Which Classic B&W Emulsions have you used?

[x-ray]

It's just not film that's gone, we once had a huge selection of photographic papers from DuPont, Ansco, Agfa, Kodak, Forte and at least a dozen more companies. Very sad!

 

[sepiareverb]

The papers are another whole magilla.

I have an enormous stash of all kinds of FB papers going back into the 20s, tho most of them are from the 60s and onward, and collect sample books when I can find them. The range of surfaces was really quite something. I have a friend here who prints a lot on Medalist, not sure of his developer mix but the prints look very good. I ran into him one day last spring with a huge truck full of stuff, he had to buy the whole contents of this old studio to get the paper, but big sheets of Medalist were worth the hassle.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I used all the classic films back in the day. But that was then and this is now. I currently use modern formulations. I try not to live in the past, and am rarely nostalgic or sentimental. No freezer full of memories for me. One exception: I do miss Agfa Portriga.

 

[x-ray]

I mainly used DuPont Varigam until Varilour came out. I tried velour black and Polly contrast but didn't like them as well as Varilour. For contacting I loved Azo and occasionally used Velox. Medalist was good as was Kodabromide but never got into those. For a warm tone chloride paper Ektalure was excellent.

There have been some amazing papers that are unfortunately gone. Of the current offering I'm really a fan of the Bergger warm tone fiber with Ilford Multigrade warm tone FB second. I still have a pretty good stash of several hundred sheets of Agfa MC111 in my freezer. Also have some Forte Poly WRmtone FB which IMO is the best of the breed in creamy warm fiber paper. It's unique imo among the chlorobromide papers. It contained cadmium unlike others and created a unique richness, tone and color that toned wonderfully. I would say though that the new Bergger FB Warmtone is the best for my work that I've printed on in sixty years. It is stunning! Wish I could say that about their film.

Bob I'd love to hear what papers you have.

 

[charjohncarter]

Maybe this has been discussed, but I read the Verichrome and Verichrome Pan were a two layer film. One layer 'high speed' and one lower. This was the tonality part, but the backside was it wasn't sharp. Still, it was beautiful.

This is Verichrome before Verichrome Pan taken by an unknown, but still the tones and a box camera in the 40s; some blow up but....:

found foto by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[sepiareverb]

There are two giant size plastic storage tubs in the studio with an untold number of papers, from 2x3 to 11x14, but mostly 810. I have a list on my computer, I will try and dig it out tomorrow. From Agfa Brovira to Varigam and Zone VI with plenty in between. That new Bergger is really great stuff. I’d agree one of the better papers ever. Been printing a fair bit on the latest Ilford Multigrade Classic, which is also quite nice - a big improvement over MGIV.

Right with you ptpdprinter, I do love the options I have now, didn’t mean to imply I/we only pine for what’s gone.

Those old snaps are another thing I collect, that’s a great one John. I look for old cars, and pictures of kids sitting on things: bikes, hobby horses, buckets, logs, cars or boats.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Forte Polygrade Warmtone was wonderful. I’ve still got some 11x14 remaining. Fortezo graded was also lovely. Jay Dusard printed on it quite a bit. Fred Picker’s Brilliant, when it was made in France by GB was one of my very favourites.

 

[x-ray]

I've not tried any of the Ilford MG classic. How do you think it compares to Bergger Warmtone fb?

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Ilford classic is pretty neutral compared to warmtone papers.....Ilford, Berger or oriental.
The Berger is also substantially more expensive; classic in 16x20 is $214 for 50, while Bergger is $174 for 25. I liked the earlier iterations of Bergger more.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Bob just hit 7777 posts in his last one. That's slot machine gold right there!

Phil Forrest

 

[rfaspen]

Time to hit Vegas! Your luck will never be this good again.

 

[bluesun267]

Maybe this has been discussed, but I read the Verichrome and Verichrome Pan were a two layer film. One layer 'high speed' and one lower. This was the tonality part, but the backside was it wasn't sharp. Still, it was beautiful.

Yes, you're right, Verichrome was a two layer emulsion as you say, but as for not being sharp? (Kodachrome was 5 layers remember). We're talking microns so I don't believe a second layer would compromise sharpness. Most modern films have more than a single layer in order to increase speed/latitude.

Also, I believe Verichrome had a tacky/textured base side to aid in negative re-touching by hand.

 

[x-ray]

Some color films have up to 16 layers. I seem to remember my Kodak rep saying high speed Ektachrome had either 14 or 16 layers.

 

[sepiareverb]

No big win here.

The list of papers seems to be a victim of my computer crash last year. I would have it on a backup somewhere, but not easy to find. If I come across it I will post. Apologies.

 

[mcfingon]

TXP 320 gave the favourite "look" to the prints I made in the 1980's from my Blad. TX 400 was what I shot every weekday when I was working for a newspaper in my Nikon, but TXP 320 had a subtly different tone range which I really liked. In currently available films, I find Fuji Acros 100 in Xtol is closest to that TXP look.

 

[presspass]

Another vote for Verichrome Pan. It was my favorite 120 film if I didn't need the speed of Tri-X.

 

[x-ray]

TXP 320 gave the favourite "look" to the prints I made in the 1980's from my Blad. TX 400 was what I shot every weekday when I was working for a newspaper in my Nikon, but TXP 320 had a subtly different tone range which I really liked. In currently available films, I find Fuji Acros 100 in Xtol is closest to that TXP look.

The 320 was certainly a fine film. I shot quite a lot over the years in sheets. In 120 I favored the 400 but both were excellent. I'd be happy if either came back today. The new TX that replaced our old standard in 06 is nothing like the old version. I can't even get box speed out of it. At 400 shadows are empty and negs are thin. It might be ok for scanning but I wet print and it's terrible for that. Old TX has full shadows at 400 and grain was small and tight with smooth tones.

Across 100 is beautiful as was 400 Neopan. Several years ago I bought a chest type freezer and literally filled it with Acros and Neopan in 120 and 35. I'm still using from that purchase but down to my last few rolls of Acros 120. I still have a couple of cases of 35 and several cases of 400 in both emulsions. I've gone back and revisited FP4 in different developers and just can't warm up to the look compared to what I get with Acros.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

As a teenager I upgraded from a 126 Instamatic to an adjustable lens 35mm camera.
I was surprised I could no longer use my old friend Verichrome Pan.

I didn't really like my results with 35mm Plus-X (mid-1970's).
IIRC I used Panatomic-X and Tri-X mainly.

Agfa APX100 certainly qualifies as a classic B&W film; APX100 developed in Rodinal is a classic combination.
Recently I purchased 200' of expired APX100 and a Rodinal clone.

Chris

 

[Freakscene]

I really loved TXP320 too - although Kodak's habit of calling two totally different things by the same name was bafflingly infuriating. It helped that TXP was the last 220 B&W film - I really liked the long rolls.

Marty

 

[bluesun267]

I'm really warming up to Acros myself. And I'm one who will never, ever touch Tmax or Delta. Fuji seems to have really gotten this stock right.