gdi
Veteran
eugenechua
Newbie
i'm new to this and am having difficulty selecting which film to use. what's the differences/characteristics of fuji neopan, trix, HP5 plus and XP2?
marcust101
Established
Eugene,
Thats a whle other can of worms, try searching for a couple of threads on that topic you should find quite a few.
Welcome by the way
regards
Marcus
Thats a whle other can of worms, try searching for a couple of threads on that topic you should find quite a few.
Welcome by the way
regards
Marcus
Turtle
Veteran
This is proving interesting...
Blocked shadows are mostly a product of underexposure and NOT under development (unless the development is way under). Blown highlights are the result of overdevelopment, or possibly overexpsure or both of course. Considering the brightness range of the carnival type scene (first image), exposing for shadows would have blown the highlights to hell. It is not unusual to expose largely for highlights under such circumstances. I personally would push them as high up the scale as I dared, assuming I could generate the shutter speed to allow for a more shadow friendly exposure. Stand development or reduced agitation...as well as pyro developers all help keep lights and other bright areas under control. He sure as hell did not under develop that neg.....
The second image shown is not terribly blown - not on my monitor. The whites have plenty of detail. It is also on the internet, probably scanned and so it can be hard to know why you are seeing hot highlights. I have plenty of images on the web which suffer hot highlights where the originals are just fine.
The third image...what on earth are you talking about. There is no such thing as the 'correct' exposure and so there cannot be the 'perfect' exposure either. I very much like the pictorial effect of that scene which is painterly overall with the exception of the forground buildings which therefore stand out wonderfully. I think he did a superb job getting an exposure that allowed for that effect. I would be fascinated to hear you talk through how you would have determined the perfect exposure you claim he missed.....
If you are going to comment on exposure, development etc I suggest you learn more about the effect of development time on true film speed (it is decidedly limited).
FWIW I rarely shoot at box speed with D76 or pyrocat etc. I do, however, with FX-39/Xtol/DDX or in some cases just over.
TTL average meters tend to get things right for tarnnie film, but in contrasty conditions will often neglect shadow detail. This is the most common reason for people using an EI different to the ISO rated speed. In flat lighting (where a TTL average meter will tend to set an exposure that still records shadow detail) box speed works nicely. You also mention little of lighting. i can tell you that Box speed, TTL average metering and Afghan sunlight is often a complete disaster. I can also tell you that incresing development ( to unblock shadows - as your previous email suggested) will be an utter disaster as it will in fact push the highligts up even higher. In such cases downrating speed and reducing exposure is the way to go.
In fact it ones EI is only the starting point, compensation being added from there. It all depends on what you are metering for. Some people like acres of black, others like more shadow detail.
In contrasty light I shoot TriX at 250 if using D76. In average light I will use 320. Dull overcast lighting I will use 400. With Xtol i will shoot in contrasty light at 400 and adjust from there.
Yes, it does make a difference.
No, temperature variations of 0.5 degs will make no difference to shadow speed and very little to overall density. Besides, contrast grade changes can normally deal with a slightly dense or flat negs brought about due to dev issues. No grade changes will recover absent shadow detail. many people exposure at lower than box to be sure of shadow detail which they can choose to suppress to black when printing if they like.
It is also worth noting that ISO speeds are determined in lab testing accoridng to specific values. These are a starting point, but can, depending on conditions have no bearing on what you need to rate the film at to get the results you want. If you work in very contrasty conditions, manufacturers times and ISO ratings will be a disaster more often than not. The solutions would be vaguely along the lines of a spot meter, using ISO 400, metering shadows and reducing development or rating ones TTL meter at a lower EI and still reducing exposure.
There are some very good books covering these issues. Edge of Darkness by Barry Thornton is the best book of its kind.
The AA reference is not relevant really as landscapes often have very different tonal requirements to street or other work. AA did nor produce gritty or 'hard' work and his exposure, D&P reflect that.
Selling a number of prints at $200 pays for a lot of film. For some people that is important. might be worth checking what AA and the westons got for their prints when they started out. there is nothing humiliating about selling a print for not very much unless there is an ego in the way. I used to have a rule for framed prints of 'double cost' for those not close enough to get work for free. meant i could be sure to frame another image for free having sold one. Besides, seeing the pleasure people get from one's work and being able to own it is quite something. You cannot do that for free without losing a lot of money!
Rgds
Blocked shadows are mostly a product of underexposure and NOT under development (unless the development is way under). Blown highlights are the result of overdevelopment, or possibly overexpsure or both of course. Considering the brightness range of the carnival type scene (first image), exposing for shadows would have blown the highlights to hell. It is not unusual to expose largely for highlights under such circumstances. I personally would push them as high up the scale as I dared, assuming I could generate the shutter speed to allow for a more shadow friendly exposure. Stand development or reduced agitation...as well as pyro developers all help keep lights and other bright areas under control. He sure as hell did not under develop that neg.....
The second image shown is not terribly blown - not on my monitor. The whites have plenty of detail. It is also on the internet, probably scanned and so it can be hard to know why you are seeing hot highlights. I have plenty of images on the web which suffer hot highlights where the originals are just fine.
The third image...what on earth are you talking about. There is no such thing as the 'correct' exposure and so there cannot be the 'perfect' exposure either. I very much like the pictorial effect of that scene which is painterly overall with the exception of the forground buildings which therefore stand out wonderfully. I think he did a superb job getting an exposure that allowed for that effect. I would be fascinated to hear you talk through how you would have determined the perfect exposure you claim he missed.....
If you are going to comment on exposure, development etc I suggest you learn more about the effect of development time on true film speed (it is decidedly limited).
FWIW I rarely shoot at box speed with D76 or pyrocat etc. I do, however, with FX-39/Xtol/DDX or in some cases just over.
TTL average meters tend to get things right for tarnnie film, but in contrasty conditions will often neglect shadow detail. This is the most common reason for people using an EI different to the ISO rated speed. In flat lighting (where a TTL average meter will tend to set an exposure that still records shadow detail) box speed works nicely. You also mention little of lighting. i can tell you that Box speed, TTL average metering and Afghan sunlight is often a complete disaster. I can also tell you that incresing development ( to unblock shadows - as your previous email suggested) will be an utter disaster as it will in fact push the highligts up even higher. In such cases downrating speed and reducing exposure is the way to go.
In fact it ones EI is only the starting point, compensation being added from there. It all depends on what you are metering for. Some people like acres of black, others like more shadow detail.
In contrasty light I shoot TriX at 250 if using D76. In average light I will use 320. Dull overcast lighting I will use 400. With Xtol i will shoot in contrasty light at 400 and adjust from there.
Yes, it does make a difference.
No, temperature variations of 0.5 degs will make no difference to shadow speed and very little to overall density. Besides, contrast grade changes can normally deal with a slightly dense or flat negs brought about due to dev issues. No grade changes will recover absent shadow detail. many people exposure at lower than box to be sure of shadow detail which they can choose to suppress to black when printing if they like.
It is also worth noting that ISO speeds are determined in lab testing accoridng to specific values. These are a starting point, but can, depending on conditions have no bearing on what you need to rate the film at to get the results you want. If you work in very contrasty conditions, manufacturers times and ISO ratings will be a disaster more often than not. The solutions would be vaguely along the lines of a spot meter, using ISO 400, metering shadows and reducing development or rating ones TTL meter at a lower EI and still reducing exposure.
There are some very good books covering these issues. Edge of Darkness by Barry Thornton is the best book of its kind.
The AA reference is not relevant really as landscapes often have very different tonal requirements to street or other work. AA did nor produce gritty or 'hard' work and his exposure, D&P reflect that.
Selling a number of prints at $200 pays for a lot of film. For some people that is important. might be worth checking what AA and the westons got for their prints when they started out. there is nothing humiliating about selling a print for not very much unless there is an ego in the way. I used to have a rule for framed prints of 'double cost' for those not close enough to get work for free. meant i could be sure to frame another image for free having sold one. Besides, seeing the pleasure people get from one's work and being able to own it is quite something. You cannot do that for free without losing a lot of money!
Rgds
Last edited:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
It's been Neopan 400 for a while now but I'm about to break out of the mold. Due to Fuji not supplying bulk rolls anymore I'm about to switch ... I've finally finished my last 100ft roll of Neopan and I'm about to get a couple of 100ft rolls of TRI-X from freestyle. I wonder how long it will take to get results I like with that? It took me a while with the Neopan! 
kxl
Social Documentary
I have 2 different combos that I like for 400 EI: 1) HP5+ and HC110, Dil B, and 2) Tri-X and XTOL 1+2.
I voted for HP5+, ASSUMING 400 EI ONLY, since I prefer that combo given my technique and habits.
If versatility counts, i.e., shooting/processing at other EI's, then IMHO, Tri-X would be a much better choice.
I voted for HP5+, ASSUMING 400 EI ONLY, since I prefer that combo given my technique and habits.
If versatility counts, i.e., shooting/processing at other EI's, then IMHO, Tri-X would be a much better choice.
Bill Harrison
Member
This thread brought back memories of Ansco Super Hypan......Since Kodak stopped meeting the needs of us all, tech pan leading the long list for me....I've thrown my money in other directions....No more tri x, haven't liked it since they changed it anyway....ANOTHER FRIEND OF NEOPAN 400 IN RODINAL. Be Well everyone, play nice Ned....
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
Ned????????
mknawabi
photographeur
tri-x developed at 9 minutes and 30 seconds in xtol 1:1. Love the tonality, contrast and overall look of the film
usagisakana
Established
I previously only used neopan 400, and have recently been trying some tri-x. I first tried everything in diafine, only to find I always got uneven development, no matter what I did. So I bought a bottle of LC-29 (which I believe is an analogue of HC-110, in a different dilution -if this is not the case let me know!). Everything I use (neopan 400, acros and tri-x) looks great in it, but especially the tri-x. I am very happy and will continue to use tri-x as my 35mm B+W film.
sweathog
Well-known
If we're talking true BW, then Delta 400. Love the contrast it renders.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
T-Max 400, because name another film where you can control the grain to that extent just by the amount of agitation you give it.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Neopan 400 in Ilfotec DDX
Extremely long tonal range, nice sharpness, almost no grain
Extremely long tonal range, nice sharpness, almost no grain
hiorgos
Established
I have been shooting neopan 400 for a while, and i like it. But, I may try triX, i'm looking for some grain in my pictures!
sniki
Well-known
IMHO Kodak Tri-X rated @ 1200 and souped in Diafine (3' in A + 3' in B).
sniki
sniki
MaxElmar
Well-known
I've shot a lot of Tri-X over the last three decades, but lately i's been HP5, FP4, and Delta 400. I shoot much more medium and large format (than 35mm) and the Ilford films are available localy.
Now that I got my Bessa R I'm shooting 35mm again - I confess I've leaned toward Chromogenic. Very easy to scan.
Still HP5 - is my most used 400 speed film - of course I shoot it @250 a lot....
Chris L.
Now that I got my Bessa R I'm shooting 35mm again - I confess I've leaned toward Chromogenic. Very easy to scan.
Still HP5 - is my most used 400 speed film - of course I shoot it @250 a lot....
Chris L.
mh2000
Well-known
I voted for Tri-X because I love the look, but have found TMY *better* for a lot of things... and really, I shoot mainly BW400CN now days... (but that one wasn't listed).
swoop
Well-known
For me it used to be HP5. But I've taken a liking to the new formula TMAX 400.
