something like trix but slower

Laura,

I have used Fomapan 100, developed in PMK, and it dried reasonably flat and became totally flat in a week or so under a heavy book. I didn't like it in PMK though. I have one roll left and may try it in Rodinal or D76 to see if its worth buying more. This was shot with it developed in PMK.

encino1.jpg
 
Someone here loves APX 100 in Rodinal- I forget whom, or what the images look like- but I'd be curious to hear from them. Even though this film is discontinued, I think one can still find it around, and I'd love to hear about this combo, as well as Fuji Across and Neopan 100's, too...?
 
APX100 is the closest to the TriX look but it is getting hard to find. FP4+ IMO is quite different looking. Many say foma 100 is simlar to APX100 in terms of look, but I have yet to test it. Efke 100 has similar grain size to many 400 films, but is slower so that might be an option. APX100 also develops at similar times to TriX in many devs so you can dev in the same tank....just like FP4+ and Neopan 400.
 
lns said:
I recently have been using the Arista version of the Fomapan 100 in 120, developed in Rodinal, and I actually like it very much. But, it is the curliest film I have ever encountered. It simply will not flatten, even pressed between the pages of a book. I'm afraid to try the Fomapan 200, as a result. Does the 35mm version dry flat?
Click to expand...

Dear Laura,

Flat enough for me, but obviously a lot depends on storage and relative humidity. Put it this way: I'd never noticed a problem in maybe 10 years' use. I'd recommend that you try a roll or two. The 35mm and 120 bases are very different.

Cheers,

R.
 
i use plus x pan in summer, it has quite the same tones as tri x.
it there is too much light you can use a grey filter or pull it on development. i exposed many rolls of tri x at iso 200, rich greyscale!
 
trix rodinal 1+25

trix15mars004plus.jpg




plus X rodinal 1+25


plusX-rod-1+25-6min006.jpg



I like the couple plus X and tri X , they are similar, ust different speeds, It allow me to have the same aspect, using two different speeds ;)
 
For something like Tri-X only slower...

Use Tri-X. Rate it at 200. Rate it at 100. Work out the developing times. Tri-X was, at one time, a 200 speed film.

Try it. You might like it.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Laura,

Flat enough for me, but obviously a lot depends on storage and relative humidity. Put it this way: I'd never noticed a problem in maybe 10 years' use. I'd recommend that you try a roll or two. The 35mm and 120 bases are very different.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Thanks Roger. I will definitely try the Foma 200 in 35mm.
 
venchka said:
For something like Tri-X only slower...

Use Tri-X. Rate it at 200. Rate it at 100. Work out the developing times. Tri-X was, at one time, a 200 speed film.
Click to expand...

Um...

Roll-film and 35mm Tri-X were rated at their introduction at 200 because this was before the ASA revision of 1959-60 removed a one-stop safety factor

Overexposing a conventional silver halide film (non-chromogenic) will give bigger grain and less sharpness. There is no way around that.

Under-developing will reduce grain and increase sharpness, but it will also reduce contrast, quite possibly to the point where you need grade 4 to print anything but high-contrast scenes.

Some overexposure is generally agreed to improve tonality; whether you can tolerate the down-side is a personal choice. This is why some people will rate the same film, developed the same way, faster for 35mm than for cut film.

And of course a lot depends on metering technique: most in-camera meters are designed to give optimum exposure with slides (exposure keyed to highlights) which inevitably means less-than-optimum exposure with negatives of subjects with a long tonal range.

EDIT: One further thought. Tri-X in Perceptol has a true ISO speed of at most 250, as compared with 400 in D-76 and 500+ in Microphen. True ISO speeds (meeting ISO standards for toe speed and contrast) vary by a stop or more according to developer choice.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
I was about to say that TXT exposed "normally" in something like Perceptol will give you low grain at about 250 -200. Then Roger beat me to it. In an edit no less! :)

Even so, you end up with a mushy-grain, slow EI version of TXT, not a slower version of the TXT look. Its better to shoot, say...Foma 200 in Microphen and get 160-200 out of it than use TXT in Perceptol to get 200. Always better to go slower film with faster developer.
 
kaiyen said:
Always better to go slower film with faster developer.
Click to expand...

Heartily seconded. Smaller, crisper grain; sharper; and usually cheaper too!

(Though I have to admit that years ago I used HP5 -- pre-Plus -- in Perceptol at 250 and preferred the tonality to FP4 in Microphen at 200. The fact that I haven't done so in maybe 30 years suggests how my views have changed).

Cheers,

Roger
 
drewbarb said:
Someone here loves APX 100 in Rodinal- I forget whom, or what the images look like- but I'd be curious to hear from them. Even though this film is discontinued, I think one can still find it around, and I'd love to hear about this combo, as well as Fuji Across and Neopan 100's, too...?
Click to expand...


Yes, APX100/Rollei Retro 100 in Rodinal 1+50 18°C and 17 minutes with slow agitation once every minute. But I still haven't scanned the stuff :)
 
I'm a big fan of APX 100 in Rodinal. The tonality, gradation and sharpness are glorious. I'd also recommend taking a look at Fomapan 200 (which I normally rate at 125) in FX-39 – quite similar to APX/Rodinal but maybe a better bet with regards to future availability.

APX 100 in Rodinal:




More here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom