35mm Film for Landscapes (B&W only)

[Beemermark]

Ilford Pan F+. You shouldn't have much problem not having enough light unless your fastest lens is 5.6 or slower. Even with filters you're looking at 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8. I think Pan F+ has a better contrast range depending on developer than other films besides zip grain.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I particularly like TMax 100 because of the detail, fine grain, and long tonal range. .

I’d second this for 35mm landscapes, for the same reasons, though I use other films for other things. Though I like Pan F+ as a film, I prefer TMax 100 for landscapes, if limited to 135 format. Just a personal preference for the “look” in normal development.
Large format with any film is better still, but...

Would also put in a word for FP4+ as long as it was developed in PMK or similar for sharpness and long tonal range, though you would see some grain in 135.

Not the normal way of thinking, but Ektar 100 or Provia 100F both make superb black and white conversions, fine grained and sharp, which work well with landscapes, Ektar having good shadow detail as well.Then you’d automatically have the option of color on the same shot. No law says you have to use black and white film to get a nice black and white landscape.

Medium or large format so much nicer for landscapes, though, but I understand.

 

[sepiareverb]

PanF+ is my favorite for landscapes in bright light, shot that and ORWO UN54 in Austin last spring, didn’t want for a tripod once. I find the ORWO can be a little more forgiving of slightly underexposed shadows. UN54 in Perceptol 1:1 or PanF+ in DD-X 1:4 is my vote.

Travel well!

 

[agentlossing]

I don't think the Foma 100 you have would be that grainy, I like their 100 a lot better than the 200. Delta films seem pretty fine and have lots of tones as well. I speak from limited experience however, and I've only developed with DF96 which isn't the finest resolving method. But I found Delta 400 to look a lot nicer than HP5+ in terms of grain and Foma 100 to be cleanest overall in good light out of what I've done.

 

[titrisol]

FP4+ is a great film, specially if you develop it in a fine grain developer

The other option is TMAX100 or DELTA100 develped in XTOL or DDX

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Lawrence, Arizona has lots of strong light & i've had my best results with FP4+ (35mm-5x7") in Pyrocat HD. I've had finicky results with PanF and have been happier to trade longer tonal scale for a bit of sharpness loss. Have a great trip!

 

[Ste_S]

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!

If the size of the gear is the problem, consider a medium format folder. Something like the Zeiss Ikon Nettar is great for landscapes if the focal length works for you

 

[Rob-F]

There's a great quote you should remember "He was Ansel Adams. You're not."

So there's no point in, nor hope of, doing quality work? I don't see Lawrence trying to be Ansel Adams with the question he's asking. I think he just wants to do the best he can.

 

[lawrence]

Lawrence, Arizona has lots of strong light & i've had my best results with FP4+ (35mm-5x7") in Pyrocat HD. I've had finicky results with PanF and have been happier to trade longer tonal scale for a bit of sharpness loss. Have a great trip!

Thanks! I'm particularly looking forward to visiting the Center for Creative Photography in Tuscon.

 

[lawrence]

Ilford Pan F+. You shouldn't have much problem not having enough light unless your fastest lens is 5.6 or slower. Even with filters you're looking at 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8. I think Pan F+ has a better contrast range depending on developer than other films besides zip grain.

Living in London in winter and I forget that in other places there is such a thing as light 😉

 

[retinax]

Ilford Pan F+. You shouldn't have much problem not having enough light unless your fastest lens is 5.6 or slower. Even with filters you're looking at 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8. I think Pan F+ has a better contrast range depending on developer than other films besides zip grain.

To me, 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8 wouldn't be enough for hand held landscape pictures to be printed large, both in shutter speed and aperture, certainly not with a 50mm or longer, maybe just so with a wide. And that is assuming you only shoot in full sun, which might happen in a desert climate if you do strictly open landscapes and no general travel, architecture etc. photography. But even then, you'd certainly want to take pictures close to dusk and dawn, when the light is softer and also less intense...
Of course it's all a matter of priorities. I totally get not wanting to use a tripod, and in that case 35mm makes sense. This is RFF after all. For landscapes, I place higher value on getting sufficient depth of field and safe shutter speeds than on low grain. I'd rather have a grainy landscape than a motion blurred one, and sometimes simply require f/11 for dof. Then, I will want to take pictures with at least parts of the scene in the shade, which can be more than six stops under the sunny 16 exposure. Therefore I'd use at least ISO 100 film. But if you're happy to, for example, go for limited dof in the shade, a slow film could of course work for you.

 

[Corran]

T-Max 100 and a good developer (and a tripod)

 

[Swift1]

I'm not really any kind of expert on B&W films, but I think Ilford FP4 Plus works quite well for a 35mm landscape film.
This was FP4 Plus, shot with my Pentax MX and Pentax 24/2.8

 

[giganova]

Why would you need a tripod in sun-flooded Arizona? 😕

 

[Corran]

Why would you need a tripod in sun-flooded Arizona? 😕

Gee, maybe for the times/places/situations where the sun isn't shining full-on, and/or when needing apertures, using filters, etc. necessitating a slower shutter speed and to make sure there is no camera motion at borderline handhold-able speeds? 😕

 

[giganova]

I dunno: even if there is full cloud coverage, you will have f/8 @ 1/125s, and even if you use 2-stop a red filter or a grad filter, you still have f/4 @ 1/125s.

 

[Corran]

Yeah nah, the light isn't Sunny 16 dawn till dusk. I shot a lot of 35mm and 120 in AZ a few summers ago and I absolutely needed a tripod for a lot of it, if I wanted to ensure enough DOF and/or no camera vibration. Of course you don't need it 100% of the time.

I shot a lot at f/8 and 1/15 in the shade or evening.

 

[chipgreenberg]

Nice Colton!

I'm not really any kind of expert on B&W films, but I think Ilford FP4 Plus works quite well for a 35mm landscape film.
This was FP4 Plus, shot with my Pentax MX and Pentax 24/2.8

 

[presspass]

If you can get a copy, the late Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness has a great discussion of grain and sharpness as it affects black and white film landscape photography. Cutting to the chase, he contends, and shows the results of shooting with a 400 iso film vs a slower film. He found the higher speed film gives better results. Much of his work was 120, but he did use and show results from 35mm.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Best compromise

Best compromise

I agree, FP4+ is an excellent choice for landscapes *and* general photography.
The increase in grain can be minimal, depending on development.
The extra film speed will allow you to shoot handheld in normal daylight.

My preference for mixed photography is something I can expose @ ~ EI 200.

Chris