bill Troop and Steve Anchell. You deserve it, especially asking a question like this. (You will appreciate it.)

I agree than standard emulsions (Tri-X, Verichrome, HP5+, FP4+, Agfa Pan, etc.) are better than modern emulsons (TMax & Delta). The Book above will explain it better than I can.

I'm trying divided D76. I'm tired of fussing over developers, and the divided formulas are supposed to give fine grain, slight compensation, and guaranteed-not-to-over-develop results. Oh, and sharp images, too. And less concern over exact agitation procedures. My first results seem to agree with these promises.

And don't forget all the things mentioned above.

High acutance developers (non-solvent) tend to create edge effects, which sharply deliniate between areas of different intensities. The developers include: FX1, FX2, Neofin Blue, Rodinal, HC110, and Xtol when diluted 1:3 and PMK. Higher dilutions increase the effect. Agitation reduces the effect.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), May 30, 2000.

> stop using t-grain films

That's been my solution too, when possible. It's disgusting to have a dead-sharp 4x5 TMX neg that just doesn't show much apparent sharpness in a print.

Exceptions for me are Delta 100 (in D-76H 1:1 or 1:3) and Delta 3200 when I need more speed than pushed HP5+ can reasonably give.

Of course the usual rules apply; use a tripod, lock up the mirror if there is one, make sure the shutter speed's fast enough to arrest subject movement, use the slowest film feasible, don't grossly overexpose, make sure the enlarger's properly aligned etc.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), May 30, 2000.

Also make sure your enlarger is rock solid. On many of the enlargers the column will sway or vibrate slightly. Bolting it to the wall helps, but only if your wall does not vibrate, like from heavy traffic on the street etc...

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), May 31, 2000.

I find it interesting that people say conventional films are sharper than the T-grain films. Anybody have any idea why? Is it a matter of perceived sharpness rather than fine grain?

There is a lot about acutance, how to measure it, and how to achieve it, in Richard Henry's CONTROLS IN BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY (2nd Edition, Focal Press, 1988).

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), May 31, 2000.

Yeah, from a common sense place, t-grained films should be sharper, and from what I have seen (only a few years experience, remember...) they are sharper in one sense, but they appear less sharp than some traditional combos to the eye. I'm willing to be nailed as wrong here, but I have only gotten very sharp (to my eye) TMY negs once, and they were WAY sharper than anything old tech.

One thing I'd like to touch on is another question: how come no other emulsions have even come close to matching the resolving power of Technical Pan? There is more than double the resolution with TP over some of the highest-tech films in use today? And how does resolution relate to acutance? I'm sure they are related deeply, if my prints tell anything...

Charlie: with PMK, I use a 2-3sec every 15 sec. agitation cycle...would my images be sharper switching to 20sec? Why? Does it have something to do with infectious development or one of those other slightly esoteric problems?

-- shawn (shawngibson_prophoto@yahoo.com), May 31, 2000.

I think conventional films give more easily edge effects in developer - Conrad said already that dilute developer and less agitation enhances effects. Increased edge contrast makes prints to look out sharper, even if they actually aren't.

Sakari

-- Sakari Makela (sakari.makela@koulut.vantaa.fi), May 31, 2000.

T-grain films have higher RP but lower acutance so don't look as sharp when printed. This can be countered to some extent by using a developer that has lower sulfite content than "standard" developers and using it at higher dilution, or at least dilute a standard developer more than is commonly done.

My suggestions are Rodinal 1:50, D-76 1:3 or even DD-X or T-Max at double or triple the recommended dilution, of course with correspondingly extended development times.

Tech Pan is something else entirely; that film and Technidol are offshoots of the old H&W Control films and developers used by the USN for aerial surveillance photography back in the '70s.

H&W VTE was a high-contrast copy film similar to Kodak's copy film; in fact they could be used interchangeably. VTE Ultra was an Agfa microfilm. The H&W developer was POTA sold in vials rather than u-mix-it.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), May 31, 2000.

John,

I thought the acutance issue pretty much disappeared with a 4x5 neg (based on Anchell's microcontrast explanation)- can you really detect less visual sharpness for normal (8x10) prints?

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), May 31, 2000.

I often copy line drawings with 6x6 TMX developed in 1+2 Xtol. The results are plenty sharp. Fine details I need a magnifier to see on an 11x14 print.

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), June 01, 2000.

> I thought the acutance issue pretty much disappeared with a 4x5 neg

No, not to me. For example, my prints from HP5+ negs look "sharper" than those from Delta 100 etc simply because there's that almost-invisible "toothiness" of the grain; the prints from the slower films are of course really sharper.

In the same way, an 8x10 from 4x5 HP5+ looks sharper than an 8x10 contact from 8x10 HP5+ although the contact is really sharper.

The differences are _much_ less apparent than smaller formats.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), June 01, 2000.

Grain does contribute to the impression of sharpness (or "snap"). Of course, after a certain point grain works against that impression -- the picture begins to fall apart, which isn't in itself necessarily undesirable.

-- Christopher Hargens (ldmr@cruzio.com), June 02, 2000.