Paul Verrips Posted August 22, 2014 Share #1 Posted August 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Dear Leica fellows, I'm going to Lisbon within 3 weeks. I bought myself a Leica M7 and will have a Summicron 50 at the end of next week. My goal is street photography. Planning to shoot black and white (with yellow filter), i prefer to shoot wide open. I think ISO 400 is to much M7 has max 1/1000), ISO 100 may better suit my goal but haven't used B&W 100 or 125 ISO for about 8 to 10 years. I dit some research and think about Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros OR Ilford FP4 125. What are you're thoughts? I will send these rolls to a serious filmlab ---> Carmencita Film Lab for developing & scanning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 22, 2014 Posted August 22, 2014 Hi Paul Verrips, Take a look here Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros OR Ilford FP4 125 ?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted August 22, 2014 Share #2 Posted August 22, 2014 I would use the Acros Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Verrips Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share #3 Posted August 22, 2014 I would use the Acros Andy, Thank you, but what is the reason for that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted August 22, 2014 Share #4 Posted August 22, 2014 Just because I don't like FP4 Acros is a very nice film Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadside Posted August 22, 2014 Share #5 Posted August 22, 2014 I vote for fp4. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted August 22, 2014 Share #6 Posted August 22, 2014 Adox CHS II 100 -- clean, beautiful film captured a very wide DR. Interestingly, it darkens reds and lightens greens so not the best for portraits. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 22, 2014 Share #7 Posted August 22, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) All mentioned are good films, I personally would go with FP4, but considering you want to use a yellow filter they will all be in the 60 ISO range, or one stop slower. This may be a bit slow for 'street' photography if any movement is to be frozen, although fine for portraits and still life. The phrase 'f/8 and be there' wasn't devised without experience of life, f/8 to allow for a decent DOF so precise focusing isn't so important, then use whatever shutter speed the film allows to freeze movement. Which is why from the 1960's on Tri-X became ubiquitous because it allowed for higher shutter speeds. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
honcho Posted August 22, 2014 Share #8 Posted August 22, 2014 Fuji Acros 100 for it's contrast and stable reciprocity character. FP4+ because it is forgiving and one of the best all round emulsions in it's sensitivity range. Delta 100 for it's excellent pictorial and scanning qualities Adox Silvermax, if you can get it processed in Adotech, because it's has it's own character and that extended tonal range. Why limit your medium speed options to just either FP4+ or Acros 100? Take some faster film too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 23, 2014 Share #9 Posted August 23, 2014 I'd just say FP4+ and Acros are very different films. A bit like narrowing one's car choice to a Morgan vs. a Mercedes. FP4+ is an "old-school" low-tech cubic-grain film, like (but not exactly like) Plus-X or Agfapan 100. A history dating to the 1930s. Relatively grainy and a touch soft but forgiving and with smooth tonal transitions. At one point, the FP series used two emulsion layers - one fast, large grain and one slow, fine-grain, to maximize latitude. I don't know if Ilford/Harman still does that in FP4+. Acros is more in the vein of TMax 100 - high-tech tablet grains, fine-grained and sharp, but somewhat high-strung as to exposure and processing leeway. Ilford Delta 100 (in my experience) falls between the two - delta grain technology that splits the difference between Tmax's precision and pickiness and FP4's latitude and softness. For my own work I go the Acros/TMax route - but for street pictures, FP4+ probably can handle random lighting and contrast with more panache. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted August 23, 2014 Share #10 Posted August 23, 2014 A small practical point that might matter if you develop yourself - the Acros is a twisty, curly kind of film, whereas FP4 is less prone to that kind of annoyance. Chris Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_s Posted August 23, 2014 Share #11 Posted August 23, 2014 I think the Acros is more critical of exposure accuracy. I think that HP5+ would be my choice. With the yellow filter and with generous exposure to minimize accidental underexposure you could effectively have a film speed of 160, leaving leeway for the high shutter speeds sometime necessary in bright light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2014 Share #12 Posted August 23, 2014 Since other options have been mentioned: KODAK BW 400CN while you can? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lysistrata Posted October 10, 2014 Share #13 Posted October 10, 2014 Acros gives you modern look if your exposure and processing are both correct. Choose FP4 if you like the old school look or you are simply a fan of film grain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ausgeknipst Posted October 10, 2014 Share #14 Posted October 10, 2014 Trix400 @320 for 80% of your shots (works fine with 1/1000, 2.8 or 4.0) - a perfect film for yellow filter! PanF50 for shots wide open. > Trix @800 (1/30, 2.0) brings you through the night as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 10, 2014 Share #15 Posted October 10, 2014 I find it a bit troubling when talk is of 'old' and 'modern' films. Do artists choose pigments depending on the year they were invented, or do they choose them for the effect they give in matching the artists vision? I don't see how photographs on a roll of FP4 shot yesterday can by default be called an old look, just as a painting made yesterday using an authentic ultramarine pigment isn't an old painting. Personally I think you could use the word 'nostalgic' if the subject matter was overtly nostalgic, but a contemporary photograph using FP4 is a 'modern' 'photograph. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted October 12, 2014 Share #16 Posted October 12, 2014 Have you thought about Agfa APX100 ? 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeswe Posted October 12, 2014 Share #17 Posted October 12, 2014 Have you thought about Agfa APX100 ? It's gone. Or are you suggesting the "new" Agfaphoto APX100, which has been available for a year now or so? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted October 12, 2014 Share #18 Posted October 12, 2014 It's gone. Or are you suggesting the "new" Agfaphoto APX100, which has been available for a year now or so? The new APX Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted October 12, 2014 Share #19 Posted October 12, 2014 I find it a bit troubling when talk is of 'old' and 'modern' films. Do artists choose pigments depending on the year they were invented, or do they choose them for the effect they give in matching the artists vision? I don't see how photographs on a roll of FP4 shot yesterday can by default be called an old look, just as a painting made yesterday using an authentic ultramarine pigment isn't an old painting. Personally I think you could use the word 'nostalgic' if the subject matter was overtly nostalgic, but a contemporary photograph using FP4 is a 'modern' 'photograph. Steve Well, the films themselves - as products of technology - certainly can be classified as based on older or newer technology. As can oil paints vs. acrylics. Or newer pigments that have replaced older pigments through concerns about dangerous amounts of heavy metals or other contents. The different technologies may well require different handling and artistic techniques (fast-drying acrylics vs. slow-drying oils; forgiving cubic grains vs. touchy tabular grains, opaqueness or longevity of one pigment vs. another). I think that technique and vision can be just as "nostalgic" or revivalist as choice of subject matter. However, as you say, that is mostly independent of the specific media used. One can make images that are fully involved with the zeitgeist and contemporaniety of 2014 (and no other time) with old materials and technologies - and produce derivative, nostalgic "old-fashioned-looking" images with the newest materials. There was no significant difference in the oil paints used by Beaux-Arts and Impressionist painters. What made one more modern that the other was what they chose to do with them. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmknoble Posted November 4, 2014 Share #20 Posted November 4, 2014 A small practical point that might matter if you develop yourself - the Acros is a twisty' date=' curly kind of film, whereas FP4 is less prone to that kind of annoyance. Chris[/quote'] The Acros is a thinner emulsion, which means less fog when scanning the negative, effectively giving it a wider tonal range. I shoot it at ISO 70 on my MP and develop with Ilford DDX. It works great, fine grain. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.