Agfapan 25 is gone... Now what? TechPan 25???

Hi,

 

I'm new to photography and I've been reading up on all the threads in

the Nature Photography forum to see which B&W films are most suitable

for Nature photography? I read some threads about Agfapan having

been discontinued, the differences between Agfapan and TechPan

(difficult to control contrast) and so on. I'm looking for a B&W

film with high contrast and fine grain (like most others, I suppose).

 

I was wondering what previous Agfapan users are using now... I mean,

now that Agfapan has been discontinued. Have you guys found some

other film that works for you??

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Nirmal.

With the decline of slow films, you might consider moving up in format. If you liked Agfapan 25 in 35mm, try Agfapan 100 in medium format. If you are shooting landscapes, try 4x5". Go larger, and grain becomes less important--you can use any film with the tonality you like.

what about ilford pan f+?

it seems counter productive to change formats. If indeed nirmal is shooting 35mm, does it make sense to invest in a $3000 MF system just to get finer grain than current 100 speed films? If you shoot 35mm, and want the finest grained films possible, you have several options:

 

tech pan is the finest grained, but difficult to use and process compared to other films.

 

if you like classic films' grain, shoot pan f+

 

if you like modern films, shoot ilford delta 100 or tmax 100, etc.

 

I've shot them all, and keep coming back to pan f+ for 35mm, it's finer grained than the new 100 speed films. but i like classic grain, you may not.

It's not that expensive actually to move up in format. You don't have to buy a Hasselblad or a new Rollei to get the benefits of a bigger piece of film. A Yashicamat or Autocord for under $200, or a Bronica S2A for around $500 if you like an SLR will produce very impressive results compared to any 35mm system. There is also lots of used LF gear out there for not too much money, and for landscapes and still lifes (the most common use for slow films like APX 25), a view camera really is the best tool for the job.

 

My 35mm system probably is more expensive than either my 6x6cm or 8x10" system, but I hardly shoot any B&W with my 35mm SLR these days. Why bother when you can get much better tonality with less effort in a larger format? 35mm is great for long tele work, macro, low light, snapshots, and street photography, but if I'm serious enough about an image to use a film like Tech Pan or APX 25 and would probably use a tripod anyway, I might as well use a bigger camera.

Why do you think you need high contrast?

Dan,

 

To answer your question: One of my favorite destinations over the past several years has been Yosemite. And as far as B&W photography is concerned, I have been most exposed to Ansel Adams' prints. And, at the risk of sounding cliched, I like the way he made his photos.

 

I started reading up on the techniques and equipment(mainly film and printing paper and chemicals) required to produce such images. And the conclusion I drew from the many articles/books I have read including Ansel Adams' "The Negative" and "The Print" books is that I should use a high-contrast film.

 

I'm only a beginning photographer with more theoretical knowledge than experience. So, please do tell me if I'm right in my thinking and my conclusions.

 

Thanks in advance,

Nirmal.

There was some discussion that <a href="http://www.onecachet.com/cfilmsz.htm">MacoPhot ORT25</a> was somehow derivative of Agfa 25. And that you can control contrast via the developing choices available with chemicals. Cant' find it right this sec but check the archives. Can't hurt to try a roll either. I'm gonna do that soon as I finish what's left of my Agfa in the freezer.

I draw different conclusions from AA's books. I think the look you are after is the high detail, high contrast image with full, deep blacks and clear or silvery whites. Historically, the way you got this was with a slow fine grained film which naturally gave you a high contrast negative. If you read deeper you'll find that many of the images had AA using methods to reduce the contrast of the neg either by shorter development time or with compensating/water bath development. Even then, he still had to spend considerable time in the darkroom manipulating the print to give him the image he wanted.

 

AA's books are now at least 20 years old and do not neccessarily address present day materials and processes. I suggest Barnbaum's book "The Art of Photography" that bridges this gap. I'm sure there are other books as well.

 

As far as film is concerned, the previous recomendations are all valid and depend upon the method you will use to print the image, ie., drugstore or pro lab, home darkroom or digital scan & output. I do my B&W with medium format and usually use Ilford FP4+ with Agfa MC papers in the home darkroom. I'd like to think that my aesthetic is similar to AA's but I can only approach his results. While equipment and materials play a part, experience, circumstance and technique are much more important - all of which come from shooting film rather than reading books.

 

Cheers,

 

Duane

What you think you want in a high contrast film for what you say you want to photograph is asking for problems. Tech Pan is a pain in the ass any way you slice it. The extended red sensitivity and lack of fine control makes it difficult to work with in even the best of circumstances. Even TMax is less finicky.

If you see the work of Adams you are generally seeing large format. He shot most of his work with 4x5 and larger. While many of us shoot larger formats, including 8x10 and up, for what you want 4x5 is an excellent choice. A simple 4x5 with lens & holders is in line with a low-medium level SLR with lens.

Grain is not the issue and contrast isn't either, control of contrast in the image is. Tech Pan can be nice but for everyone who takes the time to really master it 5,000 others throw it in the trashcan. Pick a normal film like Ilford FP4plus or even Delta 100, one developer & learn to use them. Concentrate on the quality of your vision as expressed in the final print, making excellence in the craft of photography very important in interpreting your vision in that print. No room for third rate technique.

Many excellent photographers make stunning images with film/developer combinations others would throw in the garbage can. They work with it enough to know what it will do, when... and how to get it to bend to their will. TriX and HC110 come to mind quickly as the choice of many. TMax in Rodinal. Almost any combination can work well if you learn how to work with it.

If you really want the quality of the finst landscape photographers you will go past 35mm into larger film sizes or keep your print sizes to a minimum or push past it all & go your own way with your own vision, unfettered by anything but top quality every step of the way.

Efke 25 is nice. It's available from www.fotoimpex.de in Germany, and fairly cheap. The grain is very fine and the tonality is nice, too. Efke 25 and 50 (which also is fine grained) are both less sensitive to red than most films, however, so an orange filter will require at least one stop more than the extra exposure you would normally give, and a red filter at least two stops more.

Gee Dan, could you be a little more vague and less specific? You remind me of an old college photo instructor I had that forced 35mm students to stare all day long at reproductions of Ansel Adams while criticizing their format as being too small. Yep, ONLY real photographers shoot static pictures of mountains (that consequently all look alike) with large format cameras, while 35mm nature shooters should aspire to be large format photographers.

 

When I primarily shot 35mm my favorite fine grained B/W film of all time was easily Kodak Panatomic-X. After Kodak killed that I tried a bunch of others and quickly dismissed FP4 as being too soft and not very fine grained. AgfaPan 25 was exellent, but was quirky with development and not much sharper than Panatomic-X, but was certainly a better material than FP4 in the grain dept. TechPan on the other hand quickly became one of my favorite B/W films with grain structure beyond anything I've ever used besides Kodak SO-173 and some holographic emulsions.

 

Contrary to the technically incorrect remarks above, TechPan can be processed to normal pictorial levels with Technidol, and in my experience actually delivers a gamma slightly lower than Panatomic-X when processed this way. Just like HIE, TechPan has a rep for being a high contrast material because most of the shots you see are of abstract/technical subject matter. Processed in Technidol the way Kodak tells you to both HIE and TechPan deliver wonderfully long tonal scales. I think our zone system groupies have suffered too much brain-rot or something, but I've never had a problem keeping TechPan at normal pictorial contrast levels. Not my fault if you're using D-76 or other normal developers with the smug belief you can control Techpan's contrast. That dog don't hunt.

 

In regards to "extended red sensitivity", so what? I don't find TechPan any more red sensitive than XP-2 or T-CN400, and most B/W landscape photographers want to use yellow/orange/red filters anyway.

 

Excluding TechPan, TMX 100 is the next film in line with Fuji Across next. TMX 100 is sharp, but it's lack of density range makes it a turn off for many B/W photographers used to APX-25 while Across is gaining in popularity.

 

In either case (and I can't stress this enough), in order to make the most of these materials you will *have* to do your own processing to gain the most from fine grained B/W films. Commercial labs are simply geared for more mainstream films and processing.

I would suggest trying Ilford Pan F+. I just shot a few rolls of it and am very pleased with the look, fine grain, and good contrast. Also I understand it pushes a couple of stops well for even more contrast and costs half what TechPan does. Although, I bought TechPan (and Technidol) based on Scott's earlier posts to try out as well.

Scott Eaton said:

<br>

<I> In regards to "extended red sensitivity", so what? I don't find TechPan any more red sensitive than XP-2 or T-CN400, and most B/W landscape photographers want to use yellow/orange/red filters anyway.

</I>

<br>

<br>

I usually believe what Scott says and I got some very useful information on the usage of film materials, but this time Scott I think you're wrong.

 

When using a yellow/orange/red filter, it's not that yellow/orange/red is filtered out, these are more or less the only colors/wavelengths that get through. So if you go ahead and slap a red filter on your lens, because you only want to "see" the red light (so to speak, Roxanne) it could make perfect sense to use film with "extended red sensitivity" to see "more" of that red light.

 

If somebody has any technical information about the actual properties of the commonly used yellow/orange/red photographic filters in terms of their transmission profiles (bandpass, longpass, shortpass, spectra, ...) this would be some valuable information, as the spectral sensitivity of different films is available in the data sheets.

<br>

<br>

So Scott, make my day and admit that you were wrong, one once in a thousand comments <B>:^)</B>

as far as I know (and in the market here in Hong Kong), there are still available rolls of APX 25 for the MF...try to get some.

<P>Gigabit Film</P>

<P>2/3rds down this page is an example of it at 1000x linear

magnification.</P>

<A

HREF="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/technical_information/picture_examples/picture_examples.htm">Gigabit

Film Picture Examples in English</A>

<P>Notice that much of the discussion here on photo.net is of the "I

haven't tried it, but it <I>cannot</I> work: Established Knowledge

says so." variety, but of the people who <I>actually have used

it</I> the comments are along the lines of "be careful to fully

develop it, and grain-focusing don't work: focus on some line or

edge or something, because there <I>isn't</I> grain".</P>

<P><A

HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Q2v">comment

by Allen Friday who actually used the stuff</A><BR>

<A

HREF="http://www.fotoimpex.de/Home/films/body_films.html">FotoImpex.de

films frame</A><BR>

and their homepage <A

HREF="http://www.fotoimpex.de/Home/home.html">FotoImpex.de</A></P>

<P>I'm interested in this film primarily for testing lenses & kit:

no other film's likely to be so little the weakpoint as this stuff,

and by-the-way, the engineer behind it says the secret is that the

grains are all the same size, so the interaction with light is

exceptionally precise ( and as for the "Agfa makes it, therefore it

is the <I>same formulation</I> as Agfapan" argument, that isn't

logic : )</P>