sf
Veteran
Part of why I left digital dehind was for its relatively low dynamic range (in my price range). I shoot mostly black and white - what film has the best range?
And for E-6?
thanks
And for E-6?
thanks
buying the right film
- Thread starter sf
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 13
- Views 2K
kiev4a
Well-known
You'll get a variety of opinions on your question. A lot depemds on what type of conditions you face. Kodak Tri-X has been around forever and has evolved over the years. It is a very forgiving film with lots of latitude. Illford has a lot of supporters, too. I've never used it so I can't really speak on that subject. I've also had good reults from Kodak's slower Plus-X. Tmax is another film that people seem to either love or hate. I've had good luck with it.
doubs43
Well-known
As a very general rule, the slower the emulsion the wider the tonality scale. However, it will also depend upon other factors such as your subject, the light and the developer used to process the negatives.
As already pointed out, Kodak Plus-X is an excellent film and so is Agfa Pro-100. If speed is of primary importance then Tri-X and Ilford HP-5+ are good choices. Agfa also makes a 400 speed film and many people swear by Fuji's Neopan 400 speed film.
I'm sure others will chime in and give you more information. Our opinions are a good starting point but only getting out and using the various films will give you the BEST answer for your needs and your equipment.
Walker
As already pointed out, Kodak Plus-X is an excellent film and so is Agfa Pro-100. If speed is of primary importance then Tri-X and Ilford HP-5+ are good choices. Agfa also makes a 400 speed film and many people swear by Fuji's Neopan 400 speed film.
I'm sure others will chime in and give you more information. Our opinions are a good starting point but only getting out and using the various films will give you the BEST answer for your needs and your equipment.
Walker
P
pshinkaw
Guest
A lot times it is not just a choice of film that will give you the desired results. It is a choice of film AND developer. You may want to try and think of the choice as a two part decision. e.g. Plus-X in D-76 can give you quite different results from Plus-X in Microdol-X. You may like one and hate the other.
-Paul
-Paul
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Look at the D/log E curves. Two with long straight line portions are Ilford FP4 and XP2.
Cheers,
Roger
Cheers,
Roger
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Here's XP2 (no filter at it's 400asa rating), Bessa R and the 35mm Skopar lens.
peter_n
Veteran
You will get a variety of opinions. In my own experience Neopan 400 has good latitude but Ilford XP2 has very wide latitude.
T_om
Well-known
themirana said:
Wow. You're gonna get a LOT of opinions on this question. 😀
It is so open ended that there cannot possibly be any absolute "right" answer.
So let me ring in with my advice: 😉
Pick a film/developer combination or two. If you must be given a starting point, choose from a list of "old standards" if you will.
Then learn THAT combination's characteristics. Try ALL the permutations that you would likely ever use. Push the film, pull the film, see how it responds to different developers, then REALLY get the combo you like best fine tuned to your shooting habits.
You will probably end up with two or three film/developer combinations that really work well *for you* and give you the look *you* want. You may find that the "look" of the combination that I find most pleasing to be absolute crap in *your* eyes.
At any rate, one thing is for sure. Practice makes the master.
Tom
PS: As for chromes, I have never found anything since Kodachrome that could beat Provia 100 in 120 format. Sweet. But again, it's just an opinion. 🙂
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I'll take the opposite corner from Tom.
Buy two different developers: as different as you can make them, say DDX (speed increasing) and Perceptol (ultra fine grain, reduced speed) or FX39 (acutance).
Try as wide a range of films as you can find/afford, in pairs, bracketed, one in each dev.
Stick with the first combination that looks 'magic'.
You may later adjust EI/dev time but in my experience the 'magic' is visible even when the EI and contrast aren't spot on.
What's 'magic' for one person will not necessarily be magic for another so beware of all recommendations -- hence my earlier advice to look at the D/log E curve if a long tonal range is important to you: HP5 will never deliver the same range as FP4, for example.
But the 'one combo' advice seems to me to have a fundamental flaw. What if you start out with the wrong combo FOR YOU?
T_om's opinion is the majority, mine the minority. That doesn't mean either of us is necessarily right. But I do get to 'test' an awful lot of films and devs in the course of what I do for a living...
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Buy two different developers: as different as you can make them, say DDX (speed increasing) and Perceptol (ultra fine grain, reduced speed) or FX39 (acutance).
Try as wide a range of films as you can find/afford, in pairs, bracketed, one in each dev.
Stick with the first combination that looks 'magic'.
You may later adjust EI/dev time but in my experience the 'magic' is visible even when the EI and contrast aren't spot on.
What's 'magic' for one person will not necessarily be magic for another so beware of all recommendations -- hence my earlier advice to look at the D/log E curve if a long tonal range is important to you: HP5 will never deliver the same range as FP4, for example.
But the 'one combo' advice seems to me to have a fundamental flaw. What if you start out with the wrong combo FOR YOU?
T_om's opinion is the majority, mine the minority. That doesn't mean either of us is necessarily right. But I do get to 'test' an awful lot of films and devs in the course of what I do for a living...
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Last edited:
T_om
Well-known
Whoa Roger!
NOT my advice at all. Neither are we in opposite corners on this one.
Maybe I should have distilled it a bit and left off some verbage... maybe I wasn't clear. Try lots of alternatives. That's fine. But you have to start somewhere and a newbie looking at all possible film/developer combinations is staring at a LOT of information.
So, yeah. Try lots of alternatives, but just make sure you really *try* them instead of shotgunning things and having the bird fly through the pattern (Old Skeet Shooting Term).
I was a darkroom geek long before the term "geek", as we know it today, existed. I tried a LOT of stuff. But I did it pretty methodically and with clear goals of what it was I was trying to achieve in mind. For example, it would take quite a bit of testing to just see what souping everything in the old standby D-76 would produce for you.
TEST is my point. Test thoroughly. And I would never say just blindly choose and leave it there.
You could, indeed (just as Roger says) pick the wrong combination from the start. But with proper testing, at least you'll know the combo doesn't work for you and you can move on to something else.
Tom
MCTuomey
Veteran
Isn't dynamic range far more a function of film speed than brand? I don't see a significant difference in tonality between TriX and HP5+ and Delta 400, for example. I do see quite a difference in tonality b/w FP2 and TriX or HP5+, however.
Also, I tend to think my exposures are partly to blame when my photos lack tonality. My mentality is that, when I'm working with a proven film and get less than expected results, my technique is to blame.
"The last thing you change is the TriX."
Also, I tend to think my exposures are partly to blame when my photos lack tonality. My mentality is that, when I'm working with a proven film and get less than expected results, my technique is to blame.
"The last thing you change is the TriX."
Max Power
Well-known
FWIW,
I really like Delta-400 with DDX as my 'fast' film. I find her a very demanding mistress insofar as she tolerates little in the way of error. The tradeoff, though is that the negatives really snap. The contrast is amazing, if you like that kind of thing.
For my slow film, I've been using APX 100 and Rodinal 1+50 lately. I find that it gives excellent latitude and is very forgiving of slight errors in exposure. I do use Delta-100 in DDX too, though.
As always though, horses for courses, and YMMV.
Kent
I really like Delta-400 with DDX as my 'fast' film. I find her a very demanding mistress insofar as she tolerates little in the way of error. The tradeoff, though is that the negatives really snap. The contrast is amazing, if you like that kind of thing.
For my slow film, I've been using APX 100 and Rodinal 1+50 lately. I find that it gives excellent latitude and is very forgiving of slight errors in exposure. I do use Delta-100 in DDX too, though.
As always though, horses for courses, and YMMV.
Kent
cp_ste.croix
At the beginning again.
though my experience is limited, i too, like Delta 100. souped in whatever they soup it in at my lab 🙂
i also like tri-x shot at 320...(developed at 400)
i also like tri-x shot at 320...(developed at 400)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sorry T_om -- didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, even slightly! And I certainly take your point about testing.
But I think we do differ slightly about how much testing is needed. I believe that with two bracketed rolls, one in each dev, you can see if the magic is there. Once you've found the combo(s) you like, stick with it/them and, as you suggest, start exploring the limits of what they can do.
Mike -- I'd certainly agree that films of a similar speed tend to have similar tonality as compared with faster or slower speeds but equally I'd say that I see small tonal differences between Tri-X and HP5 but significantly bigger tonal differences between either of those and Delta 400 and a bigger difference again when it comes to TMY.
I'd agree about exposure and tonality -- indeed, this is the basis of ISO film speeds -- but I'd also say that it's a lot harder to get bad tonality with overexposure than with underexposure: an extra 1/3 or 2/3 stop can make all the difference, but after that, another stop won't affect tonality all that much, though it will mean reduced sharpness and coarser grain.
The more I think about it, and the more I learn, the more convinced I am that there are very real differences in how we see, and this is self-reinforcing.
To me, for example, bokeh is almost completely irrelevant: it has to be REALLY bad before I notice. Grain I can live with, but tonality is paramount. But I think there must be people for whom bad bokeh is as unpleasant as bad tonality is for me. Maybe this deserves a thread of its own...
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
But I think we do differ slightly about how much testing is needed. I believe that with two bracketed rolls, one in each dev, you can see if the magic is there. Once you've found the combo(s) you like, stick with it/them and, as you suggest, start exploring the limits of what they can do.
Mike -- I'd certainly agree that films of a similar speed tend to have similar tonality as compared with faster or slower speeds but equally I'd say that I see small tonal differences between Tri-X and HP5 but significantly bigger tonal differences between either of those and Delta 400 and a bigger difference again when it comes to TMY.
I'd agree about exposure and tonality -- indeed, this is the basis of ISO film speeds -- but I'd also say that it's a lot harder to get bad tonality with overexposure than with underexposure: an extra 1/3 or 2/3 stop can make all the difference, but after that, another stop won't affect tonality all that much, though it will mean reduced sharpness and coarser grain.
The more I think about it, and the more I learn, the more convinced I am that there are very real differences in how we see, and this is self-reinforcing.
To me, for example, bokeh is almost completely irrelevant: it has to be REALLY bad before I notice. Grain I can live with, but tonality is paramount. But I think there must be people for whom bad bokeh is as unpleasant as bad tonality is for me. Maybe this deserves a thread of its own...
Cheers,
Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
Similar threads
