Med format B&W recommendations

Hi all

 

Up until recently I have only used 35 mm format films ( canon fd equip). My

primary choice for film/dev. combos is tri-x in ilford dd-x. I've probably

tried a half dozen or so combos including pan-f, t-max, and delta 100, in d-76

and dd-x, 1 to 1 and 4 to 1 respectively. Also HIE, and tech pan in technidol

(3 rolls left).

 

I now have a RB 67 kit w/3 lenses and am anxious to try some B&W. I will

now have to wet print my pix, whereas prior to that I scanned on a 35 mm film

scanner. I cannot afford a quality med format film scanner, besides I really

want to do some darkroom work. I am currenty setting up a darkroom and

tracking dowm a used enlarger, I have decided on a Besseler 23c.

 

I am looking for some film and paper combos based on the following

criteria;

 

1) Film will be developed in Xtol( wanted to try someting else)

 

2) I'll probably order a few different films for

a)portraiture

b)landcapes

c)macro

 

3) A nice tonal range I feel is more important than grain or sharpness,

although a good compromise between all 3 is nice, and is what I feel I found w

tri-x in dd-x for my 35mm stuff.

 

I know some people will want to say "try different films and pick what you

like best". But I'm really intersted to know what you use and what

charecteristics people might look for.

 

Thanks for your time.

So what's the problem? If you like Tri-X in DD-X, so why not try that in medium format? The difference in quality you'll get compared to 35mm will knock your socks off.

Hi...Call me old school, but I keep coming back to Tri-X, D-76, and Ilford VC papers. Soup as recommened in directions, adjust to your liking. Over the years I have found that as long as I have a good thermometer, I use distilled water for a final rinse on my negatives, my printing is very consistant and predictable. Some may argue with me, but with time constraints I don't get in the darkroom as much as I would like, but when I am, I want to be printing photos not seeing what kind of chemist I can become. I know there are other combos that work, but for me the above process is a keeper! Nice to know that the wet darkroom lives on strongly! Have Fun! mark

The film you liked in 35mm is the film you should start off with in MF. I still shoot the same films in 35mm and MF. And I usually use the same developers.

 

What films fit my style and work for me shouldn't make much difference to anyone else. But since you asked, they are Neopan 400 (HC110) and Acros (Rodinal). Why? They work with my subject matter and my style.

Delta 100 and FP4 are my two prime choices. As for paper, Ilford MG IV satin texture. But also, HP5 is a very tolerant film.

If you like Tri-X in 35mm, you probably will like it more in med. format.

These days I'm shooting what I have left of APX 25/100/400 and souping them all in Studional (aka Rodinal Special). Studional has always been my preferred developer for Agfa films since '94.

 

Also, (depending on subject & "look" wanted):

 

Plus-X/Tri-X in HC-110

Efke 100 in Rodinal

Neopan 400 in Rodinal (not using this film so much these days).

 

For paper, I'd used Agfa Brovira & Portriga (got a couple of boxes left in the freezer), but now use Foma and about to test the Adox/Efke fiber papers for certain instances.

 

I prefer the look of Agfa from the 30s & 40s, the quality was unbelievable back then. I shoot with Rolleiflex TLRs (Planar, Tessar), Leica M6 (Summicrons) & Contax G (all Zeiss as well) and for enlarging, I use Schneider. Glass makes all the difference.

 

Good luck, and glad to see someone keeping the darkroom alive.

thanks for all the quick responses. I'll order some film online as I usually do, Tri-x will of course be on the list. I might try some plus-x as well. As for a slow film, I have not seen anyone mention Ilford pan f plus, I do use it sometimes for landscapes in 35 mm.

 

For me, the results are really only half of it, the process and trial and errors are the other half.

sorry, the above attachment is tri-x in dd-x

I like Tmax films overexposed by a stop eg 400 rate at 200 in rodinal 1:200 for 2 hours stand dev. nice tonality, fine salt& pepper grain.

i like it.

Keep in mind that Tri-X (ISO 400) and Tri-X Professional (ISO 320), both available in 120, are completely different films. 320TXP is optimized for studio photography under controlled lighting conditions. 400TX is the one you want.

With my RZ67 I pretty much stick to Ilford PanF+ in Rodinal 1:50 for about 9 minutes. With the bright SoCal sun I find rating this film at iso50 puts me right at 1/250 at around f5.6 or f8 (using the 110mm lens) which is just where I like it.

I like Delta 400 for my fast film, ACROS 100 for my medium speed film.

 

Both are T-grain films, and developed in Xtol or a similar Phenidone/Ascorbic acid developer you will get grain that is virtually invisible, even at large blowups, as well as full tonal range. I actually find it frustrating trying to focus ACROS under the enlarger, because the grain is so fine that my 25X Scoponet focuser can't see it.

Here's another vote for Tri-X in DD-X. I have never used it in MF but like it a lot in 35mm. My 'utility' or all-around combination has been Delta 400 in HC-110 (Dilution B). For landscape you might try Delta 100 in Rodinal.

 

In addition to the good advice of starting with what you like in 35mm, I'd say the main thing about the jump to MF is that you are relatively free to try films and film/developer combinations that were too grainy in 35mm but otherwise had promise. The sometimes apparently obvious answer--Delta 3200--is no me NOT an answer, because 35mm lenses tend to be about 2 stops faster and have 2 stops more depth of field than MF lenses, so if you can shoot MF at f/2.8 and EI 2000 (Delta 3200's sweet spot, IMO), then you can get the same thing with 35mm at f/1.4 at EI 500 (about right for many common 400-speed films in DD-X). So what to try? Maybe Tri-X in Rodinal.

I like Tri-X in 35mm, but for some reason not in 120 (and yes, I use the 400 variety, which should be the same emulsion). However, Delta 400 looks fantastic in 120. I develop it in a phenidone-ascorbic acid-sulfite homebrew that should be very similar to Xtol.