Digital BW, The Print

Modern fast films (400, 800 ei) offer incredibly high resolution, but
so did the fast films of yesteryear, such as TriX and Ilford HP3/4,
when rated normally or pushed a stop or two, processed reasonably well
in common developers. Personally, I love Fuji Neopan 400 and I rate it
at 800 in Rodinal...extremely high resolution and/but the grain is
sharply defined by my scanner. 

If you're seeing detail resolution differences between film speeds I
think something other than exposure index is the problem. For example,
something about the development of your faster film could be causing
lots of grain or even reticulation, which could hurt resolution. On
the other hand, people wanting speed have often been encouraged to use
B&W developers that "dissolve grain" (with sodium sulfite,
specifically) and these do reduce resolution...sodium sulfite does
hurt resolution, but some people hate grain so much that they don't
mind losing a little detail. 

If you're seeing resolution differences in small size prints, such as
letter-size, something other than film choice is probably the culprit.

The fact that you mentioned 200ei, a now-uncommon film speed that was
recently popular in Walmart etc (good film..I shot a lot of it) 
suggests you're comparing a modern high resolution color negative film
(or C41 B&W film) with something that's lower resolution, and not
lower just because of speed. The C41-processed color and B&W films are
exceptionally high resolution, though not necessarily as attractive as 
silver-based films, and well processed silver based films can easily
"look" sharper because of sharply defined silver grain. 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, <lipshurt@...> wrote:
>
> this is a very dumb question I am sure, but I have been digital for
a long time and never seriously used film.  When I was a kid we had a
darkroom at the house but only printed 4x6. I do not remember the size
of the grain at various ISO's. I just started getting into film with a
nice rangefinder and am surprised that ISO 400 has less resolving
power that ISO 200. Is that correct? I did not think there would that
big of a diference. I am scanning at 3200 DPI which works great at ISO
200 but everyting is much softer at ISO 400. Is that normal? Thanks
putting up with me...Doug M
>