Favorite ISO 200 35mm BW film?

Roger Hicks said:
Your ignorance is pretty annoying, too. I would be astonished if Chris did not know a good deal more about film and development than you do
Click to expand...

Looks like bad attitude and a urgence to insult is more widely spread than expected...

Again, you don't know me. I've worked with film and scanners for so much time, it's not even funny.
Chris' arguments are partial, and his (and yours) bad manners won't help discussing it.

It's a pity a fine forum like this one, has to tolerate guys like you two.

Fernando
 
I think this might be the first post that really and concisely talks about effective speed in different developers in this thread. Too much yelling at each other...

Lots of talk about how one shoots such and such film at EI X and processes using developer Y, but we haven't really addressed the elephant in the room.

First, I rate Fomapan 200 down at 100 usually, and sometimes lower. This is with spot metering on large format. I'm not doing densitometer testing, though, so don't use these numbers against me. What I have found is that for my metering, exposure, and development techniques I rate it pretty darn low. The point isn't about my numbers, it's that one gets different "speed" in terms of shadow detail with different methods and chemicals.

So what is a 200 speed film? To me, you could say that it's a film you are metering at EI 200 and developing to your satisfaction. You lose some image quality this way or that way due to over or underexposure, gain some or lose some speed based on this developer or that, gain or lose grain/acutance based on developer, etc.

To me, if you're happy with the results then that's what matters. But there are a ton of variables at play.



Roger Hicks said:
Years ago, I found that when I developed FP4 to as close as I could get to ISO contrast standards, the true speed in pretty much any developer was very nearly identical to the true speed of Foma 200, i.e. 80 or less (speed reducing fine grain developers) to 160+ (speed increasing developers such as Ilford DD-X or Microphen). Foma's own data sheets revealed that "Foma 200" was only in sight of ISO 200 in speed increasing developers, and that they had rounded up slightly (but without breaking ISO rules) to call it "200". Put it this way: the characteristic curves could be superimposed one on the other (and yes, I was using a densitometer to plot them) so even if my tests were not quite to ISO standards, they showed the similarity of the two films.

Now, they may have reformulated it in the intervening couple of decades, but the big lesson to draw from this is that ISO speeds vary with developers.

Also, departures from ISO speed and contrast standards are always desirable if you get better pictures that way.

Very often, people look for more precision than exists in pos/neg photography; and the ones who do so are often the ones with the least understanding of what sensitometry is and how it works.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
Fernando2 said:
Looks like bad attitude and a urgence to insult is more widely spread than expected...

Again, you don't know me. I've worked with film and scanners for so much time, it's not even funny.
Chris' arguments are partial, and his (and yours) bad manners won't help discussing it.

It's a pity a fine forum like this one, has to tolerate guys like you two.

Fernando
Click to expand...

You're the one who, when told a scientifically verifiable truth, rolled your eyes like a child. Then, when called out on your childishness, you doubled down on the childishness by saying that I and Roger have bad manners.

So what does it mean that my arguments are 'partial'? My arguments are based on scientific testing, Kodak's own data sheets, and 30 years of experience.
 
Dear Roger,

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Jan,

Except, of course, that sharpness and fine grain are to some extent mutually exclusive: you will never get both the maximum sharpness of which a film is capable, and the finest grain of which it is capable, at the same time from the same developer.
Click to expand...

with all respect, but in this generalization that is wrong.
I've tested dozens of different developers in the last decades. And there are several which deliver both excellent sharpness and very fine grain (see below).
Especially in the last 15 years there have been quite a lot R&D by innovative smaller chemistry manufacturers (the big ones like Kodak and Ilford have not cared for chemistry for a long time; they don't even make it anymore by themselves: Tetenal is producing both the old Ilford and Kodak formulas for them).

Try for example Spur HRX, Adox ADX, Rollei RLS, Moersch Finol, Moersch Eco (for slow and medium speed films), Moersch Tanol, Prescysol EF, Spur Dokuspeed, Spur Nanospeed (for HR films) etc.

That excellent sharpness and very fine grain exclude each other to a certain extent is correct for the old (outdated) Kodak, Ilford, Agfa and Tetenal developer formulas.
But it is not true in general. And especially not true for several new, recent formulas.

Roger Hicks said:
Also, the concept of an "ideal characteristic curve" is dubious:a lot will depend on where you place the minimum exposure (shadow detail) on the characteristic curve. The late Geoffrey Crawley believed in keeping the straight line portion of the characteristic curve as straight as possible, but you're still going to have a toe and a shoulder...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

For the best tonality an even, consistent increase in density from Zone I / II upward is optimal = linear characteristic curve.
Toe:
If you have a (very) good film-developer combination the toe is below Zone II / I. In that area it is irrelevant for the picture.
Shoulder:
Depends on the film-developer combination. Not everyone has a shoulder.
For example both Delta 100 and FP4+ developed in Ilford DD-X have an absolutely straight linear curve without any shoulder up to Zone X. Perfect linear characteristic curve.

Cheers, Jan
 
HHPhoto said:
Dear Roger,



with all respect, but in this generalization that is wrong.
I've tested dozens of different developers in the last decades. And there are several which deliver both excellent sharpness and very fine grain (see below).
Especially in the last 15 years there have been quite a lot R&D by innovative smaller chemistry manufacturers (the big ones like Kodak and Ilford have not cared for chemistry for a long time; they don't even make it anymore by themselves: Tetenal is producing both the old Ilford and Kodak formulas for them).

Try for example Spur HRX, Adox ADX, Rollei RLS, Moersch Finol, Moersch Eco (for slow and medium speed films), Moersch Tanol, Prescysol EF, Spur Dokuspeed, Spur Nanospeed (for HR films) etc.

That excellent sharpness and very fine grain exclude each other to a certain extent is correct for the old (outdated) Kodak, Ilford, Agfa and Tetenal developer formulas.
But it is not true in general. And especially not true for several new, recent formulas.



For the best tonality an even, consistent increase in density from Zone I / II upward is optimal = linear characteristic curve.
Toe:
If you have a (very) good film-developer combination the toe is below Zone II / I. In that area it is irrelevant for the picture.
Shoulder:
Depends on the film-developer combination. Not everyone has a shoulder.
For example both Delta 100 and FP4+ developed in Ilford DD-X have an absolutely straight linear curve without any shoulder up to Zone X. Perfect linear characteristic curve.

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...
Dear Jan,

I have no doubt that you can get very high sharpness and very fine grain at the same time, but I would be surprised if you could get the maximum possible with either whwen using a single developer. You certainly have more recent experience than I, and than any of the great authorities (people like Glafkides or Haist); but in the absence of microdensitometer traces, I'd still be hesitant to believe you. But, to quote Geoffrey Crawley, "I could be wrong".

"No shoulder" is not quite the same thing as "no shoulder before Zone X", but If I can be arsed (I probably can't) I'll try plotting a curve for FP4 in DD-X: sounds intriguing!

Cheers,

R.
 
Chris -- Why don't you shoot FP4 at either ISO 125 or 200? The film has so much latitude, less than one stop underexposure doesn't make any difference when you scan/print the negatives.
 
giganova said:
Chris -- Why don't you shoot FP4 at either ISO 125 or 200? The film has so much latitude, less than one stop underexposure doesn't make any difference when you scan/print the negatives.
Click to expand...


It makes a huge difference to me. I mostly process FP4 in PMK, and it looks like crap underexposed, which is what you are doing when shooting it at 125 or (especially) 200. The film's true speed in PMK is just 80.

If I am going to go to the expense and work involved in shooting film, I am sure not going to be lazy and produce low-quality work with it. A waste of money I cannot afford to lose and a waste of my time, which has become much more valuable as my health has declined in the last few yrs.
 
FP4 has a native speed of ISO 80? :confused: I've been shooting FP4 for many years at ISO 125 and develop it for 10 min in DDX (1+4) at 68F (consistent with the Ilford data sheet) with one inversion per minute and thought that the negatives always came out perfect.

In my experience, an over- or underexposure by one stop makes absolutely no difference when you scan the negatives later.

But maybe I'm not having such a scientific approach to photograph than you ;)
 
First off, I usually shoot Tri-X at 200. It just looks a little better to me, though I haven't taken the time to truly analyze why. I take it to the lab for pull development, and I have no idea what chemicals they use, but so far they haven't bungled it up.

Secondly, every one here has a preference for shooting and developing film that suits their style. If it doesn't fit with ones own way of doing things, it's not something that needs to get anybodies undies in a wad over.

PF
 
giganova said:
FP4 has a native speed of ISO 80? :confused: I've been shooting FP4 for many years at ISO 125 and develop it for 10 min in DDX (1+4) at 68F (consistent with the Ilford data sheet) with one inversion per minute and thought that the negatives always came out perfect.

In my experience, an over- or underexposure by one stop makes absolutely no difference when you scan the negatives later.

But maybe I'm not having such a scientific approach to photograph than you ;)
Click to expand...


You were so busy trying to look witty that you didn't bother to read what I wrote. I'll repeat and clarify: I develop it in in PMK. In PMK it has a true speed of 80. PMK drops the speed of most films; that's the nature of that developer. It is also a developer that does not tolerate underexposure.

I'm sure than in DDX, a developer that maintains box speed in most films, that FP4 works great at 125. So why do I use a speed-reducing developer? Because PMK gives a tonality that I prefer. The loss of 2/3 stop of speed is nothing to me. If I cared about speed, I'd shoot a faster film.
 
The few rolls of FP4+ I have used (years ago) were exposed at box speed.
The negatives had lower contrast than I like and I didn't continue with it.
Pushing PF4+ one stop might bump it up a bit so might be worth trying.

Using HP5+ exposed at box speed IMO contrast is only just marginal.
I doubt I'd be pleased by the results pulling it.

Chris
 
200 is slightly too fast for me, could I push TMax 100 to 168 or maybe 173 in a pinch, if a cloud passes by?
 
I'd have to say Tri-X because I rate it at 200-250 anyway like most people, and just develop it normally. Looks great. I've also shot it at 100 and even 50, used standard developing times, and it still looked good. The shadows are a little blocked up at 50, so it depends on your lighting and subject, but the tones are wonderful in D76 or TD 16 full strength.

I also like Arista EDU Ultra 400 because I develop that in Microdol X straight up w/ no dilution. That means you lose a stop in that developer, so again, it gets rated at 200. Arista EDU Ultra 100 shot at 50 or even 25 w/ a yellow filter and developed in Mic-X full strength is the bomb.
 
I use HC110 (the Freestyle clone currently) almost exclusively.
I dump half of any other developer down the drain, unused.

Chris
 
You have some good suggestions, I'd say give a few a go and see what works for your subjects/workflow. Double-X in HC-110 will be grainy, but worth seeing it through your eye. I like the grain it gives, so I process it in HC-110 b exclusively. IME the FOMA is grainier than the XX. But as has been teased out in this thread I am likely not following best procedures with it. We all have our ways of working, and what I find easy to print others (CC) might find horribly inadequate. With more experience than the aforementioned expert (including a decade working for others as a lab tech) I prefer a stouter negative than many. But that's me. I just read about a newish FOMA 320 soft film that might be great shot at200 and (gasp) pushed, I'm tempted to try that.

What is perfect to one is sh1t to ten. I've long advocated trying many things and settling on a few. Have fun trying, and good luck settling!
 
I've now read reports that 5222 negatives are of the dreaded purple/pink variety.
Well, that's one of the main reasons I have (for now) sworn off Tri-X.

My ideal film will be exposed at EI 200 and developed in HC110 (time not under 5 minutes, please)
yielding contrasty negatives, on a clear durable base.

In light of the above more specific preferences further suggestions appreciated.
As mentioned before pushing 100 or pulling 400 speed films is acceptable to me.

Of course I realize any recommendation will only be a starting point.
I'd just rather not wind up with $100 worth of an unsuitable film...

TIA,
Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom