A black and white film to stick with for a year?

[tlitody]

to contradict some of the advice above, I think using using one film and developer is a good idea. The old advice is to get to know one film really well and its variations. If you chop and change you won't learn anything about controlling one film.
I'd suggest Delta 400 and Tetenal Ultrafin Plus developer or one of the other 400 speed films. T-Max 400 or HP5. If you are scanning then go for one of the fine grain developers such as the one I suggested or Xtol. I don't much care for DD-X because of the grain it gives. Its all so so subjective and as you can see everyone gives different advice. Any one film film can be be made to do a lot of things by varying the developer strength and times.

 

[shadowfox]

If this is the first time you're doing this, I don't see how limiting yourself to only one film for a year is going to expand your horizon.

I can understand limiting yourself to two speeds (100 and 400) from one brand. This will allow you to form your preference and get familiar with exposure compensation techniques.

As for developers, one type a year is good. I recommend Rodinal, it never failed to give me photos that people would never mistake as converted digital files

 

[Roger Hicks]

In this case, surely even if you didn't get on with a film initially, it would be possible to change that with a different developer and/ or change in exposure technique ?

Dear Damien,

This, to me, is the underlying flaw in the argument. Yes, I eventially got Acros to give negatives I quite liked -- after trying three developers, two dilutions, and a lot of different times,

But after years away from HP5 (pre-Plus, when I stopped using it), I was given a brick of it in 1998 and got good results, quickly and easily, the first time I tried it.

Someone who already has a good idea of what is achievable; of what they want; and of how to manipulate the variables; yes, they can use pretty much any film and get acceptable results sooner or later.

The question is, why bother? After all, what does 'learning' a film/dev combination mean? It means learning how to work around its shortcomings, and exploit its advantages. In which case, surely it makes sense to choose a film with the minimum of shortcomings and the maximum of advantages for you (we're back to the alchemy again).

Someone who has not tried enough films to know which film they want to live with, on the other hand, probably doesn't have the experience to know what is possible; what they really want; or how to achieve it. They are also likely to lack the experience to know that film choice is incredbly personal and that someone else's choice may or may not work for them.

Why, after all, does anyone advocate the 'one film, one dev' route? There are several possibilities.

First, they've tried a lot of films and are happy with one. In this case, they should know better than to make such a pointless recommendation, which is not based on their own experience. They HAVE tried lots of films. On what basis are they telling someone else not to?

Second, they got lucky. The first film they tried, they liked. They therefore recommend it. Once again, they lack the experience to know that film choice is incredbly personal and that their choice may not work for someone else: once again, they are making an irresponsible recommendation.

Third, it has an emotional appeal: yeah, let's make life simpler. Except that it makes life more complicated if you have to piddle around trying to fix faults you don't really understand.

As already noted, some flms are easier to use (and abuse) than others. An armourer friend who is also a keen photographer described HP5 as 'the AK47 of films', in that it's quite hard to stop it working well. But it can be done, and besides, some people prefer Tri-X (my wife, for example). How much trouble is it to try a handful of films in a mainstream developer and see which one you like best? THEN (and most assurely not before) is the time to choose your film-for-a-year.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dogbunny]

Thanks everyone. Lots of different opinions I can see. One thing about RFF is that there is never a shortage of opinions. I went out to do some shooting today and stopped by the film store I go to and bought a roll of HP5, acros 100, neopan 400, tri-x, tmax 400, and PANF plus (just because). I shoot them all over the next couple weeks then make a choice. I'm not much of a "tester." I just go out and shoot.

My choice of just picking one film/developer was more to remove variables than anything else. I thought it would be easier to see what I'm doing right or wrong if I didn't have to factor in the fact that "on day X I used this film and on day Y I used that film." Kind of along the lines of what Roger said, I don't want to piddle around fixing things--at least initially.

I typically shoot at 8f to wide open. It is pretty sunny here in Hong Kong most of the time. When I shoot the hexar rf that isn't much of a problem because of the top shutter speed. It can be an issue with the hexar af, but I don't mind some limitations. I enjoy the way some limitations can influence what you do while shooting.

Well, we'll see how it all works out. Thanks for all the info; to be honest it can be a bit overwhelming.

Cheers,

DB

 

[Roger Hicks]

Thanks everyone. Lots of different opinions I can see. One thing about RFF is that there is never a shortage of opinions. I went out to do some shooting today and stopped by the film store I go to and bought a roll of HP5, acros 100, neopan 400, tri-x, tmax 400, and PANF plus (just because). I shoot them all over the next couple weeks then make a choice. I'm not much of a "tester." I just go out and shoot.

My choice of just picking one film/developer was more to remove variables than anything else. I thought it would be easier to see what I'm doing right or wrong if I didn't have to factor in the fact that "on day X I used this film and on day Y I used that film." Kind of along the lines of what Roger said, I don't want to piddle around fixing things--at least initially.

I typically shoot at 8f to wide open. It is pretty sunny here in Hong Kong most of the time. When I shoot the hexar rf that isn't much of a problem because of the top shutter speed. It can be an issue with the hexar af, but I don't mind some limitations. I enjoy the way some limitations can influence what you do while shooting.

Well, we'll see how it all works out. Thanks for all the info; to be honest it can be a bit overwhelming.

Cheers,

DB

Using one film is an excellent idea for the very reason you give, and I'm sure you've taken the best approach. "Testing" without "just shooting" is a complete waste of time, though obviously, the things you 'just shoot' with an unfamiliar film shouldn't be on the trip of a lifetime. Once you've picked a film you like from the ones you've bought, THAT'S the time to settle on it.

Incidentally, bear in mind that 2 stops over with an ISO 400 film (= EI 100) will be slightly grainier and slightly less sharp, but to me, that's better than changing films.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sepiareverb]

to contradict some of the advice above, I think using using one film and developer is a good idea. The old advice is to get to know one film really well and its variations. If you chop and change you won't learn anything about controlling one film.

I guess it depends on how much one shoots, but I don't see anything wrong with working with several films and learning them well, as long as one is consistent with them.

one film film can be be made to do a lot of things by varying the developer strength and times.

Absolutely. HP5+ is pretty versatile in this regard. I shoot it at ISO 50, 400 and 800 regularly.

 

[bensyverson]

(sarcasm) ... a BW film that will be still available after one year (/sarcasm)

I know you were joking, but you have a point there.

Why would you limit yourself to one film for a year when great films are being discontinued left and right? Why not use these beauties while they still exist? There will be plenty of time for "one film for a year" when you can only choose between three.

 

[David Hughes]

Hmmm, well, if you multiply the number of films suggested by the number of developers then you'll see the choices available and they're only for negatives.

If you want to do B&W slides then you've a narrow choice of films but there's an interesting article by Ilford here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=90 and you should then click on the link at the bottom for a four page PDF about it.

Regards, David

 

[damien.murphy]

Dear Damien,

This, to me, is the underlying flaw in the argument. Yes, I eventially got Acros to give negatives I quite liked -- after trying three developers, two dilutions, and a lot of different times,

But after years away from HP5 (pre-Plus, when I stopped using it), I was given a brick of it in 1998 and got good results, quickly and easily, the first time I tried it.

Someone who already has a good idea of what is achievable; of what they want; and of how to manipulate the variables; yes, they can use pretty much any film and get acceptable results sooner or later.

The question is, why bother? After all, what does 'learning' a film/dev combination mean? It means learning how to work around its shortcomings, and exploit its advantages. In which case, surely it makes sense to choose a film with the minimum of shortcomings and the maximum of advantages for you (we're back to the alchemy again).

Someone who has not tried enough films to know which film they want to live with, on the other hand, probably doesn't have the experience to know what is possible; what they really want; or how to achieve it. They are also likely to lack the experience to know that film choice is incredbly personal and that someone else's choice may or may not work for them.

Why, after all, does anyone advocate the 'one film, one dev' route? There are several possibilities.

First, they've tried a lot of films and are happy with one. In this case, they should know better than to make such a pointless recommendation, which is not based on their own experience. They HAVE tried lots of films. On what basis are they telling someone else not to?

Second, they got lucky. The first film they tried, they liked. They therefore recommend it. Once again, they lack the experience to know that film choice is incredbly personal and that their choice may not work for someone else: once again, they are making an irresponsible recommendation.

Third, it has an emotional appeal: yeah, let's make life simpler. Except that it makes life more complicated if you have to piddle around trying to fix faults you don't really understand.

As already noted, some flms are easier to use (and abuse) than others. An armourer friend who is also a keen photographer described HP5 as 'the AK47 of films', in that it's quite hard to stop it working well. But it can be done, and besides, some people prefer Tri-X (my wife, for example). How much trouble is it to try a handful of films in a mainstream developer and see which one you like best? THEN (and most assurely not before) is the time to choose your film-for-a-year.

Cheers,

R.

Interesting feedback Roger, and I can understand the benefit of choosing the best possible starting point, by doing some preliminary film experimentation.

I agree with most of your points.

 

[graywolf]

Kind of interesting.

There was a time when I uses Ansco Super Hypan @ 1000 processed in FG7. That was a long time ago. I had a source of free film.

Then there was the time I used XP1 with the home processing kit. I kind of standardized on it because I really liked the results.

Now I am using Arista.EDU Ultra 100 stand developed in Rodinal. Because I have a bottle of Rodinal, and the film is cheap. I also read somewhere that the Formapan works well in old 120 folders with the mechanical film counters. I find like it because it is a lazy man's way of doing things. However, I have not yet made any prints, so who knows?

Inbetween, I used FP4 & HP5 in ID-11, or Plus-X & Tri-X in D-76 because that was easiest.

I guess, to me, film is just film, I don't really get the mystique that everyone else seems to find so important. To me convenience is the most important characteristic.

 

[RichL]

Yall don't use PanF plus and ILFOTEC DD-X ya ain't real photographers.

Tom, I'm actually with you. I have my favorites (used to be panatomic X and microdol x) but will use whatever happens by. The one thing I am consistent at is exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights.

 

[amateriat]

On the one hand, I'm with Roger in regard to the fact that neither he, nor I (or anyone else here) can give you the definitive answer on the "perfect" film (and developer, etc.) for you. Then again, as you can see from this thread by now, there's a seemingly endless combination of film/developer regimens; thoroughly testing just a handful would be time-consuming, and it sounds like you'd like to get the show on the road.

My go-to conventional b/w films are essentially the Holy Trinity of emulsions: Tri-X, HP5, and Neopan 400, in no particular order. My go-to developer for all of them has been HC-110, for its overall quality, flexibility, economy and convenience. (The only other developer I use is Diafine, but that's a whole 'nother ball game).

I believe it's hard to go wrong with any of the above film choices and HC-110. Yes, there are many, many other possibilities, but I think about something my high-school photography teacher (about all the formal education I ever had regarding photography) told me, in regard to both the hardware and software of photography: make your choice, stick with it, and learn it. Learning how to get the most from any of the three film types I've mentioned will ultimately mean more than picking the "right" film. And, since this is going to be a first-ever "immersion" in black-and-white for you, not worrying about getting the "right" combination means less than having a combination that lets you simply go out and photograph, under most lighting conditions, with minimal technical angst. And, remember, this is a learning experience, but it also should be fun.


- Barrett

 

[Jaans]

As usual you can't go past Tom A's and Roger's superlative advice.

I don't have much more to add apart from a few personal anecdotes that may help. I would stick to a 400 film, either TRI-X or Ilford HP5 as opposed to Neopan 400 or the newer emulsion TMY-2. Some Neopan or TMAX fans may bite my head of, but what I am relating is my personal experience and doesn't hold true for everyone.

Anyway here goes: I find Neopan's base to be unacceptably thin and in hot humid climates there is always the problem with loading it onto reels as it tends to crinkle - that is if you are using a changing bag. If you are using a dark room, then you could probably discount that advice if it is airconditioned. I find that Neopan is prone to crinkles and wrinkles etc a lot more than its two brothers, TRI-X and HP5. HP5 has the most robust base while the TRI-X is somewhere in between.

Also, I don't like using it because the contrast can become hard to control on hot days (back to the hot climate dilemma I am currently based in). HP5's contrast is the lowest of the three with Kodak falling somewhere in between. Hence, I am a Kodak fan.

I also don't like Kodak TMY-2 because I find that it is extremely contrasty in full sun, and I have a lot of difficulty taming that contrast, when I wouldn't run into problems with the TRI-X or the HP5. That is using either Rodinal or D76 1:1 - more on that in a minute. That inherent contrast in the TMY-2 shot on a sunny day coupled with modern Zeiss optics or the newer ASPH range from Leica will produce images that almost seem cartoonish as they are so sharp and that high in contrast.

Another problem with the TMY-2 that I haven't seen other people or magazines mention, is that when you are shooting a scene with a subject in the foreground that is in shade, coupled with strong highlights in the background or distance, then those highlights in the background quickly turn very stong brilliant whites, that shouldn't be that strong on the spectral scale. If I use TRI-X then I find that it is always easier to control these background highlights. Moral of the story: TMY-2 is more finicky with the correct exposure and development with less latitude for error. If I was using the same combination for a whole year - I would use a film that has a great exposure latitude just in case I find myself without a meter or shooting on the run. It will eliminate one variable.

Economics: As Kodak has a generic brand currently for sale, it represents excellent value. Also, where I am it is cheaper than the HP5. HP5 to my knowledge has no cheaper generic replacement.

Okay, so if I were to choose one film, then I would go for the TRI-X. Now the developer. Well I would definetely choose either D76 1:1 or Rodinal. If you like smoother grain, then go for the D76, but if you like larger sharper grain, then for Rodinal. It will be easy to achieve a EI:400 with the D76 as opposed to the Rodinal.

TRI-X and D76 1:1: for EI: 200 used with strong sun highlights, agitate 1st min, then 2 agitations/30 seconds for a period of 9 minutes.

EI: 400, agitate 1st minute, then 2 agitations/30 seconds for a period of 9:45 for reasonably sunny days, or 11 minutes for cloudy days to increase the contrast.

Hope this helps

 

[Thomas-Paris]

I also don't like Kodak TMY-2 because I find that it is extremely contrasty in full sun, and I have a lot of difficulty taming that contrast, when I wouldn't run into problems with the TRI-X or the HP5. That is using either Rodinal or D76 1:1 - more on that in a minute. That inherent contrast in the TMY-2 shot on a sunny day coupled with modern Zeiss optics or the newer ASPH range from Leica will produce images that almost seem cartoonish as they are so sharp and that high in contrast.

You're underexposing/overdeveloping. On a day with harsh light, you need to control the contrast, which if you're using TMY-2 means adjusting your development.

Another problem with the TMY-2 that I haven't seen other people or magazines mention, is that when you are shooting a scene with a subject in the foreground that is in shade, coupled with strong highlights in the background or distance, then those highlights in the background quickly turn very stong brilliant whites, that shouldn't be that strong on the spectral scale. If I use TRI-X then I find that it is always easier to control these background highlights. Moral of the story: TMY-2 is more finicky with the correct exposure and development with less latitude for error.

Again, it sounds like you need to adjust your development to control the contrast.

But I don't disagree with what you're saying. It sounds like TX does what you want, which is to give you a lot of latitude. TMY gives you more precise control. If you want TX and you have TMY, the film will seem finicky and prone to error. The flip side is that if you have TX and you want TMY, the film will seem bull-headed and will render the scene how it wants, no matter what you do.

If I was using the same combination for a whole year - I would use a film that has a great exposure latitude just in case I find myself without a meter or shooting on the run. It will eliminate one variable.

This is important for anyone considering shooting a lot of TMax. If you don't have a meter, you will lose shots. Sunny 16 and this film don't get along. In those cases, I avoid modern tab grain films and stick to HP5.

 

[calebk]

This is important for anyone considering shooting a lot of TMax. If you don't have a meter, you will lose shots. Sunny 16 and this film don't get along. In those cases, I avoid modern tab grain films and stick to HP5.

Hence, at the end of the day, we can all conclude that TX and HP5 are the more forgiving of the 400 films.

 

[Jaans]

You're underexposing/overdeveloping. On a day with harsh light, you need to control the contrast, which if you're using TMY-2 means adjusting your development.

Again, it sounds like you need to adjust your development to control the contrast.

But I don't disagree with what you're saying. It sounds like TX does what you want, which is to give you a lot of latitude. TMY gives you more precise control. If you want TX and you have TMY, the film will seem finicky and prone to error. The flip side is that if you have TX and you want TMY, the film will seem bull-headed and will render the scene how it wants, no matter what you do.

This is important for anyone considering shooting a lot of TMax. If you don't have a meter, you will lose shots. Sunny 16 and this film don't get along. In those cases, I avoid modern tab grain films and stick to HP5.

Just wondering if you even bothered reading my initial post before you released your nuggets of information. Or perhaps you just always jump to conclusions?

Where oh where did I write that I was underexposing and overdeveloping my TMY-2 shot on sunny days? Unless I write that I am changing my EI or development, then one should assume that I am referring to film exposed at its normal box ISO.

I was relating my observations of those three 400 films for the OP shot at their box speed on sunny days with the recommended times from the manufacturer. As I write further in my post - the "inherent" contrast of TMY-2 film shot on sunny days produces unacceptably high contrast compared to TRI-X and HP5. This serves as a common YARDSTICK for the OP to make a choice - basically three films all shot at their ISO 400 and developed for the recommended times with no adjustment. Like I said, I run into less problems doing this with the TRI-X and HP5.

Also, using one film for a year you are bound to run into situations where you have different exposures on the one film. So, you develop normallly at 400 or for the most important shots. I wrote that the TMY-2 runs into difficulty with strong sun in the background, yet the TRI-X and HP5 handle these situations better.

So speaking from the common ground of observing these three films exposed at 400 under full sun, the TRI-X and the HP5 in my experience are the most practical options for use for a whole year. So, after testing all three films and writing that I chose TRI-X as it gave the most latitude for error, best midde range contrast and is great in terms of economics, I then provide more detailed data for fine tuning exposure and developent. Yet you produce this pearl of wisdom:

You: "Again it sounds like you need to control your development to control the contrast".

That basically shows that you didn't even read to the bottom of my initial post where I gave my recommended times for TRI-X shot at EI:200 for strong sun with highlights and then times for TRI-X again shot at EI:400 with moderate highlights and cloud.

Again you jump to conclusions. If I had chosen TMY-2 and recommended it to the OP, then I would have given exposure and development details (as I did for the TRI-X) for expsoures in full sun with strong highlights at EI:200. But I didn't choose TMY-2 because it performed badly based on my initial tests of all three films shot at EI:400 in full sun, hence no data for TMY-2 at EI:200.

In the spirit of the OP's post and for the sake of clarity, I have provided data for ONE FILM, as that was the whole idea - keeping it simple.

Me: "If I use TRI-X then I find it is always easier to control these background highlights. Moral of the story: TMY-2 is more finicky with the correct exposure and develpment with less latitude for error. If I was using the same combination for a whole year - I would use a film that has a great exposure latitude just in case I find myself without a meter or shooting on the run. It will eliminate one variable.

You: "This is important for anyone considering shooting a lot of TRI-X. If you don't have a meter you will lose shots. Sunny 16 and this film don't get along. In those cases I avoid modern tab grain films and stick to HP5."

Teaching grandma to suck eggs. Your just paraphrasing my initial post and trying to pass it of as your own. You have provided no new insights or observations of any of these films, and have instead played the role of the contrarian and deliberately misinterpreted my post then plagiarized it at will.

 

[dogbunny]

Hey Folks,

Thanks for all the input. I just have a few more questions. I've been browsing flickr and looking at different film/developer combinations. I'm leaning towards a 400 speed film, just cuz that seems to make the most sense. If I was shooting 400 speed film on a bright and sunny day how would I be able to get more use of wider apertures, say between 5.6 and 2.8 where I do a lot of my shooting? For example, I was shooting yesterday with a Hexar AF in P mode. I was trying to shoot at 2.8f, but the best the camera could manage without over exposing was 8f. I know the 1/250 shutter speed is kind of an issue at that point, and my other cameras have higher shutter speeds. What would be the easiest solution in that case? A stop down filter? pulling the film?

As far as developers go, is there one that easily allows for both pushing and pulling? Is that something I need to think about? Or just get something that pushes well and use filters that allow me to open up the aperture wider?

Sorry if I'm not using the right jargon, I read a lot of the posts here and I kind of feel like a kid overhearing an adult conversation. I understand some of what's being said and misunderstand a lot of the rest. But I gotta start somewhere.

Cheers,

DB

 

[RichL]

On the rare occasions I push I like Microphen (caution, I'm an Ilford fan .

At least for starting off I would really recommend using N.D. filters to stay within the exposure range. Nothing wrong with push and pull when needed but learn the "normal" response of your film first.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

DB, for direct sun with the Hexar AF you should use a neutral density filter... An ND8 (three stops) lets you open your lens... Using ISO100 film or ISO50 (PanF+ by Ilford) is nice too for f/2... I use a generic step-up ring ($6 at B&H) 46-52 to use common 52mm filters...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[dogbunny]

Thanks Rich and Juan,

I'll just give the filter a go. That step-up ring seems the way to go. I'm shooting about 6 different "test/sample" rolls then I will develop them all before I make a choice, then let the experiment begin. Fun stuff.

DB