Questions about b/w film rolls

[italy74]

Hi guys

anyone here has some b/w shots done on the same subject more or less in the same way / lighting with different roll brands / models? It would be nice seeing how compare( let's say at iso 400) T-Max to Tri-X to APX to HP5 or other kinds.
Thanks in advance to everyone that can address this issue.

 

[charjohncarter]

A few weeks ago, wintoid did something like this. He used only one film but different developers and different ISO/EI. This is the tread:

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=764075#post764075

I thought it was interesting, especially how different we all felt about the different ISO/EIs.

 

[sepiareverb]

I think this kind of thing is best looked at in person, on real prints, the screen will add another layer to things.

 

[italy74]

Hi guys,

you're right while saying that such things are judged better if seen in person, but maybe I thought that someone could have something already done/ready for his own sake. I tried comparing the tests that Char suggested but my eye isn't trained enough to see great difference. My aim is judging how a roll manage dark tones in blacks or several nuances of grey. I don't know there, but in my area b/w rolls are quite difficult to get, except some like the T-Max 400 or 3200. On Kodak site it's possible to see a noticeable difference between it and the Tri-X used by Salgado (much more prone to produce shadowy grey than deep blacks) but it's not possible to make a comparison for instance with Agfa or Ilford etc. Probably even a simple written list could be useful for me, about grain size, grayness rendition etc.
I have to admit that i usually like more intense blacks than too many nuances of grey, so, knowing which rolls are more "contrasty" and which less, this could be a great help. Sharpness isn't really a matter here, since B/W is interesting also in its "uncertain" areas. It's not a slide, even if it's way more flexible, especially on highlights and shadows. Another info that could be useful is: basing on your experience, which rolls have the fame to be pushable with good results under low-light?
Many thanks again.

 

[charjohncarter]

I thought of something else. These would not be the same subjects but if you go to Flickr.com and then go to the bottom of the page. You will see 'popular tags' you can type in a film like Tmax100 and you will have more than you can look at.

 

[Tom A]

Just for fun, I went to our Flickr site and typed in "Tri X" on the tags and I have 1012 images on it!!!! Surprised even me.
When I did the "test" with the new Tmax last fall I was running reference rolls side by side with that film.Tri X/Tmax old style. Neopan 400 etc.
In practical terms, I find that developers can play more of a role in changing a films character than emulsions. Today's 400 asa films are astounding in the quality they produce. Not long ago we would have been happy with that quality in 100 asa film.
Maybe you should do your own test and post it here or on Flickr. I am sure most of us would appreciate it.

 

[charjohncarter]

TomA, I've done that with your Tmax400-2 and TriX. Even just your photos are a lot to look at. By character, do you mean tones or grain? I suspect both, but I would like to know your feelings.

 

[Tom A]

The TMY 2 400 is pretty close to what you would get with any good 100 asa film( TMax 100/FP 4+/ Neopan SS - it has less contrast than the Acros 100, but the grain difference is not that big.
With developers like D76/Adox/ID 11 (MQ type developer with high Sodium Sulphite content and the subsequent "mushing" of the grain) the grain is smooth. With surface type developers like Rodinal, Neofine, Beutler the grain will be accentuated somewhat.
Some of the stuff that I shot last summer with Neopan Presto 400 and processed in Td 201. looks like really good 100 asa film!
I am not worried about grain too much as the biggest size print I do is about 11x14 - and even Tri X looks good at that.
If I want "grainless" I usually go to Adox/Efke 25 asa, but truth be told, printing it 11x14 does not justify the effort (tripod or no coffee for several hours prior!).
I also think that the effect of the developer/film/print quality is more dependant on the skill of the printer than anything else. On my wall I have several 16x20 prints by Costa Manos (Magnum) and it is somewhat disheartening coming down from the darkroom with a print and realize that a/he used Tri X too and b/his prints looks much better than mine! OK, Costa is a master printer and I am not, but even so!

 

[Tom A]

I forgot - it also depends on if you are going to scan or print the negs. Scanning gives you far more adjustments than printing does.
If you are printing, the paper stock and the paper developer will affect the tonality, particularly in the shadows.
My standard print developer is an old Du Pont formula D-54. It will give good blacks with nice shadow separation even in the deeper grey/blacks.
If I am looking for something with extreme blacks and deep gret/black tones I mix up the old Defender formula (includes 1/2pound of carbonate). Very interesting paper developer as when you put the print in it, nothing happens for 60-90 seconds and then the print "explodes" and what you see is what you get. Only worthwhile with premium papers and worthwhile negatives as it is tricky to use and it will turn your stop bath deep purple in about 5 prints!

 

[sepiareverb]

I don't know that Defender formula Tom- could you post it or pm it to me?

 

[Tom A]

I will do it later tonight. Have to go for camera nut meeting now.

 

[Anupam]

First one is with TMX at EI 64, the second with Tri-X at EI 250. Both exposed for the same LV. Both films were developed in HC110B to the same contrast index (.1 to 1.35 above Fb+F tested with my densitometer).

 

[Tom A]

I don't know that Defender formula Tom- could you post it or pm it to me?

Here is the Defender Formula:

Water to 50C+ 1500 ml
Metol (Kodak Elon) 7,5 grams
Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) 142 grams
Hydroquinone 39 grams
Sodium Carbonate 283 grams
Potassium Bromide 3.5 grams
Water (18-20 C+) to 1500 ml to total volume 3000 ml

As you can see. this is a very strong mix. It is wasted on RC paper, but on classic fiber paper (Oriental, Forte, Ilford MG) is is stunning.
You are going to have to adjust your printing to this soup though. It is not a gentle, soft one - it is punchy.
When it works, you get blacks that are velvety and solid, but with nice tonal separation, even in the deepest areas. I have found that it works best with a matte or semi-matte paperbase too.
I usually mix it up for highly specific negatives, deep dark areas and strong mid tones.
In the tray it will last 6-7 hours and when it goes off it just dies!!!

You also need to change stop bath frequently as it will kill it quickly. 4-6 11x14 sheets is enough to turn Kodak's indicator bath deep purple.
I also advocate double fixing bath, 5 min in each and long wash, or use wash-aid.

This was a formula that Larry Clark and Eugeen Smith used for their exhibition prints. It takes to local ferroocyanide bleaching quite well too ( and due to the deep blacks, you can "lift" a shadow quite a bit without having it go grey on you).

It is not for the casual print - but if you want to "blow" someone away, this is the way to go.

It gives bluish/black tone with Oriental or Ilford MG and slightly warmer tone with Forte. Only developer that I have tried with Berger paper that worked well with it.

Let me know how you like it.

 

[italy74]

Thanks guys, this is exactly what I was looking for. Not surprised about the behaviour of T-Max "agaist" Tri-X. Taking your suggestion, I asked to a friend of mine who has still all the gear to develop film on his own to teach me the basics.
A professional course here is quite expensive (about 3000$)

See you soon 🙂

 

[charjohncarter]

Thanks TomA and Basu, Good.