notturtle
Well-known
All,
Rambling thread:
Having shot many films, either a little or a lot, we all find ourselves with favourites. Developers of course affect the look. I have found that my preference is moving in the opposite direction of modern 'perfection', but I also do not particularly want a purely nostalgic look. I do seem to prefer something in between! My goal for 100 speed has essentially been:
Classic reportage B&W look
More resolution than any 400 film that manages to satisfy the above (so rule out Tmax400, delta 400 and partially rule in Neopan 400).
Visible, tight grain in moderate enlargements
My disorganised opinions/thoughts/comments:
For me, Acros and Tmax are too clean. There just is not enough analogue soul there, IMO.
Strangely, delta 100 can look good to me, especially if shot in dingy conditions (ironically) and the intended look is low key (people do comment it is bottom heavy). It still looks generally very uniform, however, even with rodinal/Xtol mix. Still, when you want resolution, it does the job without looking like Tmax 100 (thank goodness).
Fp4+ cannot come close to the resolution of delta 100 in smaller formats, however, I have decided to see how it does with Xtol/Rodinal as I am often finding myself looking for more grain than delta 100 can give me in 35mm, but still with better resolution than traditional 400 films and better QC than foma....
I decided to do this after seeing that Foma 100 and 200 have a seemingly unique balance (IMO) and that classically imperfect 'B&W' look. The 200 seems to have greater resolution (if my eyes are an accurate guage), a touch more speed (about 1/3-1/2 stop) and a shorter dev time than the 100. Despite having visible grain, the sense of detail is there and so it still serves as a slower alternative to TriX and the like AND allows for nice crisp grain.
Neopan 400 in Xtol alone can provide lower grain than foma 100/200 in rodinal/xtol, but the look is smoother and softer (great for may things). In Rodinal/Xtol it has a nice crunch if you are into that kind of thing - v nice (a real favourite in 120). This is one heck of an all round film with far higher resolution than TriX in 35mm enlargements and a moderately traditional look. It is v close to delta 400 resolution but with a much more traditional look.
Anyone using Fp4+ for more biting, gritty shots? which developers have you used? Any FP4+/rodinal fans out there - seems to be a love/hate combo with nobody agreeing on this one!
Which film/dev combos have for you provided the perfect antidote to digital uniformity? I realise this has turned out to be a directionless thread, but I am curious to hear about what others have been striving to find and where it has led them.
Rambling thread:
Having shot many films, either a little or a lot, we all find ourselves with favourites. Developers of course affect the look. I have found that my preference is moving in the opposite direction of modern 'perfection', but I also do not particularly want a purely nostalgic look. I do seem to prefer something in between! My goal for 100 speed has essentially been:
Classic reportage B&W look
More resolution than any 400 film that manages to satisfy the above (so rule out Tmax400, delta 400 and partially rule in Neopan 400).
Visible, tight grain in moderate enlargements
My disorganised opinions/thoughts/comments:
For me, Acros and Tmax are too clean. There just is not enough analogue soul there, IMO.
Strangely, delta 100 can look good to me, especially if shot in dingy conditions (ironically) and the intended look is low key (people do comment it is bottom heavy). It still looks generally very uniform, however, even with rodinal/Xtol mix. Still, when you want resolution, it does the job without looking like Tmax 100 (thank goodness).
Fp4+ cannot come close to the resolution of delta 100 in smaller formats, however, I have decided to see how it does with Xtol/Rodinal as I am often finding myself looking for more grain than delta 100 can give me in 35mm, but still with better resolution than traditional 400 films and better QC than foma....
I decided to do this after seeing that Foma 100 and 200 have a seemingly unique balance (IMO) and that classically imperfect 'B&W' look. The 200 seems to have greater resolution (if my eyes are an accurate guage), a touch more speed (about 1/3-1/2 stop) and a shorter dev time than the 100. Despite having visible grain, the sense of detail is there and so it still serves as a slower alternative to TriX and the like AND allows for nice crisp grain.
Neopan 400 in Xtol alone can provide lower grain than foma 100/200 in rodinal/xtol, but the look is smoother and softer (great for may things). In Rodinal/Xtol it has a nice crunch if you are into that kind of thing - v nice (a real favourite in 120). This is one heck of an all round film with far higher resolution than TriX in 35mm enlargements and a moderately traditional look. It is v close to delta 400 resolution but with a much more traditional look.
Anyone using Fp4+ for more biting, gritty shots? which developers have you used? Any FP4+/rodinal fans out there - seems to be a love/hate combo with nobody agreeing on this one!
Which film/dev combos have for you provided the perfect antidote to digital uniformity? I realise this has turned out to be a directionless thread, but I am curious to hear about what others have been striving to find and where it has led them.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Recently I shot some Tri-X at 800 and processed it in Xtol. So far that combo has given me the best look from this film which I find a bit clean looking at 400! A one stop push really put the grain where I like it and gave it a little more contrast.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Tri-X or Neopan 400PR in HC-110 (both rated at 400ISO). I like the results of these film / developer combinations especially with my lenses of older design (... say "pre-ASPH"), they have a somewhat 70s look... 
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Depends what you call "classic reportage." The look that comes to me when I think classic is the stuff from the Speed Graphic era, the 4x5 shot lighted by a honking big flash bulb on camera. Think WeeGee.
From the 35mm era, Tri-X in D76 or pushed in Acufine is what I most associate with "classic look." The fact that news shots were often badly exposed and processed badly to meet deadlines had more to do with the look than the film/developer combination, I think. 35mm Tri-X really isn't very sharp when enlarged very much, regardless of what you soup it in. Especially compared to digital images.
From the 35mm era, Tri-X in D76 or pushed in Acufine is what I most associate with "classic look." The fact that news shots were often badly exposed and processed badly to meet deadlines had more to do with the look than the film/developer combination, I think. 35mm Tri-X really isn't very sharp when enlarged very much, regardless of what you soup it in. Especially compared to digital images.
notturtle
Well-known
I know what you mean. I have found Xtol 1+3 a lot better than 1+1 in terms of bringing out some bite in TriX. In overcast conditions I effectively push too, to give some solid blacks and allow for some decent highlights. Same for HP5+.
I too enjoy the D76 1+1 look, but don't enjoy the reduced speed compared to DDX/Xtol. So far the Xtol/rodinal combo has given better speed and more crunchy grain than D76, which perversely is what I want. If one wants low grain in 35mm, thats always easy: delta 100 in most std devs and a plethora of other 100 speed films in Xtol/perceptol etc. Pumping that grain up a bit while retaining a good resolution advantage over 400 films has been my goal. FWIW I have found dilute Xtol gives sharper, better defined grain than DDX and the same speed.
I find TriX has a wonderful look and i really like it in 120, but its resolution is surprisingly poor in 35mm (simply due to the enlargemtn factor) despite the relatively fine grain that can be achieved with the revised film. In fine grain devs I find it gives surprisingly fine grain even in 35mm but the resolution is not there, resulting in a kind of fuzzy look. I find it looks better with more grain therefore!
Who is having great results from Delta 400, in which formats and with which devs? I found the 120 a bit too smooth for my liking in Xtol 1+1 and will experiment with a bit of rodinal thrown in. I never got round to trying it in FX-39 as that is proving hard for me to ship overseas. The rodinal being more concentrated, means I dont need to get it in so often.
mcgrattan
Well-known
Unlike you, I do like Acros and TMax 100.
I find Neopan 400 in Adox ADX is pretty much perfect [even though, like an idiot, I've largely been using different developers and films recently]. I used to love Classic Pan 200 in Perceptol, but you can't get it anymore.
I really like APX100 in Diafine, too. Exposed for a 1 stop or so push. I've only shot a few rolls with this combination, but I like the results a lot.
I find Neopan 400 in Adox ADX is pretty much perfect [even though, like an idiot, I've largely been using different developers and films recently]. I used to love Classic Pan 200 in Perceptol, but you can't get it anymore.
I really like APX100 in Diafine, too. Exposed for a 1 stop or so push. I've only shot a few rolls with this combination, but I like the results a lot.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Fomapan 200 is all but identical in ISO speed to FP4 (not just my tests -- Foma's figures too) but grainier and with poorer resolution. It does however have gorgeous tonality.
FP4 in PMK has also produced some of the best tonality I have ever seen.
Cheers,
Roger
FP4 in PMK has also produced some of the best tonality I have ever seen.
Cheers,
Roger
mfogiel
Veteran
Fomapan 200 in FX39 as per Roger Hick's recommendation, does indeed give you great looking negs, but it has the tendency to whitewash the sky, no matter how hard you try to compensate with filters - i think it is due to it's bluish base. Developed in Prescysol EF it becomes almost an overkill of sharpness and tonality.
Here's a shot @EI 125 FX 39 1+14
And here one in Prescysol EF, always EI 125 - shot with an orange filter on, yet the sky looks pretty much bleak
I find the Foma in FX 39 very nice for people shots, it just throws the tonality at you, even when the light is completely flat like in this case - this one shot with a Rolleiflex:
Here's a shot @EI 125 FX 39 1+14
And here one in Prescysol EF, always EI 125 - shot with an orange filter on, yet the sky looks pretty much bleak
I find the Foma in FX 39 very nice for people shots, it just throws the tonality at you, even when the light is completely flat like in this case - this one shot with a Rolleiflex:
venchka
Veteran
I'm going through my negatives from 1969.
Plus-X. D-76 1:1.
I have no idea if Plus-X today equals Plus-X then but I plan to find out. I will buy some of the Freestyle Mystery Plus-X and see how it compares.
Plus-X. D-76 1:1.
I have no idea if Plus-X today equals Plus-X then but I plan to find out. I will buy some of the Freestyle Mystery Plus-X and see how it compares.
gian
Established
I love Fomapan 400, developed in D-76...
yes, it's not as sharp as Neopan or Tri-X, but has a very sexy grain and beautiful tones...
yes, it's not as sharp as Neopan or Tri-X, but has a very sexy grain and beautiful tones...
Last edited:
navilluspm
Well-known
My main film (mainly because I bought so much of it and it is in the freezer) is rebranded Pan F+ (Arista 50). If you shoot it at 50 and soup it in Rodinal 1:50 you get a little grain. Right now I have Pan F+ in my Pen Ft. Wow. It is like they were made for each other.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
One thing I keep meaning to do is print up a series of negatives shot over the years from 1961 to the present. Most of it was in D76 1:1, although some was in Diafine for a few years, and some in HC-110, UFG and Acufine. Anyway, it would be interesting to compare Tri-X at perhaps 5 year intervals, some old HP3, HP4, and HP4 Plus,then FP3 and FP4 with Plus-X over the years, Royal-X Pan Recording to Kodak's more recent ultra high speed recording films, along with Agfa Isopan Record, Ilford HPS, and so forth.
venchka
Veteran
1969 Plus-X and D-76 1:1
1969 Plus-X and D-76 1:1
Al, that would be a great project. Unfortunately, there is a multi-decade gap in my negatives.
These were shot in the fall of 1969. Plus-X in D-76 1:1.
1969 Plus-X and D-76 1:1
Al, that would be a great project. Unfortunately, there is a multi-decade gap in my negatives.
These were shot in the fall of 1969. Plus-X in D-76 1:1.
travelingman
Newbie
Ah i think i might have found a new film to try. Gian I love the pictures and how they look!
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Want the real photojournalist look? Look around for a tray of used Dektol. Dump some into a tank with your Tri-X for a couple of minutes, dunk it in some fixer until it just clears, stick it under the faucet for a minute or two, pull it between your fingers to get most of the water off and print it wet! That's how we did it in on deadline in the old days.
Grain the size of small pebbles, but you can't get more authentic looking!
Grain the size of small pebbles, but you can't get more authentic looking!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Slightly underexposed (800 asa) Trix - overdeveloped in D76 - nice "chalk and soot" look. Also remember that the requirement for tonality were much less with 80 point screens and crappy newsprint. 1 black zone, a couple in the middle grey area and a fried highlight worked fine!
If you truly want the "gritty" look - Kodak's XX, rated @ 320-400 and processed in either Rodinal (1:50/10-11 min) or Beutler (same as te Neufin Blue).
The alternative is the +X movie stock (EK 5231) - rated at 100 asa and run in Beutler. Nice, smooth grain - but still very 60's looking.
Some of the older East Bloc films worked wondefully, Adox/Efke/Russias Type 17/ Foma and an active developer (Rodinal/HC110/Beutler) will give you sharp, edgy negs with somewhat "compressed" tonal scales.
What amazes me is how much the quality of bl/w films have improved. Looking at some 60's TriX and some of the new Tmax-2 400 - boy, is that Tmax nice!!!!
Oh, I forgot another combination, TriX/Rodinal 1:25/6 min and agitate like hell!!!!
The Dektol 1:1/10 min worked great with TriX pushed to 1600 -2400 and beyond and with the old Royal X Pan (at 3-4000 iso). Grainy enough to use as a sandpaper!!!!
If you truly want the "gritty" look - Kodak's XX, rated @ 320-400 and processed in either Rodinal (1:50/10-11 min) or Beutler (same as te Neufin Blue).
The alternative is the +X movie stock (EK 5231) - rated at 100 asa and run in Beutler. Nice, smooth grain - but still very 60's looking.
Some of the older East Bloc films worked wondefully, Adox/Efke/Russias Type 17/ Foma and an active developer (Rodinal/HC110/Beutler) will give you sharp, edgy negs with somewhat "compressed" tonal scales.
What amazes me is how much the quality of bl/w films have improved. Looking at some 60's TriX and some of the new Tmax-2 400 - boy, is that Tmax nice!!!!
Oh, I forgot another combination, TriX/Rodinal 1:25/6 min and agitate like hell!!!!
The Dektol 1:1/10 min worked great with TriX pushed to 1600 -2400 and beyond and with the old Royal X Pan (at 3-4000 iso). Grainy enough to use as a sandpaper!!!!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
What was really cool about that rush develop/fix/rinse/print scenario was what it did to your nice aluminum negative carriers. After a few years the aluminum would get all eroded away from the acid in the fixer. It didn't do much good to the back of the enarging lens or the inside of the bellows either.
With a bit of practice though, you could walk in the darkroom with your roll of Tri-X and fifteen minutes later hand the editor a damp hypo laden print. RC paper was a boon, with its rapid wash/dry time.
With a bit of practice though, you could walk in the darkroom with your roll of Tri-X and fifteen minutes later hand the editor a damp hypo laden print. RC paper was a boon, with its rapid wash/dry time.
Nokton48
Veteran
When I was doing -important- High School Photojournalism back in the middle '70's, I read in -Camera 35-, how you could process your photojournalistic Tri-X negatives in Straight Dektol, for one minute, with constant agitation. Gave you EI 800. After hundreds of film runs with this combination, I can confirm this. Never missed a deadline.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Al, I walked into the darkroom back in the 1970's of a small town newspaper that had been at that location for decades. The enlarger was a corroded mess and in the corner was a huge pile of negatives that had been printed wet and just thrown into the corner. Ah, the good old days.
Nokton48, yep. Did it too many times. With the screens they were shooting the prints through in those days, though, it hardly made a difference!
Nokton48, yep. Did it too many times. With the screens they were shooting the prints through in those days, though, it hardly made a difference!