Best slow film for architectural photography?

I'm looking for fine grain and very good tonality from a slow b+w

film, but I can only develop with Ilfotec HC. I'm a student at a

small college, so I'm pretty limited when it comes to darkroom

supplies. I've never shot any B+W slower than 400 (shocking huh?), so

what do you all recommend in the ISO 25-100 range?

You might like to try the Arista edu.100 film from Freestyle. freestylephoto.biz

I use T-Max 100 (TMX). Extremely fine grain, excellent resolution, unique tonality. Here are a couple of examples:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1605880

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1596474

 

The posterization in the sky is artifacting from a low rez scan - it's the best my ancient Umax flatbed is capable of. But otherwise the jpegs are pretty faithful representations of the prints.

 

TMX is a bit tricky to work with. It needs careful exposure and development, so there's not much margin for error. But it's a heckuva lot easier to get good pictorial results from than any currently available slower film I can think of.

 

Ilford FP4+ is easier to work with, tho' it doesn't have the same fine grain as TMX. But exposed at EI 64 and developed in ID-11, 1+1 dilution, for 9 minutes at 68F, the grain is fine enough to make very good 16x20 prints from 35mm and outstanding prints from medium format.

 

You can find some suggested development times in the Massive Dev Chart at www.digitaltruth.com.

I can definitely recommend Kodak's Technical Pan. Two caveats, though: The film was going to get discontinued some time (shame!); and I know next to nothing about developers. I think it'll work with Ilfotec. The quality of the film is well worth it the extra effort.

If it is still made in 4x5, Ilford Pan F. A more standard "slow" film would be Kodak T-Max

100.

Ellis,

 

To the best of my knowledge, Pan F was never available in 4x5 due to problems with the emulsion and the film base used. How far back are we talking here? I sure do wish they'd make it in 4x5.

 

For 35mm use, I love Technical Pan....and don't use Ilford developer for it. Use the recommended Technidol developer. Although if your prints are 11X14 or smaller, then I would just stay with Pan F developed in Ilfo DDX.

It'll be for a 35mm class actually. I should have mentioned that. Technical Pan looks great, and I'd love to try it with the recommended developer. It looks like I can buy 6 packets of the Technidol developer from B+H for $14 and then mix it in the darkroom. That's not too much baggage to carry to the darkroom right?

One option you might consider if Tech Pan floats your boat -- J&C Photo now sells repackaged Kodak Imagelink microfilm in 4x5 sheet size, as well as a SPUR developer optimized specifically for this film (and a couple others that are suitable, also). Imagelink is similar to Tech Pan in speed and resolution, and in its need for a very low contrast developer, but lacks the extended red sensitivity.

 

I've developed 16 mm Imagelink HQ in HC-110 Dilution G, and in Caffenol LC, both with good results -- images 10x14 mm that would stand enlargement to 5x7 inches without showing grain. Optimized developers will likely do better, and give higher film speed than the EI 25 I was forced to accept as "normal" for this film.

Why when he says he's a student do people start suggesting difficult films like tech pan? TMX is also temperamental. Try Delta 100 which is very fine grained, reasonably easy, fairly cheap and works well in ilford chemicals.

Ilford Pan F+, FP4+ (yes it is 125 but that's close) or Delta 100.

Ivan: Doesn't really matter .. but it's she, by the way haha. Actually, I'm curious about this. When you say "difficult" how difficult are we talking? I don't mind it being a bit finicky .. I don't need perfect results the on the first roll, and I like re-shooting.

 

I may just stick with Delta 100 this time around, but I'd like to try Technical Pan at some point. I guess I'm just thinking that the slower the film the better. Is that just a misconception?

Hi, Lacy!

 

Tech Pan is difficult in the sense that it takes a lot of individual finagling (lots of experimentation with exposure and development) to find the correct ISO for you. There are other things besides Tech Pan developer which can be used, but this is probably not the time to launch into a major experiment.

 

For architecture, you're better off with a T grain film (Kodak TMX, TMY, TMZ or Ilford Delta 100, Delta 400, Delta 3200) than a conventional grain film. I would strongly suggest Delta 100; it's available in 35 mm, 120, and 4x5; you can get fantastic results in a variety of developers, and it isn't as fussy (time and temperature) as Kodak TMX. Try exposing it anywhere from ISO 50 to ISO 80. Check development charts at unblinkingeye.com or digitaltruth.com for information on the things you can use. I gather you don't have Rodinal available, but one of the best, proven combinations for Delta 100 is exposure at ISO 50, and development in Rodinal 1:50.

 

Some folks believe that if you shoot 35 mm, you need to give about 1/3 stop more exposure and about 30% less development. That, however, is something you'll have to determine by experiment. Also, don't forget that if you are using a condenser enlarger, a "normal" negative may need a subnormal paper. Again, you'll have to experiment.

 

Good shooting, and good luck.

 

/s/ David Beal * Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

I'm gonna side with Ivan here. First of all, Tech Pan is already effectively discontinued. Any that you'd be able to buy is remainder stock. Nothing wrong with that, but you won't be able to get any more. Seems like a waste of time and money to me to learn how to use this film, only to run into a dead end because it is no longer available. Another thing about Tech Pan is that it was never designed as a pictorial film. It is microfilm, designed for making copies of text documents. Yes, it is very sharp and fined grained, but it has a really lousy tonal range unless you want to use a very low contrast developer like Technidol. That all adds up to a lot of cost for film and developer and a result that's not at all that special unless you want to make posters from 35mm negatives. You can say the same thing for most microfilms.

 

Of the commonly available pictorial films, Kodak's TMX is just about the finest grained and highest resolving films available. Some folks ay that it isn't "sharp" only because it doesn't develop edge effects during development. It's ability to resolve fine detail is much greater than the resolving power of the typical zoom lens. That's the dirty little secret about this film. Use it with the typical consumer zoom lens and it looks like nothing special. Use it with a first quality prime lens and it is outstanding. It is just as good as Ilford's PanF+ with an extra stop of speed and a different tonal range - most of that due to it's extended red sensitivity. It is a bit more sensitive than most of the "old style" B&W films in terms of exposure and development, but nothing that a bit of care won't handle. I would expect similar results from Ilford's Delta 100 given that it is a direct competitor to Kodak's TMX.

sorry about confusing your gender. I should have noticed there weren't a lot of Lacy's in my rugby team!

Tech pan is expensive, difficult to expose and develop correctly, and with many developers gives an ei of 6, and is being discontinued. Enough said. Delta 100 is fairly easy, fp4+ is very easy and nearly as fine grained. panf is no better than delta 100. APX25 is better but discontinued and kodak tmx is good but harder to get right than delta 100. If you've only one developer that's probably good. Best to stick to one film, one developer and spend a few months (or years!) getting it right.

EFKE 25 or Ilford PAN_F can be of great help.

Ilfotec HC is a very good developer for both,

Three things:<P>

 

(1) <I>"I can only develop with Ilfotec HC"</I><P>

 

Is this a requirement that the instructor imposes? Or is it just that all the school supplies is Ilfotec HC? Because it would be pretty cheap and easy to buy your own bottle of somethimg more common and/or arguably more useful, like HC-110 or Rodinal, and mix your own developer from these highly-concentrated liquids.<P>

 

(2) As for film for architecture, I've been most pleased with T-Max 100 (TMX). Some people say it's difficult to work with. I don't agree; at most, you have to meter carefully. And while its look may not be to your taste for some subjects, for architecture its fine grain and high sharpness are great. Personally, for my Aristo cold light with a V54 tube (which seems to produce higher contrast than other diffusion light sources), I rate it at EI 64 and develop it in a Paterson tank for about 9:15 in Rodinal diluted 1+50 at 68 deg. F / 20 deg. C.<P>

 

If you are really scared ot TMX, then Delta 100 would be my next choice. I'd expose and process it the same, except maybe I'd shorten development to 8:30 or 9:00.<P>

 

(3) <I>"It'll be for a 35mm class actually."</I><P>

 

This is singificantly limiting for architecture. Presumably whatever 35mm camera you'll be using does not have any tilt-shift lenses. Therefore, you will have problems making some subjects square (you know, tall buildings looking like they're falling backwards). If you have the space, getting farther away and using a longer lens will help. If you don't have the space, using a much wider angle lens than would otherwise be necessary, and then keeping the lens' axis perpendicular to the subject is the cheap work-around, but of course that puts even that much more strain on the small piece of film, since a lot of it will be filled with irrelevant foreground--which is all the more reason you need a film like TMX.<P>

 

Just my $0.02.

Lacy,

T-MAX 100 looks good in Rodinal. You will have to experiment with the dilution and exposure index that gives the look you want. Personally, I use Rodinal at 1:25 and rate at E.I. 100. It won't have as fine grain as it would in more conventional developers, but you might like the tonality. Another developer it works well in is Paterson FX-39. Still sharp, good tonality (for TMX), and fine grain.

Hope this helps.

"but I can only develop with Ilfotec HC."

 

What, you can't spend money on something else? Buy a developing tank & your own chemicals. It isn't difficult. If a college photo class can do it then surely you can do it yourself.

What J. Robinson said. Definetely try developin at home. You can scan or have someone scan your negatives. Look around for used enlarging equipment if you get interested in doing your own printing. Many newspapers have gone digital and may have darkroom stuff that they would sell or give away just to have the space.

BTW, T-MAX 100 has an appetite for fixer!

For whatever it's worth, Ilfotec HC is effectively identical to HC-110 -- so a document film that produces good results in HC-110 Dilution G will produce similar results in Ilfotec HC at a similar increase in dilution over "standard" strength -- in this case, the normal working solution 1:3 with water will give similar strength, which combined with reduced agitation (every 3 to 5 minutes) will give good pictorial results with (still available in 35 mm and 4x5) Imagelink HQ.

 

However, TMX is about two stop faster than Imagelink HQ, still has high enough resolution to overreach most common lenses, is easier to develop for "normal" contrast, and easier to get (you can buy TMX in 35 mm, 120, or 4x5 in any large camera store and most campus bookstores; Imagelink is an order-in item at best). TMX has a reputation for being intolerant of exposure errors, but produced very nice negatives when correctly exposed, and works very well in HC-110 -- which implies it will also work well in Ilfotec HC. And Imagelink isn't all that happy to be under- or over-exposed, either, even after you find an EI that works with your development process and image requirements.

I'm in a college photo class and I purchase my own developers and do all my own

processing at home specifically to avoid the restrictions that have come up in discussion

here. The expense is miminal for even the more exotic developers.

Lacy--

 

I think the concensus is that you can use a variety of films-- and if you are using roll films that gives you a lot of choices. I like the thought of Pan F OR FP4+, with the latter more forgiving of a beginner's mistakes and the former quite a bit finer grained. The Delta and TMax 100 class films are fine as well but less forgiving of any exposure and development mistakes.

 

And if you have the chance, do try well diluted Rodinal with the slower films (1:50 is a good start)-- it produces a wonderful negative! I would advise a 5x 1 minute water wash series instead of acid stopbath in doing so. Your images will look better but you will also need to subtract some development time in doing so, about 2 minutes or so.

Well, I guess I'll explain myself further. I actually signed a darkroom safety/procedure contract at the beginning of this class that specified outside chemicals as restricted .. my specific class (B+W Photo II) has been instructed in only the Ilfotec HC and this is what we're limited to. I think that's ridiculous, but bringing in my own developer puts me at risk of being banned from the darkroom. I've decided as of now to ignore this rule, mostly because after a quick look at B+H I've realized that developers can be bought in small portable amounts (which I didn't fully realize). Developing at home is an option, but that will call for more supplies and I'd also rather prefer to use a film dryer.

 

I go to a small community college. The current darkroom attendant had never seen 120 film before I brought some in to make contact sheets from. Pretty sad state of affairs .. so I'm transferring next semester and looking forward to better facilities. I'm sorry if my lack of knowledge and experimentation with film is shocking to some of you :)

Well .. that's why I'm here after all. Thanks again for all the information!

If that college darkroom is as lame as you say, I wouldn't trust that film dryer worth a nickel. You might wind up with lots of dust stuck to your film. Wouldn't that be fun after all the work you went through?