Which fast b&w film?

tlitody said:
It might be as close as you can get but that isn't very close.

Microphen generates a lot more grain but if you really need maximum speed then it will give you 3200 with normal contrast.
DD-X only works well upto around 1250 speed. After that you need to use extended development times to get normal contrast whereas microphen will give 3200 speed using 1+4 for 9 minutes @ 20degC.
So decision is about grain verses speed. If you want grain controlled then 1600 is about max speed with DD-X.
If you want maximum speed then start at 3200 with microphen but be prepared for very obvious grain.
Click to expand...

For a given value of 'normal contrast'.

Yes, Microphen does give a little more true speed, but it's not even 1/3 stop over DD-X under ISO conditions. I'd certainly recommend Microphen over DD-X, for the reasons you give, but not as enthusiastically.

Of course, constant agitation gives a higher toe speed as well (= higher true ISO at a given contrast).

Cheers,

R.
 
Look out, philosophy incoming!

Look out, philosophy incoming!

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Marty,

Thanks for the kind words, but at Ilford they talk about 'the science of colour, the alchemy of black and white'.

Some films just 'work' for some people, where another, similar film 'works' for someone else. FP4 never 'works' for me in 35mm (fine in bigger formats -- now THAT'S weird) but Ed Buziak's FP4 shots are stunning.

This is why I get really annoyed with those who say, "Pick one film and stick with it. You can't go wrong with..." YES YOU CAN. Even an 'idiot-proof' films such as HP5+ or Tri-X have their differences. Try 'em both; stick with the one you like. I prefer HP5+; Frances prefers Tri-X.

I think it's what the old Revivalist preachers used to say: "Ya gotta have FAITH, dearly beloved!"
Click to expand...

Hi Roger,

Absolutely.

I really like a lot of your work, and your dedication to providing information is outstanding, literally. I have directed dozens of people who want to start out in B&W to your site. The thing I tell everyone is something that I read by David Vestal: photography is an aesthetic pursuit, and in aesthetics anything goes. What you wrote above is probably the most important thing anyone starting out should get a handle on.

Beginners tend to get hung up in the 'why' of photography, without having experimented enough. Sometimes why things end up how they do is less important than that they end up right. Why thing work only matters so far as getting things right is repeatable, even if I, personally, do go to stupid lengths sometimes to figure out why certain things happen. A search through my old posts should find numerous examples of pyrrhic investigations into the behaviour and chemistry of monochrome photography materials. Such zealotry would probably be better spent putting Tri-X into Xtol 1+3, Fomapan 200 into Rodinal, or one of those other combinations that just 'work'. But I like to know why, so to everyone out there do as I say, not as I do ;)

Thanks,

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