Pastor Chris
Well-known
I would love to hear a few opinions for the films you folks like to use. I am currently shooting only in B&W, simply because I like the effects and I can develop it myself. I have been using Kodak T-Max and Tri-X. Please weigh in and advise.
mfogiel
Veteran
Agfa APX 100 (same as Rollei Retro 100) in Rodinal can give very nice classic tonality, also Fomapan 200 in FX39 is very good.
Rollei Retro 100
Fomapan 200
Rollei Retro 100
Fomapan 200
Peter_S
Peter_S
For daylight I reduced it down to Fuji Acros 100 - really nice tones, forgiving to process, sharp but still some grain, easy to scan.
alfredian
Well-known
Kodak Plus-X or Efke KB25
Kodak Plus-X or Efke KB25
Classic camera, classic film. Kodak's Plus-X (aka Arista Premium 100) @ 125 asa is great for outdoors, any-light, or indoors, bright-light. My first film, ever, switching over to Tri-X only for indoor available-darkness. Efke's KB25 is classic emulsion formula, and is great for outdoor shots, any light. Rodinal or Sprint for PXP, RO9 or D-76 1+3 for the Efke.
Kodak Plus-X or Efke KB25
Classic camera, classic film. Kodak's Plus-X (aka Arista Premium 100) @ 125 asa is great for outdoors, any-light, or indoors, bright-light. My first film, ever, switching over to Tri-X only for indoor available-darkness. Efke's KB25 is classic emulsion formula, and is great for outdoor shots, any light. Rodinal or Sprint for PXP, RO9 or D-76 1+3 for the Efke.
Bingley
Veteran
Like you, I've been using Tri-X as my go-to bw film. But this summer I tried out some slower bw films for landscapes and streetscapes, and so far have been particularly pleased w/ two: TMax100 shot at iso 50 and developed in Rodinal, and Plus-X shot at 320 and developed in Diafine.
TMax100 @ 50, Rodinal 1:50, shot w/ a Leica IIIc and Elmar 50/3.5:
Plus-X @ 320 in Diafine, shot w/ Leica IIIc and CV Skopar 50/2.5:
TMax100 @ 50, Rodinal 1:50, shot w/ a Leica IIIc and Elmar 50/3.5:
Plus-X @ 320 in Diafine, shot w/ Leica IIIc and CV Skopar 50/2.5:
Pastor Chris
Well-known
Very nice, and I see right away what you mean about the tonal qualities. I suppose another question is how much does lens choice effect quality? I have read about the Leica Summar lenses as being both lauded and decried because of the effect they produce.
Pastor Chris
Well-known
Like you, I've been using Tri-X as my go-to bw film. But this summer I tried out some slower bw films for landscapes and streetscapes, and so far have been particularly pleased w/ two: TMax100 shot at iso 50 and developed in Rodinal, and Plus-X shot at 320 and developed in Diafine.
TMax100 @ 50, Rodinal 1:50, shot w/ a Leica IIIc and Elmar 50/3.5:
Plus-X @ 320 in Diafine, shot w/ Leica IIIc and CV Skopar 50/2.5:
Both shots are beautiful, and have the sort of character that I am after. As I get more into this "film thing" the more I realize how many variables there are with regards to the films, developers, processing techniques. All of you advice is appreciated.
Bingley
Veteran
Thanks! An answer to your question on lens choice will consume hours and hours of debate, and has been the subject of countless threads here on RFF. My only take on it is that the lens is one, but only one, variable in achieving a particular look you're after, and film/developer choice may be more important.
With Summars in particular it seems that quality is sample-dependent, but a good Summar can produce wonderful images. Do a search in the LTM forum for some threads that Sanders McNew posted a couple of years ago for some lovely results w/ a cleaned Summar (both color and bw).
Last edited:
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Bingley, just curious - you say you shot Plus X at ISO 320? Can you elaborate? Thanks, the reason is I usually shoot it at 80!Like you, I've been using Tri-X as my go-to bw film. But this summer I tried out some slower bw films for landscapes and streetscapes, and so far have been particularly pleased w/ two: TMax100 shot at iso 50 and developed in Rodinal, and Plus-X shot at 320 and developed in Diafine.
TMax100 @ 50, Rodinal 1:50, shot w/ a Leica IIIc and Elmar 50/3.5:
Plus-X @ 320 in Diafine, shot w/ Leica IIIc and CV Skopar 50/2.5:
BTW, the pix are terrific.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ilford HP5 or Kodak Tri-X. Both are idiot-proof, and if you're not an idiot (I flatter myself), both are even better.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Bingley
Veteran
Hi Tony --
The key to Plus-X at 320 is to develop it in Diafine, which develops to exhaustion. When using a conventional developer, like Rodinal or HC 110 (in my case), then I do what you do and shoot and develop at 80 or 125.
The key to Plus-X at 320 is to develop it in Diafine, which develops to exhaustion. When using a conventional developer, like Rodinal or HC 110 (in my case), then I do what you do and shoot and develop at 80 or 125.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I can tell you what I use, which are Tri-X, Plus-X and Efke 25.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Two23
Member
I've been using HP5, at ISO 400. The reason is I generally use filters and the extra speed gives me some flexibility with shutter speed. It also allows me faster shutter speeds when I shoot at night, which I often do. I like HP5 smooth, lower contrast look.
Kent in SD
Kent in SD
Steve M.
Veteran
Tri-X!.... Tri-X!.... Tri-X!
Ok, I love Tri-X, and it works well no matter what camera or lens you use it with. I usually go w/ a yellow filter when using it or any B&W film too. But it's a fast film, so if you have an older, shutter-speed-challenged camera it can be a little issue in bright light. The yellow filter will help you out w/ one stop, but if your top shutter speed is a real 1/250 on your camera (vs what it optimistically says on the dial), then you're usually stuck w/ the lens stopped down all the way. So you'll need an ND filter or another film for those bright days. HP5 is another great film that can hold it's own w/ the best, but it's 400 ISO too. I like Ilford Delta 100 a lot, but their FP4 always came out looking sharp but a little boring in my hands. Plux-X sounds promising and I'm looking forward to shooting it. T-Max, for one reason or another, has never worked for me either, although I've seen others shoot it w/ success. Acros I really hate. Looks like C41 B&W, but worse. Probably good for moody, softish portraits and landscapes, but I just don't like it.
So which film do I recommend? Tri-X! Use it for 6 months and see what you think.
Ok, I love Tri-X, and it works well no matter what camera or lens you use it with. I usually go w/ a yellow filter when using it or any B&W film too. But it's a fast film, so if you have an older, shutter-speed-challenged camera it can be a little issue in bright light. The yellow filter will help you out w/ one stop, but if your top shutter speed is a real 1/250 on your camera (vs what it optimistically says on the dial), then you're usually stuck w/ the lens stopped down all the way. So you'll need an ND filter or another film for those bright days. HP5 is another great film that can hold it's own w/ the best, but it's 400 ISO too. I like Ilford Delta 100 a lot, but their FP4 always came out looking sharp but a little boring in my hands. Plux-X sounds promising and I'm looking forward to shooting it. T-Max, for one reason or another, has never worked for me either, although I've seen others shoot it w/ success. Acros I really hate. Looks like C41 B&W, but worse. Probably good for moody, softish portraits and landscapes, but I just don't like it.
So which film do I recommend? Tri-X! Use it for 6 months and see what you think.
Pastor Chris
Well-known
Thanks Steve, and everyone else. I think that I will use the Tri-X for awhile, that is the direction I was headed anyway. I had tried Tmax in both 100 and 400, but I tend to blow out the highlights too often. I have been using Tmax developer, mostly because it is available where i live and I like the fact that the liquid is easier to mix. Any suggestions as to what other developers have been successful with Tri-X?
Mackinaw
Think Different
D-76 is a classic, but I prefer Xtol.
Jim B.
Jim B.
Last edited:
Bingley
Veteran
I've used Rodinal 1:50 and HC 110 w/ Tri-X and gotten very satisfactory results w/ each. I think my favorite combination (which I learned about from some other members on RFF) is to expose Tri-X at iso 250, and develop in Rodinal 1:60 for 12 mins., w/ minimal agitation. That's a one stop overexposure, btw, but w/ Tri-X it works nicely and preserves shadow detail.
No question in my mind that Tri-X is a great film -- you can shoot it at 250 or 1600 and get excellent results.
No question in my mind that Tri-X is a great film -- you can shoot it at 250 or 1600 and get excellent results.
leica M2 fan
Veteran
Diafine is the answer.
Diafine is the answer.
Thanks after I posted earlier since I've never used Diafine I checked its specs and realized that was the answer. Thanks for your input, I'm always happy to get informed. Tony
Diafine is the answer.
Thanks after I posted earlier since I've never used Diafine I checked its specs and realized that was the answer. Thanks for your input, I'm always happy to get informed. Tony
maddoc
... likes film again.
Very nice, Steve !! I have to try that myself, Tmax100 + Rodinal and 50ISO ! 
Like you, I've been using Tri-X as my go-to bw film. But this summer I tried out some slower bw films for landscapes and streetscapes, and so far have been particularly pleased w/ two: TMax100 shot at iso 50 and developed in Rodinal, and Plus-X shot at 320 and developed in Diafine.
TMax100 @ 50, Rodinal 1:50, shot w/ a Leica IIIc and Elmar 50/3.5:
Luddite Frank
Well-known
Tri-X is a great film; if the grain is too coarse for your tastes, try a slower film such as Plus-X, Ilford FP-4(ISO125), or something even slower like ISO 50 ( Ilford Pan F Plus ).
The Summar was a decent lens, designed for B&W films; supposedly it had some issues with vignetting when shot wide-open with the first color films, which had ISO ratings around 10 and very little latitude ( This may no longer be an issue, with modern high-speed color films.). The two main issues that seem to plague Summars are scratches on the glass and internal haze. Either one can cause them to flare when shooting against strong light; a lens shade will help minimize flare.
My dad shot only Tri-X 400 ( or Kodachrome) with his Nikon S, and swore by it.
Luddite Frank
The Summar was a decent lens, designed for B&W films; supposedly it had some issues with vignetting when shot wide-open with the first color films, which had ISO ratings around 10 and very little latitude ( This may no longer be an issue, with modern high-speed color films.). The two main issues that seem to plague Summars are scratches on the glass and internal haze. Either one can cause them to flare when shooting against strong light; a lens shade will help minimize flare.
My dad shot only Tri-X 400 ( or Kodachrome) with his Nikon S, and swore by it.
Luddite Frank