Favourite 120 film for landscapes ?

Havoc

Havoc

Member
Local time
7:14 AM
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
30
I'm going to be stocking up on 120 film for my holidays shortly and was hoping I could get advice on which 120 film you prefer for landscapes and why ? Any help much appreciated as usual.

John.
 
Dear John,

Mono: Ilford Delta 100 (sharp, fine grained, lovely tonality when carefully exposed and processed).

Colour: Ektar 100 (sharp, fine grained, lovely tonality even when not carefully exposed and processed).

Cheers,

R.
 
I would stick to a film that will give you great tonality in B&W. Personally, i prefer Tri X or HP5+ for their versatility. The T grain films like the Deltas or the Tmax2 have better resolution, but they give a more digital like effect. FP4+ or Plus X can also be nice, but you lose a couple of stops and some dynamic range.
A couple of examples:

Tri X
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/5366773968_6a3eec094f_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/3569590904_812b9137a7_b.jpg

HP5+
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1454135399_79eb6ee2ea_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1406/1453585093_489fba99ea_b.jpg

BTW Tri X in D76 1+1 is the standard combination of Michael Kenna, see if you like his photos.
 
Last edited:
The MF lenses are slower than their 35mm counterparts.
The DOF shallower.
My gear is heavier and I'm less stable.

for all these reasons, and because I don't use a tripod, I prefer 400 ISO for 120.
Also, after screwing an orange filter on the lens, I'm back on a 100 ISO equivalent.

All that being said, I am not a serious MF shooter, so my choices may really not be that smart.
 
Generally I take a mix of Tmax400 for early/late and cloudy day shooting and Tmax100 for bright sunny days. Tmax400 is so good that over the years I have considered dropping the slower film altogether.
 
I only shoot B&W, and in MF I tend to use Fuji Arcos shot at 100, or Tri-X shot at 320-400 with a 2X yellow filter, both developed in Diafine. (The speed boost of using Diafine with Tri-X is offset by the use of the filter with Tri-X, Arcos is shot at box speed with no filters.)

The results are both detailed and fine grained. Basically all I need.

Cal
 
Havoc said:
What film do you all prefer for outside portraits in mixed light ?
Click to expand...

I use the same.

Diafine is a good slackers brew, and I figured out how to make it work for me. I shoot lots of film, so much that mixing 10 liters of ID-11 at a time became a logistic chore.

BTW Arcos with Diafine is the ultimate combination for mixed lighting at night. NO RECIPROCY FAILURE. It loves mixed light doing bulb exposures in my NYC urban landscapes. A two part developer that performs contrast compression. The trick with Diafine is getting this contrast compression to work for you.

Cal
 
Havoc said:
I'm going to be stocking up on 120 film for my holidays shortly and was hoping I could get advice on which 120 film you prefer for landscapes and why ? Any help much appreciated as usual.

John.
Click to expand...

B&W: Ilford Pan F or XP2 (sounds odd, I know)

Pan F has very fine grain and I prefer the tonality to Delta 100. FP4 has to already to much grain on my books, even in MF. XP2 for the convenience of C41 processing (also better grain than FP4).

Colour: Kodak E100G (E100GW is discontinued :( )

I just like that colour and scans easier than any negative emulsion. Downside with slide material you have to bracket.


Oh, and my MF camera lives on a tripod. It pays off in the composition department, even when the shutter is fast.
 
shadowfox said:
Adox CHS 25 or 50.
If you prefer smooth tones vs contrast.
Click to expand...

Dear Will,

Eh? Contrast is a function of development.

Too much contrast = too much development.

Any fim, in the right developer, will give the contrast you want.

Whether it gives the tonality you like is another question.

Cheers,

R.
 
joachim said:
Pan F has very fine grain and I prefer the tonality to Delta 100.
Click to expand...

Ah. I use Delta 100 as my landscape B&W film of choice but I've just bought 20 rolls of Pan F to try out as I saw some landscape pictures made with it that looked niiiice.

Velvia 50 / Reala for colour is nice.
 
I like FP4+. Max speed on my RF folder is 1/500, so I avoid 400-films in direct sunlight. I'll try some Delta 100 this summer and use a digicam to get the exposure just right. With FP4+ the 60 year old selenium meter is good enough.
 
I'm a big fan of Kodak E100G for transparency film; it gives great colors without the garishness that you get from Velvia. For the same reason, when I use color negative film, I use Kodak Portra 160NC whenever possible. I've also gotten great results from Fuji Pro 400H.

I haven't used black and white 120 film in quite some time, but the last time I did I used Agfa APX 100 and liked it quite a bit. Never got the chance to try Scala, sadly. Nowadays, I'd probably just grab T-Max 100 and call it good enough.

EDIT: Which reminds me, I always loved Agfa color films because of their neutral, more subdued color rendering. I should buy some...
 
Last edited:
The color shots I have been most happy with were mostly done with Provia 400x, a few with Provia 100.

In black and white have been happy with TMAX 100 and Pan F, sometimes TMAX 400. Although I love HP5 for portraits, I have not been as happy with it for landscapes.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Will,

Eh? Contrast is a function of development.

Too much contrast = too much development.

Any fim, in the right developer, will give the contrast you want.

Whether it gives the tonality you like is another question.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger,

Certainly. But I find that using Adox results in lower contrast images given the same time, developer and agitation regime.

Could it be caused by a different distribution/concentration of silver versus other brands?
 
mfogiel said:
I would stick to a film that will give you great tonality in B&W. Personally, i prefer Tri X or HP5+ for their versatility. The T grain films like the Deltas or the Tmax2 have better resolution, but they give a more digital like effect. FP4+ or Plus X can also be nice, but you lose a couple of stops and some dynamic range.
A couple of examples:

Tri X
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5121/5366773968_6a3eec094f_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/3569590904_812b9137a7_b.jpg

HP5+
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1454135399_79eb6ee2ea_b.jpg
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1406/1453585093_489fba99ea_b.jpg

BTW Tri X in D76 1+1 is the standard combination of Michael Kenna, see if you like his photos.
Click to expand...

Beautiful! What filtration (if any) did you use for these? Looking at the sky in the shot of the path to the church, I'm guessing yellow or orange?

Regards
Scott
 
The best thing i did is that i bought many different films colors and B&W and go out to shoot one film and another, then i decide which one i prefer more, ofcourse i test all or most films under same exposure, otherwise the variables will be always different, i got which film i like almost done.
B&W: Acros 100, TMAX 100/400, HP5+
Color neg: Reala 100, Ektar 100 [Portra 160/400 are better for urban and portraits]
Color slide: Velvia 50/100
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom