ironringer Posted March 25, 2014 Share #1 Posted March 25, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is my first post to the Film Forum, and I hope to benefit from your experience and knowledge. I started using my first Leica (a serviced 1954 IIIf with 5 cm Summitar and 5 cm Elmar lenses) three months ago, and just received my first scanned roll of Agfa's Retro 400S film. To me it delivers hard contrast images, unlike the medium contrast (many shades of grey) that I THINK I remember from using Kodak Plus-X over 40 years ago. Can Leica film uers recommend the next B&W films I could try, that have lower contrast? How do Kodak's TMax (100 and 400) and the veteran 400TX (I assume this is similar to their old Tri-X film) perform, for contrast, resolution, and exposure latitude? All advice is appreciated, thank you. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/224182-medium-contrast-35mm-bw-recommendations/?do=findComment&comment=2556208'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Hi ironringer, Take a look here Medium contrast 35mm B&W recommendations?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Les_Sismore Posted March 25, 2014 Share #2 Posted March 25, 2014 FOMA Fomapan 100 Classic (100 ASA) might be what you are looking for. Develop in R09 diluted 1:50 for eight and a half minutes at 20 deg C (small tank, inversion agitation as per film instruction/data sheet). Hope this helps! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted March 25, 2014 Share #3 Posted March 25, 2014 Do you give your film away for development? I this case I would assume, that their development won't fit for your film. In large labs they normally use only one standard development for all B & W films. For some few films this might work well, for all others not. If you develop the films yourself then shorten the development time. If you give your films away, then you have to find a film that fits with the lab. Maybe they could give you an advice which film give good results with their process. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
klaush Posted March 25, 2014 Share #4 Posted March 25, 2014 Use Tri-X. 200 ISO D-76 1+1 Develop about 8 min at 20 degree Celsius shake twice in one minute for 5 s Regards, Klaush Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted March 25, 2014 Share #5 Posted March 25, 2014 Generally speaking ironringer you want a slower film for richer smoother tones, so perhaps Ilford FP4 (similar to Plus-X) would be a good choice. This can be developed in almost any developer and retains its characteristics in most so it should be a good match if you are sending it away. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xalo Posted March 25, 2014 Share #6 Posted March 25, 2014 ironringer, you might might want to check if the negatifs are really that hard or if it's just the scan and interpretation by the lab —*to allow for post production to your taste, raw scans should normally rather stay on the "flat" side, contrastwise. Otherwise, if its the film, I'd agree to FP4. But many films (especially pulled) can be developed and scanned to hold more mid tones than you were delivered. The easiest if you rely on commercial labs may be chromogenic b&w films like Ilford XP2, developed in usual colour negative chemistry C-41. Huge latitude, no characteristic grain though. Alexander Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted March 25, 2014 Share #7 Posted March 25, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would also suggest FP4 for medium contrast but as mentioned with a scanned image there are many other variables at play. I also think the subject image is going to look contrasty, being snow, trees and buildings. I don't think it actually looks overdone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted March 25, 2014 Share #8 Posted March 25, 2014 The trick with above Rollei Retro 400S (Agfa Gevaert Aviphot 200) is to use the film on nominal speed which is iso 160-200 and develop in a medium or low contrast (semi-compensating) type developer. This aviation type emulsion has extended Red sensitivity and is going up in contrast more quickly. Image1-10, C.V. Bessa III 667 by Fotohuis (Robert), on Flickr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironringer Posted March 25, 2014 Author Share #9 Posted March 25, 2014 Thank you B&W film users for your suggestions. I rely on a local photo lab (Camtec) from whom I purchased the Agfa Retro 400S, and they processed and scanned it. I will ask them if they use the optimum, or a generic, chemicals & process for this film. I will also ask them to suggest softer-contrast film that they can process to retain the greys. And I will review the negatives with them, to see if the scan process adds contrast. There is much to learn,and I will try an Ilford film next. Dank U wel fotohuis, for sharing the lovely picture from Holland; is that a modern scene that looks like it was taken many years ago? Where was it taken? Tot ziens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 25, 2014 Share #10 Posted March 25, 2014 I agree 200iso for the retro is better, it is not an "easy" film and not one to start with. I would guess the lab will be more tuned to Tri-x or HP5+ if you want 400 iso, the Tmax films whilst capable of outstanding results can be unforgiving of exposure error. Iagree to use the c41 products if sending out they give you more options ie local mimi labs and are very tolerant of exposure. What have you been doing in the last three months if this is the first film, not colour I hope :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotomas Posted March 25, 2014 Share #11 Posted March 25, 2014 Missed that this is also an aerial film. Confused it with the normal Rollei 400. Now I agree with Fotohuis. This aerial films have a much higher contrast to compensate the haze in the air. There not really suitable for normal photography except if there is fog. Only tried the Rollei Retro 80S of this kind. In normal development it turns out much to hard. After I overexpose it at 32 ASA and use a special compensating developer* it turned out fine. But with 32 ASA instead of 80. * a Caffenol derivate in my case. Frank Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotohuis Posted March 26, 2014 Share #12 Posted March 26, 2014 Caffenol is also a low contrast type developer. Dank U wel fotohuis, for sharing the lovely picture from Holland; is that a modern scene that looks like it was taken many years ago? Where was it taken? Tot ziens. It has been taken in Ravenstein, my home town in the Netherlands. It is a scan from a fiber print made on Retro 400S. Another one, also on Retro 400S. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted March 26, 2014 Share #13 Posted March 26, 2014 @250iso D23, C Sonnar 50mm f1.5, M2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.