Film Choice for Beginner DIY B&W

Bill thanks for this thread, you've given me some good starting points and concepts . I'll try your approach because peripherally many posts here seem to confirm one or both of the film/developer propositions you put forward.

Regarding the other RFF 'ers comments I'm noting them for future reference, maybe in 6 months I'll try branching out a little.

Any comments / thoughts regarding the tanks ie stainless vs plastic? I've heard stainless has issues regarding loading and sometimes scratching emulsion. What about it?
 
gabrielma said:
In my opinion, I think that if you want good results, and you want the least hassle, just as long as you are disciplined enough, you should use Tri-X and soup it in Diafine.

Tri-X is the sensational film whether you're a novice or "advanced". You get different results with different ratings and different developers. Few other emulsions are as versatile as Tri-X.

That Kodak's been lazy to back info on the new Tri-X emulsions is another story, but claiming that it has less silver is ... well ... that's not the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

Agreed - but Tri-X in Diafine is rated at ISO 1600. A bit fast for most day-to-day uses?
 
jan normandale said:
I've heard stainless has issues regarding loading and sometimes scratching emulsion. What about it?
Click to expand...
I started out with stainless reels and went to plastic for the easier loading. However, I discovered the first stainless reels I had were not of great quality and I picked up some good steel reels and tanks which I've used for about 20 years.
The steel tanks also use smaller quantities of chemicals.
I can't say I've had scratching problems caused by steel tanks.

Peter
 
jan normandale said:
Any comments / thoughts regarding the tanks ie stainless vs plastic? I've heard stainless has issues regarding loading and sometimes scratching emulsion. What about it?
Click to expand...

Jan, I use both - I have to say I'm a bit of a fumble-fingers with the stainless reels. I do ok from time to time, then I'll really mess one up. With stainless steel, you bend the film just slightly to give it a 'bow' in the middle, and then you place the end of it in the center of the reel - there's a spring-loaded clip there. You feed the bitter end of the film into this clip and then you begin slowly winding the film around the reel, from the inside out towards the outside of the reel. There are spirals on top and bottom of the reel, these catch the film edges as you let go (remember you are bowing the film so it is not as 'tall', when you release as you feed, it gets taller and the spirals stop it from escaping). When it goes well, it is sweet - and fast. When it does not go well, you end up with film touching film inside the reel, and that spells disaster when you get it out of the soup. Chances are you won't know you've done it, either - remember, you load film by feel in total darkness (or a changing bag).

Stainless steel tanks are a bit smaller than the same thing in plastic - and tend to be more economical with chemicals. They also 'feel' more professional - and sometimes it does matter how you feel about what you're doing! When you master loading stainless steel reels, you feel like going out and celebrating - you've learned a he-man darkroom guy skill. One with HCB and all that stuff.

A plastic reel is a ratcheting device - you feed the bitter end of the film into a lip on the outside of the reel, and as you wind it up, it ratchets and drags the film into the center, spiraling around and around. It is a one-way trip - you can't easily pull the film back out again. You open it by twisting the reel halves after development - sort of like opening an Oreo cookie. Do you have Oreo cookies where you are? They are great in milk. Anyway...

With a plastic reel, if it loads, it is loaded right. It can be frustrating to get it to start sometimes, but overall, I find it easier than steel reels. Either one must be ABSOLUTELY DRY when you begin to load or you'll have a hell of a time.

If you are doing 35mm, plastic reels are a tad easier than 120, because the film sprockets are used by the ratcheting device. 120 works, but not quite so nicely.

There is another alternative - one I just found out about. It is from many years ago, and yet it works like a champ. I have no idea why it died out.

The thing is called Kodak Kodacraft. It comes in sizes for 120/220, 127, and of course 35mm. Now, what makes it different is this. Instead of a reel of any kind, inside the can is a transparent roll of slightly wavy plastic, called an apron. What you do is wind the plastic up with your film alongside it - so it becomes a two-layer thing. The waves in the clear plastic keep your film from touching itself (naughty film). It is SO EASY!

Here's a photo:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodacraft-Minia...ryZ29993QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Freestyle sells a modern-day rebop on them too:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=5629

Only problem with Freestyle is they have a $25 minimum order (but they sell all kinds of cool stuff too) and their tanks are single-roll only - the Kodacraft tanks are 2 roll for 35mm (one roll for 120 or 127).

I've been collecting these old Kodacraft aprons and tanks for a few months now - I think I'll be doing all my developing with them. Call me a wimp - I'm no good with stainless steel reels!

One thing with these older Kodracraft tanks, though - they are not sealable - so you can't invert them during processing. That's not really a big problem, but you have to remember that, or you'll be unhappy when you turn the thing upside down and everything falls out.

So, I have to say - my first choice is Kodacraft or modern updated version. Second choice is plastic reels, third is stainless steel.

Hope you find this helpful!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Jan, I've used both, but use stainless steel. With ss reels it is tough the first couple of times, and if you don't have straight, squared-up reels, it can be really tough, but once you get it, you get. I find them easier to handle, easier to keep clean, and easier to use in back-to-back sessions.

I have a *really* simplified step-by-step demonstration that I posted on my blog (back in November), for a friend of mine (we were putting together an Adobe Acrobat document for his class, and it included a video piece [these were for his reference]) It is HERE, if you're interested.

Bill, not all ss reels have that clip, in fact, I think the ones without are easier to load.

:)
 
RayPA said:
Bill, not all ss reels have that clip, in fact, I think the ones without are easier to load.

:)
Click to expand...

Well, I can't say I think much of that nasty little clip, but without it, what holds the film in?

Whenever I get the stainless steel right, I think Oh boy, that was great, I'm going to do that from now on. Then I botch one and get cranky. I have one embedded in my drywall, I believe. I'm not sure how it got there, but it don't roll no more.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Thanks for the info Bill - I was afraid that would be the answer....anyone interested in some expired slide film? :(

scott
 
bmattock said:
... I have one embedded in my drywall, I believe. I'm not sure how it got there, but it don't roll no more...
Bill Mattocks
Click to expand...

LOL! Great visual.

That clip can be a bigger pain than a help. When it's not there (as it is in about 1/2 my reels), I just insert the lead edge into the center and hold it against the inner spoke (where the clip should be), for the first wind. Sometimes the film begins to unroll with each turn, so I lay my knuckle on the back of the film, during each turn.

:)
 
Personally, and yes, I'm well aware of how little that's worth, I'd say Plus-X and Diafine. That very special grain is still there after all these years and EI400 with a dunk in Diafine is utterly special. This is especially true if the negs will be scanned. I really have not yet found a better combination for film/developer/scanning, though I do hope I will as I do not think the Great Yellow Father will be around all that much longer. Many other film producers, to be sure, just not them and (alas) Plus-X... :(

Perhaps those ERA sheets? Well, I'll know soon enough...

William
 
bmattock said:
I should have mentioned Fuji Acros - a very nice film that I put with Ilford Delta 100 as a premium film that has high acutance and low grain but a lot of tonal range. Great for portraits, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Just important to note for any beginning beginners: Bill wrote this, and it's exactly where acros belongs: "There are films that will give better technical results, and I'd urge anyone to try them once they feel like they have the basics down." Acros is more difficult to get good results, you need to be very methodical in terms of exposure and later through development. It's a great "second step" once you create a system and begin obtaining consistent results you like through the developing process.

In the hands of someone who really knows what they are doing, the results are outstanding, though.. as with any other film, naturally! :)
 
Does anyone know if there is any product similar to the Kodacraft available in the UK?

I checked Freestyle for the Arista E-Z Film Developing Tank but, aside from the $25 minimum order (easy to make up) the shipping to UK is more than $52 for a $34 order
 
x-ray said:
Plexi:
I'm not trying to get a war started. Like I said film is like cars and women, we all have different likes. As far as my statement about reduced silver this is from an article that I read published by kodak just after the film came out. I base my statement on my persona likes and dislikes in film and that I've shot tens of thousands of rolls of tri-x since the sixties. I think this qualifies me to know a little about the film. Granted I haven't shot that much of the new because my first impression was so bad.

[/url]
Click to expand...


I have no problem with you not liking Tri-x of course, but the spreading of untrue myths I disliked. As the Kodak chemist said, if you the reduce silver content in a film, you get more grain, and the current Tri-x has less grain than ever.....
Maybe you should try it again and see if you feel different.


I have developed a lot of Neopan 400, never had any problems with it, great film.
And pushes well too.


Tri-x 320
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plexi:

Nice photo. You obviously have the tri-x thing working.

Whether tri-x has more or less silver is unimportant. What's important to me is the final result. I found that I had to rate the film at 160-200 ISO to get sufficient shadow density and increase developement by 20-25%. Even then I really didn't feel the images looked as good as the original tri-x. I scanned the images on my imacon and finescan 5000 and printed them on my D2 with Ilford B&W head. None of the results were up to my expectations compared to the original film. I mentioned that I have used Ilford delta films since their introduction and was a tester for them with the preproduction emulsions. I was in New Orleans (2004) shooting during Mardi Gras and ran out of Delta. I searched the city for a camera store that had delta but none were at hand. I picked up some new Tri-x thinking it would be much like the original but found out when I returned to the darkroom that it was quite a different film. I ran my Delta and was very pleased with the negs. Then, I ran a roll of the new Tri-x per Kodaks times and was shocked. The negs were very thin and flat. I bump up the process times about 15% and ran another. Better but not there yet. I wound up at around 25% additional developement before I got enough contrast but felt the shadows were too thin. I probably shot ten rolls in New Orleans and tested another roll when I returned. I just wanted to see if it was me but I came up with the same results. I haven't tried it since and possibly Kodak has tweeked the emulsion some Or possibly I had a bad emulsion. I've had this happen with Ektachrome 8x10. I had a case of 8x10 E-6 tungsten balanced film that came with the data sheet asthough it had been tested for filtration at various exposure times. I shot a test, as usual, along with some 4x5 and ran it it in the colenta processor. The 4x5 was stunning and the 8x10 was sick. It appeared there was no yellow in the film. I contacted Kodak and they said that batch had missed one of the coaters for yellow. The funny part is they said all that film had been pulled from the warehouse and they would fedex a new case for delivery in the morning. Guess what, it was exactly the same emulsion. The moral to the story is that I might have gotten a bad batch. I recently had a box of Ilford HP5 8x10 that had fogged aread in the same spot in each sheet. I've read a number of people have had similar issues with quality control with ilford and others. I don't know whether the tri-x was a bad batch but I get such great results from Delta that I have no desire to change. I've found the look and film that responds to developement and exposure like I want and prints and scans to my liking and I will stick with it. This is not to say that I don't use other films from time to time. I love the silver rich, linear color rendition and grainy look of Bergger 200 (old super-xx) processed in DK-50 and shot with uncoated leica lenses for a vintage look. I also love the ultra clean and sharp images from Efkee 25. I've loved this film since the sixties when it was KB14. Really it doesn't matter how much silver or dye is in the film as long as it suits your style.

I might add that I Have nothig against Kodak, I love and use their transparency films and probably will for some time.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
 
Last edited:
Ouch, seems that you had your fair share of bad luck with big ol`yellow...
I have to add that the image I posted was 4x5 TXP, wich is different from 400TX, and it`s TXP I use the most (in 120,4x5,8x10)
If TX doesn`t suit you, and you have obvoiusly done your testing, that`s good enough with me.
In September I was at a workshop with Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, they bought the remaining stock of Super XX from Kodak when they discontinued it years back. While they still have a lot left, they had tested a lot of film and said Efke PL100 was probably the closest to the XX. Paula had used some of the Berrger 200 film too, but it didn`t build enough density for N+2 developmnent for her use.
PL 100 is on my "to try" list, for 8x10 contact printing.

I`m halfway through a box of 8x10 JandC Classic 400 now, and it sure has a bit more "classic" look then TXP, so if you haven`t tried it, it migh be worth a try.

Well, I got a $8 Agfa Variscop 60 6x9cm enlagrer to test, so I`m off to the basement :)
 
For beginners I suggest Tri-x and D76 1:1 or Xtol 1:1 for 52 rolls, thats one roll per week for a year. Oxidation shouldn't be an issue because you'll use it up before it has a chance to happen.
I'm still a beginner compared to some of you, still making mistakes and learning from them, that's what it's about.


Todd
 
I've had good results using HC 110 with Delta 400, Neopan 400 and 1600 and Tmax 400. The shelf-life of the concentrate is long, and I just make up as much of dilution B as I need at any time. I'm about to use it for the first time with some Tri-X.

Stan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom