Another common question - 100 ISO B&W

Another common question - 100 ISO B&W

  • Fuji Acros 100

    Votes: 27 45.8%

  • TMax 100

    Votes: 13 22.0%

  • Ilford Delta 100

    Votes: 8 13.6%

  • Efke 100

    Votes: 6 10.2%

  • Fomapan 100

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • Total voters
    59
A hundred different respondents will give you a hundred different answers -- none any more or less valid than any other.

They're starting points, at best. Your experience, combined with your unique methods of processing, will give the real answer. (FWIW, it's a tie for me between Rollei Retro 100 and Acros).

What gives me pause is - you mention getting your film "professionally processed"...you're outsourcing it to a lab?
In that case, it won't really make as much of a difference. I really recommend you do this yourself, to truly make the process and the film "your own". That one step alone will affect your results more than any choice of film you make.

Best of luck
 
Colin...

As much as I would like, "my own" processing is really not a reality for me...for several reasons. I know it will sound "funny", but I've long ago learned to figure out what I am good with and what I am not. I would prefer to be good at one thing, rather than mediocre at several - in both my day-time profession and my serious hobby. I would rather focus (no pun intended) on shooting and spend a premium on someone who is an expert on developing and scanning. Which of course leads me to the question; if you had to have someone develop and scan your film, who would that be?

I've researched several labs in NYC for their developer, their clients and their scanning. It will probably not surprise only to know, that I've not found a lab yet that is a true B&W lab with the premium developers and high-scanning. The best labs I found (based on reputation) so far have amateur scanning equipment. I found a lab around the corner from me in NYC who uses D76, but has a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 and seems to know how to use it.

I hate to admit it, but sometimes frustration leads to investment...1) darkroom, 2) drying cabinet and 3) $2,000 scanner.
 
You don't need a $2000 scanner...
I invested in an epson v500 a long while ago. Isn't very expensive and does a marvelous job for its worth.

The amount of money it has saved me rather than going to labs and getting them to scan to CD's is hundreds of $ up until now. And the scanner has many more years left in it.
 
Well, I'm not aware of your reasons and therefore cannot credibly comment on them...I will say (to your exasperation, probably, since you've likely heard it a thousand times!) that it's cheap and easy to do it yourself...I do my film in a room that is lightproof, along with a sink and, well, that's just about it. Nothing special required.

That said, if you are going to go the lab route, then consistency is the key. Is the person doing this for you following the same routine, every time? Same chemistry, same agitation, same time?

That'll be what is most important, if you can't/won't develop film yourself...and again, good luck.
 
PS - from my observation it seems a dedicated scanner (Nikon Coolscan, etc) is best for 35mm work, but I also have an Epson v700 that does fantastic scans for MF and LF negatives. I was really surprised to see how sharp the images were.
 
Neare,

You must be an Accountant as well (my day job is as a CFO). Yes, I know the price is "daunting", but to be honest I cannot get a real good story about scanners. I "know" that drum scanning is the "best". I "hear" very good things about film scanners. And I "hear" mixed results about flatbed scanners.

I have done a lot of research over the past 2-weeks about scanners. Every "expert" I have read or spoken to says, "...b&w on a flatbed scanner is not a good mix."
 
Neare,

You must be an Accountant as well (my day job is as a CFO). Yes, I know the price is "daunting", but to be honest I cannot get a real good story about scanners. I "know" that drum scanning is the "best". I "hear" very good things about film scanners. And I "hear" mixed results about flatbed scanners.

I have done a lot of research over the past 2-weeks about scanners. Every "expert" I have read or spoken to says, "...b&w on a flatbed scanner is not a good mix."
 
Although superb tonally, I personally find the T-grain emulsions like TMX, Acros and Delta to be a little lacking in character, almost like digital b+w. I prefer old-school emulsions like APX100 (Rollei Retro) and Fomapan 100 which is a bit like an earlier version of APX100, and FP4+. I find Plus-X in 120 perfect for long exposures. I like both Rodinal 1:50 and XTOL 1:1 for development.
 
If you're prepared to use a C41 film, you could consider Ilford XP2 Super, it's 400 ISO, but I don't think it's grain is a million miles from looking lke ISO 100. The main advantage here is scanning, you can use ICE, and this for me at least, is a major advantage.
 
James,
Developing in D76 and scanning on a CS9000 is what many of us do already. If that lab is not too expensive and does not scratch your films, then you might as well use it. Considering the developer, you should use Plus X (or Arista Premium 100) @EI 80, or Tri X @EI 250. I think that eventually you will buy this scanner and develop yourself, because the labs are unreliable, and if you are a CFO, you cannot be much worse at developing than me ( I am a trader), haha...
 
jamesdfloyd said:
Please excuse my ignorance, but for arguement sake, if I where to stick to Fuji Acros 100 and I can pick any pro lab based on their chemical choice (or my willingness to pay for any choice), which would be the "best" developer choice?

J.D.
Click to expand...

Good question but here's the rub: You don't know which is the "best developer" for yourself until you've tried it.

If you can find a lab that is so co-operative that they are willing to do change their developer for you, then by all means, give them a couple rolls of exposed Acros and have them develop those in Rodinal, D76, and X-tol. And see which one you like best.
 
I've been alternating this summer between Plus-X and TMax 100, both developed in Rodinal 1:50. So far, I prefer the results I've gotten from TMax 100 (which I've been shooting at iso 50) for landscapes, so I voted for TMax, but I'm still 'sperimentin'. I've got a roll of Plus-X going right now which I intend to develop in Diafine. I've also got some FP4 and Neopan SS to shoot, and I'd like to try some Efke too. My go-to developer is Rodinal, although I also use HC110 and Diafine from time to time.
 
Plus X in Rodinal: Question

Slightly OT, but for those of you who use Plus-X and develop in Rodinal, what agitation routine do you prefer?

I've read recommendations for Plus-X to do an initial agitation of 30 seconds followed by a couple of inversions every 30 seconds, but that seems to me to be a lot of agitation for Rodinal, far more than I usually do w/ TMax or Tri-X.
 
+1 for APX100 (Rollei Retro 100) and Rodinal. Easy peasy to soup your own. You don't need a darkroom, just a changing bag or old changing box from a minilab. Get some Hewes SS reels, an SS tank and you are in business. Deal with the expert scanning thing later -- meanwhile, make do with a refurbished flatbed from Epson (ala V500) for small money. Don't let overanalysis keep you from diving in. You don't need to optimize all the gear choices and processes before you even begin. Just do it, the rest is details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom