Help me finding a film

[runes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wasn't really sure what to call this post. English is not my first language, but hopefully you'll understand what I mean. Here's the story:

 

As I'm in my forties, I've shot more film than digital in my life, but not so much B/W. The B/W I've shot have mostly been Neopan 400 and 1600, and I feel that I know those films and their characteristics.

 

A couple of months ago I bought an M6 and used it on my journey through Southern Europe this summer. The films I used was Ilford Pan F Plus, Ilford FP4 plus, Ilford HP5 Plus and Kodak TriX.

 

I do not develop my own films. I might start doing it, but not now. However I am so lucky that I have a shop that develops by hand, and I can give them special instructions. They only use Rodinal, but I can request the dilution to be 1:25, 1:50 or 1:100; how long they should develop it, and so on. As I really doesn't know much about developing, I've let them decide everything so far.

 

When I got the films from this summer vacations back I could easily the differences in the different emulsions:

 

Pan F: I loved the pictures shot with this film. The dynamic range is great. Blacks aren't just black, and white not just white.

 

FP4 and HP5: They were both too contrasty for my liking. It almost looks like there is only one black, and that is all black, the same with white.

 

TriX: Most of the pictures were great, but a few of them were to contrasty - with a look almost reminding me of FP4.

 

All of the films were developed with a 1:50 dilution - the Pan F for 12 min, the FP4 for 18 min, the HP5 for 11 min and the TriX for 14 min.

 

So my questions are:

 

- Are there any faster films available with the same look and characteristics as Pan F?

- Would the contrast/look of the FP4 and HP5 be different with a different dilution or different time?

- As I (for the moment) have to use Rodinal - are there any films that works great with Rodinal, and aren't too contrasty?

[dave_d]

As far as faster films with the look of Pan F, you could try a ISO 100 or 400 T-grain film like Kodak Tmax or Ilford Delta. These films don't look exactly like Pan F but they are a finer grain than a traditional emulsion like HP5 and Tri-x.

 

Development time will alter film contrast, more development more contrast, less development less contrast. Dilution won't have a direct change in contrast unless you don't change your development time which you normally would not do.

 

Rodinal is a great developer and any film would work well with it. Rodinal is a non-solvent developer that will give you a little more grain and sharpness. D76 and Xtol will give you less grain than Rodinal if you want to change developer. Contrast is a direct result of development time as mentioned above not necessarily your film/developer combination. If you negatives have too much contrast reduce development. The recommended development time by the manufactures are a starting point and not an absolute.

 

It sounds like your experience with processing film is limited. I recommend sticking with one film and one developer until you learn the combination well before you start changing things up. Sticking with one film and one developer will allow you to see the results of changes you make in exposure and development and will shorten your learning curve.

[Michael Hiles]

As I was preparing my thoughts, Dave posted essentially what I was thinking.

 

Rodinal is at its best with slower films, e.g. Pan F. With faster films it tends to accentuate grain, and this shows up with Tri-X, and maybe HP5. It always (in my experience) favours sharpness.

 

As long as you are giving the correct exposure, contrast is determined by development. I don’t know whether the times you quoted are right – in my opinion the only way to know is to test in an organized way. I think charts and fact sheets are a place to start – but there is lots of room to adjust to what you need and like. Your ideal time could easily be +/- 20%.

 

You have not mentioned Ilford’s Delta films. The results I have seen from Delta 100 (my son-in-law uses it extensively) are pretty impressive – fine grain, outstanding sharpness and good long tones. He has it processed in Rodinal.

 

I agree with Dave - think about sticking with one film for a while. Learn its profile and characteristics. Take time to properly test and get the technicalities (ASA and development time) down pat. Then you will have an organized body of knowledge.

[BobYIL]

Some insightful recommendations above.. Generally some higher speed films like the HP5+ and Tri-X should provide with you long gradations and well-controlled contrast even with conventional developers like the D76 (ID-11). Rate at nominal ISO and develop in regular times recommended by the manufacturer, or for a little longer gradation ISO 320 with 10-15% shorter development time works wonders. Rodinal is fine for slow and medium speed films, razor sharp but coarse grain, if you cut development short to control contrast then you may not get white-whites Rodinal is known for. Bear in mind, for regular development the higher speed films provide easier tone-control than the low-speed ones, more forgiving latitude. The D76 is not expensive, you can try it straight or diluted 1:1, at least for better contrast control than you achieved with Rodinal.

[Messsucherkamera]

You seem to be in search of a film with a faster ISO than 400 but a film that is not excessively contrasty.

 

Some claim that Ilford HP5+ is very similar to Tri-X but is less contrasty. I cannot confirm this as I have not shot enough HP5+ to offer a good commentary on that point.

 

My favorite B&W film is Kodak Tri-X. I almost always expose it at ISO 400 and am pleased with its performance. It can get to be rather contrasty in direct sunlight, I must admit but I like the bite of the contrast when paired with the long gray scale that Tri-X is known for. I did some experimental ISO 1600 shooting of Tri-X and found the results to be quite nice - very smooth looking prints with a tad lower contrast than Tri - X exposed at ISO 400 but with nice grain size - perhaps a tiny bit larger than the ISO 400 negs but not objectionable in size.

 

Those are my experiences with Tri-X. It is a great film but is sometimes overlooked, particularly hy the tabular grain emulsion adherants. Don't disregard Tri -X just because it is an old technology film. It still gets the job done in fine fashion.

[250swb]

I don't think this is a question about one film being more contrasty than another, but about the guy doing the processing. The fact that the shop only uses Rodinal should be an alarm call as it certainly is not the best developer for all films.

 

HP5 and FP4 have a wide mid-tone range and this should be reflected in the quality of the negative unless you have specifically asked for a higher contrast result. The times you give for processing at 1+50 are not wide of the mark, so I suspect some other error, like temperature or over agitation. But you don't say how you are judging the negatives, just by looking at them, or the results from prints or scans? If so it may be the scans that are too contrasty or the paper grade used for printing is too high.

 

Steve

[runes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the replies.

 

Development time will alter film contrast, more development more contrast, less development less contrast. Dilution won't have a direct change in contrast unless you don't change your development time which you normally would not do.

 

Rodinal is a great developer and any film would work well with it. Rodinal is a non-solvent developer that will give you a little more grain and sharpness. D76 and Xtol will give you less grain than Rodinal if you want to change developer. Contrast is a direct result of development time as mentioned above not necessarily your film/developer combination. If you negatives have too much contrast reduce development. The recommended development time by the manufactures are a starting point and not an absolute.

 

It sounds like your experience with processing film is limited. I recommend sticking with one film and one developer until you learn the combination well before you start changing things up. Sticking with one film and one developer will allow you to see the results of changes you make in exposure and development and will shorten your learning curve.

 

Thank you for an easily understood post on processing and contrast. The tip about staying with one film and one developer for a start also sounds smart, though I will probably be using two films for different situations - TriX and Pan F.

 

Don't disregard Tri -X just because it is an old technology film. It still gets the job done in fine fashion.

 

I will continue to use TriX, as I really liked it (besides the few pics that were a bit too contrasty), but the problem was probably my mistakes (like shooting midday, midsummer in Venezia) and not shortcomings of the film.

 

 

I don't think this is a question about one film being more contrasty than another, but about the guy doing the processing. The fact that the shop only uses Rodinal should be an alarm call as it certainly is not the best developer for all films.

 

HP5 and FP4 have a wide mid-tone range and this should be reflected in the quality of the negative unless you have specifically asked for a higher contrast result. The times you give for processing at 1+50 are not wide of the mark, so I suspect some other error, like temperature or over agitation. But you don't say how you are judging the negatives, just by looking at them, or the results from prints or scans? If so it may be the scans that are too contrasty or the paper grade used for printing is too high.

 

As I don't have a light table, and not much experience interpreting B/W negatives, I have studied the scans so it might be the scans that are too contrasty. About the shop only using Rodinal, I suppose I have to just live with it. There's hardly any shops developing B/W here in Norway, so I'm just happy that I found anyone doing it for an OK price. I used to send the films abroad, which always made me nervous.

 

The best thing to do is obviously to develop my own films. I'm waiting for the Plustek OpticFilm 120. If it is priced reasonably I might start doing my own developing.

 

Anyways, thanks for all the replies (so far).

[runes]

I've included some photos. These are the original scans. No cropping or photoshopping or anything. I've only reduced the size to make them fit the forum.

 

First of all two photos show with Pan F. I find it hard to explain exactly what I like about the film, but there is something with the greys.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

Then two shots with TriX. The first one I like, the other one not so much. But as I wrote in the last post - shooting midday, midsummer in Venezia is probably not the best thing to do.

 

 

 

The last one is shot with FP4. This is also shot midday in the south of France, so with the strong sun it's not so strange that is quite contrasty.

 

 

I don't know if the differences is all my head, or if it is visible to anybody else. Anyway I have more or less decided to stick with PanF and TriX to learn the characteristics of those two before I (maybe) change to some other films.

[Messsucherkamera]

@ runes, you could do a heck of alot worse than Pan F and Tri-X. Your strategy of sticking with a couple of emulsions and learning how they work and what they are capable of is a wise approach.

 

If I may offer commentary, the second Tri-X image (dog emerging from the shadows) is a bit visually jarring due to the bright sunlight on the light colored walls. IMHO, the brightness is at fault there, not the emulsion.

 

Given that there is in general 3 to 3 1/2 EV difference between direct sunlight and shadow (in my geographical location, anyway - YMMV) it really is pretty remarkable that there is any detail at all in the light colored walls. There is good detail in the shadow areas except for the very darkest shadows - and still the light walls retain detail. There is a bit of detail wash out in the hottest areas of the highlights ( the worst of it being on the left) but there's alot of texture to be seen in the highlights nonetheless.

 

Moral of the story: Tri-X is a film not to be dismissed lightly. It can still haul the mail, so to speak.

[runes]

If I may offer commentary, the second Tri-X image (dog emerging from the shadows) is a bit visually jarring due to the bright sunlight on the light colored walls. IMHO, the brightness is at fault there, not the emulsion.

 

Given that there is in general 3 to 3 1/2 EV difference between direct sunlight and shadow (in my geographical location, anyway - YMMV) it really is pretty remarkable that there is any detail at all in the light colored walls. There is good detail in the shadow areas except for the very darkest shadows - and still the light walls retain detail. There is a bit of detail wash out in the hottest areas of the highlights ( the worst of it being on the left) but there's alot of texture to be seen in the highlights nonetheless.

 

Hi Mess., and thank you for taking the time to help and comment.

 

The reason I included the pic of the dog was to show my "mistakes", not the shortcomings of TriX. Unfortunately that wasn't as clear as I wanted to, but it was what I meant to say when i wrote:

 

The first one I like, the other one not so much. But as I wrote in the last post - shooting midday, midsummer in Venezia is probably not the best thing to do.

 

Looking back, I should have paid more attention during English lessons in school.

[Larcomb]

I wasn't really sure what to call this post. English is not my first language, but hopefully you'll understand what I mean. Here's the story:

 

As I'm in my forties, I've shot more film than digital in my life, but not so much B/W. The B/W I've shot have mostly been Neopan 400 and 1600, and I feel that I know those films and their characteristics.

 

A couple of months ago I bought an M6 and used it on my journey through Southern Europe this summer. The films I used was Ilford Pan F Plus, Ilford FP4 plus, Ilford HP5 Plus and Kodak TriX.

 

I do not develop my own films. I might start doing it, but not now. However I am so lucky that I have a shop that develops by hand, and I can give them special instructions. They only use Rodinal, but I can request the dilution to be 1:25, 1:50 or 1:100; how long they should develop it, and so on. As I really doesn't know much about developing, I've let them decide everything so far.

 

When I got the films from this summer vacations back I could easily the differences in the different emulsions:

 

Pan F: I loved the pictures shot with this film. The dynamic range is great. Blacks aren't just black, and white not just white.

 

FP4 and HP5: They were both too contrasty for my liking. It almost looks like there is only one black, and that is all black, the same with white.

 

TriX: Most of the pictures were great, but a few of them were to contrasty - with a look almost reminding me of FP4.

 

All of the films were developed with a 1:50 dilution - the Pan F for 12 min, the FP4 for 18 min, the HP5 for 11 min and the TriX for 14 min.

 

So my questions are:

 

- Are there any faster films available with the same look and characteristics as Pan F?

- Would the contrast/look of the FP4 and HP5 be different with a different dilution or different time?

- As I (for the moment) have to use Rodinal - are there any films that works great with Rodinal, and aren't too contrasty?

 

I would say to try Neopan 400 and Neopan Acros 100 and stick with just these two films. Pan F is no better than Acros, really, but harder to develop and with less latitude. Both of these films should have similar developing times. Two stocks is all you need.