In Praise of Slow Films

[PRJ]

Stunning image Patrick!

My favorite slow film was Efke 50. Just a beautiful film that was reminiscent of Panatomic-X. I still have a stash that I am saving for a rainy day, but I doubt I'll ever use it.

Thanks Deardorff. Sorry I don't know your name...

 

[charjohncarter]

Tmax 100 is still my favorite, slow, fast or medium speed. I started using it after reading an essay by John Sexton (who Deardorf38 mentioned above). I shoot it at 50 and love it in HC-110h (but I used Ansel's semi-stand on this one):

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Tmax 100 is still my favorite, slow, fast or medium speed. I started using it after reading an essay by John Sexton (who Deardorf38 mentioned above). I shoot it at 50 and love it in HC-110h (but I used Ansel's semi-stand on this one):
Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

Beautiful image CJC, That's the kind of subtle separation I'm looking for. I'll have to give it a try. Thank you

 

[tbhv55]

Tmax 100 is still my favorite, slow, fast or medium speed. I started using it after reading an essay by John Sexton (who Deardorf38 mentioned above). I shoot it at 50 and love it in HC-110h (but I used Ansel's semi-stand on this one):
Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

Glorious tones in this one, @cjc. 🙂

 

[tbhv55]

My favorite slow film was Efke 50. Just a beautiful film that was reminiscent of Panatomic-X. I still have a stash that I am saving for a rainy day, but I doubt I'll ever use it.

The tones in this one really hit the spot for me, @PRJ. 🙂

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Tmax 100 is still my favorite, slow, fast or medium speed. I started using it after reading an essay by John Sexton (who Deardorf38 mentioned above). I shoot it at 50 and love it in HC-110h (but I used Ansel's semi-stand on this one):

Untitled by John Carter, on Flickr

That’s lovely. It’s what I have long wanted to get out of Tmax 100, but haven’t been able to yet. Will keep trying, thanks for the tips.

 

[Skiff]

I think the best slow film today that I've used is Acros. I don't know why people are characterizing it the way they are in this thread. I have found the tonality to be exceptional both in Rodinal and Pyrocat-PC. I don't think you could do any better from the traditional quality standpoint factoring in tonality and sharpness and ease of use than Acros in Pyrocat. If you think Acros is flat you just aren't developing it right.

Agreed.
It is mainly a matter of the correct development. Problem is that BW photographers know much too little about proper BW development. For example: How many are using a densitometer and examine the characteristic curve of a film developer combination?
That is the perfect tool which gives you all the information you need for optimal results.
But this perfect tool is unfortunately ignored by the vast majority of BW film users.

We have currently the best films available in photographic history. PanF+, Delta 100, Ilford Ortho, TMX, Acros all give you outstanding results with correct development.
Same for film specialities like Adox CMS 20 II and HR-50.
Adox Scala 50 and 160 offer perfect quality for BW positives.
And we have more than 100 different BW developers on the market!

We have so much wonderful choices.

If BW fans would concentrate more on improving their knowledge and techniques instead of permanently looking for "the magic bullet" the number of excellent pictures would definitely be much higher.

 

[charjohncarter]

Thanks everyone, this is the Ansel Adam's method I used on that one:

Tmax100 (50) HC-110(4ml/500) 41 minutes, 30 sec, 3 inversions per five minutes, 68 degrees F. I use a larger tank (more mls) but the same ration; 1:125

And thanks Ansel.

 

[robert blu]

I recently told a friend now I'm shooting much more digital than film.

But looking at the pictures in this thread, the tones you get from these slow films I desire now to insert some film in my M7 or in the FM2T and go out shooting...I have T-max 100 and Delta 100 around...

Helen, John, Larry, PRJ, Deardorff38 and others : you are dangerous people 😀 Thanks for the beautiful pictures !

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Agreed.
It is mainly a matter of the correct development. Problem is that BW photographers know much too little about proper BW development. For example: How many are using a densitometer and examine the characteristic curve of a film developer combination?
That is the perfect tool which gives you all the information you need for optimal results.
But this perfect tool is unfortunately ignored by the vast majority of BW film users.

We have currently the best films available in photographic history. PanF+, Delta 100, Ilford Ortho, TMX, Acros all give you outstanding results with correct development.
Same for film specialities like Adox CMS 20 II and HR-50.
Adox Scala 50 and 160 offer perfect quality for BW positives.
And we have more than 100 different BW developers on the market!

We have so much wonderful choices.

If BW fans would concentrate more on improving their knowledge and techniques instead of permanently looking for "the magic bullet" the number of excellent pictures would definitely be much higher.

Skiff, While I agree that a densitometer is a useful tool for some applications, I think you're being harsh in your premise that "BW fans... are looking for the magic bullet." You yourself list 8 films and mention that there are over a 100 developers available. This thread was not started looking for a magic bullet, but to exchange ideas about what people are using and how and what results they are getting. Whenever a film or paper product disappears from the market, we lose some knowledge. The question then is "what can i use to get similar results?" .....without testing 8 films x 100 developers.
Acros is a fine film. It was discontinued, and now it's back in a new iteration. People complain about Kodak's high prices, but Fuji Acros in 120 costs twice as much as Kodak.....and Acros is not available in sheet film. The results that participants in this thread have gotten with TMax100, encourage me to try it out. An exchange of ideas can be a wonderful thing. It's not looking for a 'magic bullet' but looking to find a suitable replacement for a product (be it Agfapan 25 or Forte paper) that has been discontinued. There are endless threads on photo forums about the latest gear, be it a rare Leica lens or the latest digital camera, and very few about process....& sometimes it's worth having a discussion about how photographers do things, what results they're looking for and how/if they're getting them.

 

[retinax]

The way you, Skiff, write about the densitometer it must be pretty close to a magic bullet 😉 . Seriously though, films are and have been made as consumer products. They can be used by simply following manufacturers recommendations and iteratively honing the process with excellent results. The manufacturers have done the work. And if their recommendations aren't to one's taste, well... one doesn't need to put a number on it to know one needs to develop longer next time. Of course the densitometer is a spectacular tool for some things, no doubt.
Agee with your stance against magic bullet hunting though. Dismissing a film as "flat" is a bit absurd when one has the variable in one's own hands. Like throwing the beer from one's own fridge away because it's too cold.

 

[Skiff]

@Deardorff38:
What I was trying to express or explain ist that we have all material available to make the best photographs.
The limits are not given by the products out there, but by our own skills.
Looking for an Agfa APX 25 replacement?
Take Adox HR 50 (even finer grain, same sharpness, almost the same resolution).
Or take TMX, Delta 100, Acros @50. Not quite the same fineness of detail as APX 25, but close.

 

[Skiff]

The way you, Skiff, write about the densitometer it must be pretty close to a magic bullet 😉 . Seriously though, films are and have been made as consumer products. They can be used by simply following manufacturers recommendations and iteratively honing the process with excellent results. The manufacturers have done the work.

The densitometer and the knowledge to examine a cc give you all the info needed info for perfect results:
- real, effective sensitivity / film speed
- optimal development time
- optimal agitation
- optimal / needed dilution with certain developers.
That are just the facts.

And no, you cannot get optimal results by simply following the manufacturers recommendations. Because your parameters in your lab at home are in most cases quite different to that used by the manufacturers.
Do you have a calibrated, exact thermometer at home? Already 1°C different developing temperature will result in visible different results.
Do you have the same development rhythm than the employee who did the tests for the data sheet?
The manufacturers today only give a kind of "middle" value, a compromise for medium contrast. But depending on your own workflow (scanning - different sanner types; enlarging with which head type) you need significant different values for perfect results.

In most cases my own tested results for my workflow are very different from the data sheets. Would I completely rely on the data sheets, my work would be visibly inferior. And some times even crap: E.g. the Ilford development times for Delta 3200 in DD-X are so short that the results are simply unusable. That is not only my experience, but I know from many other photographers who have reported the same.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Thanks Skiff, I appreciate your thoughts. I'm going to go with TMax 100 when i'm after a smoother look in big prints. I'm a big fan of TMY2 and have a fridge full of it in sheet film, and have gotten consistently fine results.
My #1 go-to for medium speed film is FP4+ & if the world went cazy and i could only have one film I'd be more than happy with it. I won't put the effort into Adox or Acros, since Adox isn't available in 120. I'm also not confident in their long term availability and I don't think I will get better results with Acros than TM100 (or Delta100) at twice the price.

 

[Larry H-L]

I think you are correct Robert, the tones can be extraordinarily beautiful with film. A couple of days ago I stumbled across a group photo taken of students (and me) in my class, about 10 years ago.

8x10 camera, DAGOR lens, strobes, and probably Tri-X Pro 320. The tonality is stunning, it just doesn’t look anything like a digital image. Not necessarily better, but very different.

 

[charjohncarter]

Skiff, I admit to looking for a magic bullet, but that was in 1970-1972. I had plenty of access to chemicals, different films, and I tried everything. Since that wild goose chase, I just find the magic bullet by consistency and minor refinements.

 

[Ricochetrider]

Ive been shooting slow and slow-iso film lately. It began with Fuji Across 100 (original) in my Hasselblad 500cm

the next slow film I shot was an old expired roll of Agfa APX 25. It was kinda messed up and the shots came out all aritifact-y and weird but I loved it just the same!

Then I got onto some Ilford Pan F Plus 50. I've since shot a fair amount of it in both 35mm & 120 format. the pix I post from this stock are in chronological order from 1st to most recent either format

I am really loving this stock, and I like it better in 120 format than I do in 35mm

 

[valdas]

Lipca Flexora TLR, Efke R50:

Agfa APX100, same Lipca:

 

[Ricochetrider]

UH oh, just realized I'm in the RANGEFINDER forum. MODERATORS sorry for the 120 MF pix! guess I'll restrict myself to posting only rangefinder photos.

Anyway I am currently having a love affair with Ferrania P30, rated at ISO 80.

and I have also been digging Fuji Industrial 100 color film

I've shot a few rolls of Rollei Superpan 200, in 35mm. I like it quite a lot, tho it's not super slow, and I've shot a lot of Kodak Ekatr 100, and some Fujifilm Provia 100F, both on my Hasselblad 500cm. All in all, I'm really enjoying my forays into slower speed films tho, and having a nice romp around the various stocks in speeds of ISO 200 and south.

I really loved the color reversal film! I have 5 rolls rover 100F in my fridge currently- and I'm going to try to shoot some Adox Scala 50 B&W reversal film some day soon.

 

[Doug]

UH oh, just realized I'm in the RANGEFINDER forum. MODERATORS sorry for the 120 MF pix! guess I'll restrict myself to posting only rangefinder photos.

Absolutely not a problem! RFF is open to rangefinder and reflex and other/neither type of camera, having since broadened out from the original intent. Further, there are rangefinder cameras using nearly all film types. There are certain areas and threads concentrating on certain camera/film types, though. Relax and reflex! 🙂