35mm Film for Landscapes (B&W only)

lawrence

lawrence

Veteran
Local time
6:03 PM
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
2,157
On a road trip around Arizona in the spring I plan to do some landscape photography and, for various reasons, I'll be taking 35mm rather than the MF that I'd prefer.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on suitable films that are currently available. I have some FP4+ and Foma 100 Classic in the freezer but maybe something finer grained would be better. Years ago I used Pan F developed in Perceptol but haven't used the 'Plus' version. Is this still a good combo or is there something else that's worth considering? Your thoughts please!
 
It is totally dependent on your vision and taste.

I have done my landscapes with foma 400 mega grain. And I have done it in lith.
One print is in USA, one in Australia.

We don’t have to dye hard over Adams prints. But if it is, check if new Ilford film is available.
 
Although Delta 100 is sharper, the extremely fine grain of Pan F Plus in many developers means it's still capable of high resolution. But it does like to be developed fairly promptly. A few weeks is usually fine but it's not a film to leave in a camera for six months as its ability to preserve a latent image is poor.

In terms of resolution it's hard to go wrong with Pan F Plus, Delta 100, FP4 Plus, TMAX 100 or Acros 100 not to mention several other types. I haven't used Acros II, yet, but have no reason to think it will be any less sharp than its predecessor.

Given the resolution of all of the above can potentially be excellent I'd suggest you consider the sort of tonality you prefer, when processed in the developers you are likely to use. For the most part I stick to ID-11 and any of the films I've mentioned can be processed in that at 1 + 3 dilution, Ilford's own stated combination for maximum sharpness from its various developer options.
 
You haven't told us if you will take a tripod. If yes, you can also consider the document type films if you're after grainless, high resolution pictures. On the other hand if you want to shoot hand held and use pol, orange or red filters, you might even want to use iso 400 films.
Personally I'd either go really fine grained or fast (and perhaps a bit grainy). FP4+ doesn't really appeal to me, it's so middle of the road - you could have similar resolution and level of grain with T-max 400 and two more stops for more dof, filtration and flexibility hand-holding also when not in full sun, or you could have finer grain and higher resolution at the same speed with one of the flat grain films. Or you could have more grain and character with tri-x or something like Foma 200 (I haven't used 100 yet). OTOH if you have a stock of fp4+ and fomapan 100, you probably like them...?
 
As others have said, it's totally dependent on the look you want to achieve. FWIW, when I was in Arizona a few years ago I shot TriX with an orange filter everywhere (and a few rolls of Ektar in MF, but that's not the issue). On another trip to SW Colorado I ended up with HP5+, mostly with a green filter. Most recently, I shot unfiltered TriX in New Mexico. Three different looks for sure - I can post samples if you like.



A little guidance on what kind of a finished product you're looking for would be helpful.
 
I love Tmax400 which can be pulled to 200 with excellent sharpness (Perceptol 1:2 for 10 minutes) shot at 400 or 800 with the same development and without serious grain, and pushes beautifully up to 1600.

If you have a tripod etc the 100s you suggest have a lot of character too.
 
retinax said:
You haven't told us if you will take a tripod.
Click to expand...

And more importantly, if you will use it. 35mm begs to be hand-held! At least for some shots. I like to keep my speeds up to at least 1/125 for most shots, and 1/250 when possible. Any slower than 1/60, and that's when the tripod comes out. So I generally don't bother with films slower than ISO 100. I would favor Delta 100 in that range. I also like Eastman 5222/Double-X, at ISO 250 or so. The latter just has the right look, to my eye. And Delta 400 or Tri-X when more speed is needed. These are the B&W films I stick with. Well, I also have a few rolls of Plus-X, but when they are gone, they are gone. I wish Kodak would bring it back.
 
You haven't said whether you plan to scan or print in a darkroom. I would also be helpful to know how big a print you plan to make and whether you crop or print as shot. Almost all the landscape I've done in our farming community has been with either Tri-X or HP5+ and developed in either X-tol replenished or, in recent years, D-23. They all scan well and provide conventional prints up to 11X14 that suits me. There's a great quote you should remember "He was Ansel Adams. You're not." Unfortunately, a senior moment keeps me from attributing it correctly.
 
retinax said:
You haven't told us if you will take a tripod.
Click to expand...
I'll probably take a tripod but never use it :rolleyes:
retinax said:
If yes, you can also consider the document type films if you're after grainless, high resolution pictures. On the other hand if you want to shoot hand held and use pol, orange or red filters, you might even want to use iso 400 films.
Personally I'd either go really fine grained or fast (and perhaps a bit grainy). FP4+ doesn't really appeal to me, it's so middle of the road - you could have similar resolution and level of grain with T-max 400 and two more stops for more dof, filtration and flexibility hand-holding also when not in full sun, or you could have finer grain and higher resolution at the same speed with one of the flat grain films. Or you could have more grain and character with tri-x or something like Foma 200 (I haven't used 100 yet). OTOH if you have a stock of fp4+ and fomapan 100, you probably like them...?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do like those two films but I'd like to be able to make larger prints without intrusive grain.
 
02Pilot said:
As others have said, it's totally dependent on the look you want to achieve. FWIW, when I was in Arizona a few years ago I shot TriX with an orange filter everywhere (and a few rolls of Ektar in MF, but that's not the issue). On another trip to SW Colorado I ended up with HP5+, mostly with a green filter. Most recently, I shot unfiltered TriX in New Mexico. Three different looks for sure - I can post samples if you like.

A little guidance on what kind of a finished product you're looking for would be helpful.
Click to expand...

Thanks but I like my landscapes to have a touch of grain but not be grainy, so faster films are out (except TMY2 or Delta 400, neither of which I'm very keen on).
 
Rob-F said:
And more importantly, if you will use it. 35mm begs to be hand-held! At least for some shots. I like to keep my speeds up to at least 1/125 for most shots, and 1/250 when possible. Any slower than 1/60, and that's when the tripod comes out. So I generally don't bother with films slower than ISO 100. I would favor Delta 100 in that range. I also like Eastman 5222/Double-X, at ISO 250 or so. The latter just has the right look, to my eye. And Delta 400 or Tri-X when more speed is needed. These are the B&W films I stick with. Well, I also have a few rolls of Plus-X, but when they are gone, they are gone. I wish Kodak would bring it back.
Click to expand...
As per my reply to the earlier post, I will do the routine of taking a tripod and then not bothering with it. I've tried Delta 100 but somehow didn't like the look when compared to FP4+ or Foma Classic. Lucky you having some Plus-X, my all-time favourite.
 
lawrence said:
I'll probably take a tripod but never use it :rolleyes:

Yes, I do like those two films but I'd like to be able to make larger prints without intrusive grain.
Click to expand...


Then, as you must have figured yourself, your pick out of the Neopan, Delta and T-Max 100 films is probably the ticket! I do like the tmx except for its tendency to give Newton rings also from the emulsion side, will try Delta 100 at some point.
Of course you could shoot something slower hand-held, but you won't get the dof most people want in landscapes, and difficulty to shoot anything not in full sun.

I'd always also take some 400 speed film, I need it even in sunny locations, I'll still take pictures at dusk and in the shade and want some dof.
 
presspass said:
You haven't said whether you plan to scan or print in a darkroom.
Click to expand...
Scan with Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 Mk.1
presspass said:
I would also be helpful to know how big a print you plan to make and whether you crop or print as shot. Almost all the landscape I've done in our farming community has been with either Tri-X or HP5+ and developed in either X-tol replenished or, in recent years, D-23. They all scan well and provide conventional prints up to 11X14 that suits me.
Click to expand...
I'm looking to print slightly larger than that.
presspass said:
There's a great quote you should remember "He was Ansel Adams. You're not." Unfortunately, a senior moment keeps me from attributing it correctly.
Click to expand...
As I'll be taking landscapes with 35mm that's one illusion I probably won't be under :rolleyes:
 
retinax said:
Then, as you must have figured yourself, your pick out of the Neopan, Delta and T-Max 100 films is probably the ticket! I do like the tmx except for its tendency to give Newton rings also from the emulsion side, will try Delta 100 at some point.
Of course you could shoot something slower hand-held, but you won't get the dof most people want in landscapes, and difficulty to shoot anything not in full sun.

I'd always also take some 400 speed film, I need it even in sunny locations, I'll still take pictures at dusk and in the shade and want some dof.
Click to expand...

Thanks, you're right about hand held so I guess I'll finally have to get to use that tripod that I've lugged around for all these years! This would also open the door to the Pan F+ in Perceptol that I've been thinking about...
 
For 35mm landscape photography, my go-to films are TMax 100 and FP4+, although I've also had good results with Fomapan 200.

I particularly like TMax 100 because of the detail, fine grain, and long tonal range. Very pleased with the results over the years. I develop in HC 110 dil. h.

I shot a bunch of rolls of FP4+ this past summer and was also pleased with the results. I metered the film at 250 and developed in Diafine.
 
35mm b&w landscape ... hm, it can be done, but is obviously an odd choice. I recently tried:

glacier_mosaic-10_1500pix.jpg


2019-11-15-0014_2.jpg


2019-11-14-0021_2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom