Best Current B&W films for 120 landscape work

I am returning to B&W 120 work after a long absense from

photography. I'll be using Mamiya 6& 7. I'm out of date on good film

choices for good grain and a nice gray scale. I may process some of

the film myself, but since I have no facility, some of it will be

processed by a lab. Any suggestions on films/labs? Thank you. I'm

new here, so forgive me if I'm asking an old boring question. Thanks

in advance for your help. Rick

I really like Acros 100 for it's sharpness for landscape work.

FP4 (at 80) if you want a classic film with good middle tones. However, you might also want to try Delta 100, shot at 50, and developed in Rodinal 1:50. While the Delta films and their Kodak equivalents (TMX, TMY) have more compressed middle tones, many people like them for landscapes.

 

Good shooting.

 

/s/ David Beal ** Memories Preserved Photography, LLC

Richard

 

Like you,I had a layoff from the darkroom(20 yrs.)(I had a couple of knuckleheads to raise,and a couple of jobs to work.)-I whish I had asked this question 7-8 years ago when I went wet again.Since then I've have tried many film/developer combos and there are many I like,and I'm sure you'll get many suggestions,so I'll give you mine.

I'd go with FP4+ or Plus-X which are similar,but I think I'd give the edge to FP4+ as a good all around medium(slow) speed film that has little grain and has pretty good latitude.It's still one of my favorites,regardless of the price increase.

I am a beginner, I use 69 format and I love landscapes. I never thought of using it for landscapes, but maybe Efke 25 would be good.

 

Cheers.

Thanks to all of you who've contributed your thoughts so far, and to those who might still. What about the C-41 process B&W films, Ilford XP2Super,etc.? What are the advantages/disadvantages of going that route? Rick

Richard,

 

If you're going to use a commercial lab, Acros 100 or Tmax 100 might be your best bet,

since they probably process those two films the most.

 

XP2 super or the Kodak equivalent is a lot of fun and has the advantage that just about

anyplace with a C41 process machine will give you consistent, good-quality negatives.

They take on a little color in the prints, though, because color paper is used.

 

A lot depends on whether you'll do your own printing.

 

Have fun,

In highly nonscientific, personal testing, I've found that XP2 doesn't have the sharpness that I can get out of various traditional films with the right, non-solvent developers.

 

After some of my recent testing, I might go for Delta 100 in a non-solvent developer. The one I'm playing with now is FX39.

 

allan

While I suspect Allan is right about XP-2 120 not being precisely as sharp as some traditional B&W films, I've made some outstanding 16x20's with XP-2 120. Aside from being able to soup XP-2 in a C-41 machine, I'm able to scan XP-2 with Digital ICE. The other day, I scanned an older HP5 120 image of mine, obviously couldn't use Digital ICE and spent two hours removing dust specks in Pshop.<div></div>

HP5 120, after two hours of digital spotting ...<div></div>

I liked the tonality and range of Acros, and it would be a good choice for commercial processing.

 

If you are developing it yourself, you may like to try Efke 25 and 100.

 

Paul

Eric - 2 hours? Wow, did you clean your rug in your darkroom? :-)

 

I actually spend a lot of time spotting MF negatives. Very painful.

 

allan

Fuji Acros is a good film to start with. But then there's Kodak Tmax 100 and Delta 100. All great films. I would play with those for a while. <p> Truthfully, I'm not sure there is a bad film out there. Everyone has there own preferences. I'm experimenting with the Efke 25 and the J&C stuff. All good films. <p> BTW, Welcome back to B&W. <p>

A&I in Hollywood is a great lab (although I've never had them touch any of my B&W work), if you all don't mind me saying so.

Assuming you'll be using a tripod, a short list of slow films having different characteristics:

 

1. Agfa APX 100. Great stuff ... if you can still find any. Beautiful results in Tetenal Neofin Blue or Rodinal.

 

2. Ilford FP4+. May seem kinda like a "plain vanilla" choice but it's more like homemade vanilla - really tasty. Not terribly picky about exposure or development. The best results I've gotten were with it exposed at either 64 or 80 and developed in ID-11, 1+1, for, I think (digging around in the mushy corners of my mind), 9 minutes. I enlarged a cropped section from what would have been a 20"x20" print and was very satisfied with the sharpness, low grain and overall look.

 

3. Pan F+. Trickier than FP4+. Usually best at 25 for most developers, tho' it works well at 50 in Diafine. The grain isn't as fine as TMX but it's very sharp.

 

4. TMX (T-Max 100). One of my favorites for landscapes and architecture. Unique tonality. Not to everyone's taste but it doesn't look like anything else. Best at 64 or 80 in ID-11/D-76, 1+1. Works great at 100 when developed in Microphen, which smooths out some of the quirks of TMX, making exposure and development factors less critical.

 

Okay, 'nuff on that.

 

There's no reason why you can't use Ilford XP-2 Super if you want to keep things simple. For one thing, you can always use it for printing on conventional b&w paper later if you choose. Unlike Kodak's C-41 process monochrome films, XP-2 has a slightly blue base that doesn't interfere with printing on variable contrast paper.

 

I've gotten some excellent, neutral prints on color paper from good labs. So if your negative doesn't need any manipulation, you can get excellent straight prints up to 8x10 on Fuji Crystal Archive or other "real" color paper from almost any minilab. However, places like Wal-wart have a hard time producing neutral prints so I use a local pro shop.

 

At a local arts fair a couple of years ago I saw some large (16x20, I think) prints produced by a fellow using either XP-2 Super or some other chromogenic monochrome in his 4x5 camera. He had 'em drum scanned, did his own editing and had them printed by a lab on, I think, a Durst Lambda. They were outstanding.

 

So, nope, there's nothing wrong with using XP-2 Super if you've got a craving for b&w and can't set up a wet darkroom. Some folks will advise shooting color, digitally converting to monochrome, etc., but I don't have any need for that when I shoot XP-2 because I use it only for candid people photography: weddings, live theatre, whatever appeals to me. I try to avoid having to do a lot of print manipulation with this kind of photography even when I shoot conventional b&w film and do my own printing. XP-2 Super is very convenient when I need a quick turnaround to produce lots of copies of 4x6, 5x7 or 8x10 prints.

If you are going to be scanning, another option is to shoot color film and desaturate in Photoshop. I've seen some lovely B&W shot on, of all things, Provia 100F. This has several advantages: (1) less prominent grain (e.g. Astia 100F) (2) you can use ICE when scanning (3) you can get some amount of color filtration effects when you desaturate using the channel mixer or similar techniques.

 

Yes, it's a diffferent medium from traditional B&W, but it's an option.

The "problem" with XP2 in 120 is that most one-hour labs won't do 120 themselves but will send it away, so that advantage is immediately lost. It's a very nice film, mind, but turnaround-wise it behaves more like E6 than 135 C41, if that makes sense.

 

PS If you would like a lab recommendation you will need to tell us whereabouts you are...

Allan, my wet darkroom is gone, replaced by about eight feet of desk and table space. I have a Nikon LS 8000 scanner and find that I need to use a glass carrier to get the best sharpness out of MF films with multi-pass scanning.

 

 

As much dust-off as I use to clean the negative and carrier, I wind up seeing every little residual dust speck on both sides of the negative and the glass as well. For a web image or small print, I don't have to do much spotting; but for an 11x14 or 16x20 print, the spotting is more involved.

Thanks to all of you, for all the thoughtful comments. Regarding processing, although I might not be able to process all of the film right away, I do hope to do the printing myself. Also, I'm not at this point too interested in scanning and taking on learning photoshop, however that might come later. For one thing I still prefer the look of fiber-based paper prints, I guess I'm just old fashioned. Since I will also be shooting color, however, the option of shooting color positive with the option of converting to B&W, is intriquing and appealing. But I think what I really need to know right now is some good choices for films to take on an upcoming trip. Thanks again for all of your gernerous, expert assistance. Rick

Also, if you can find somewhere EFKE R 25 or R50, you will be suprised how sharp and beautifull pictures can be made with this one.

One disadvantage to using the chromogenic films or slide film or any other dye-based film is that dyes aren't archival. They do fade in time. True black-and-white films have no dyes so have archival advantages because of it.

 

I agree about Efke R25. It isn't super easy to shoot but it is grainless even in 11x11" enlargements (from 6x6 negatives). Beautiful film.

"One disadvantage to using the chromogenic films or slide film or any other dye-based film is that dyes aren't archival. They do fade in time."

 

 

True enough, but I have images I made on Ilford XP-1 and Agfa Vario-XL that are approaching 25 years old, and the negatives haven't faded or discolored in any way. In fact, I've never had a chromogenic negative discolor or fade (wish I could say the same of some Ektachrome images I made through the 1980s).

 

 

Then too, while I'm keeping my current XP-2 120 films as back-ups in case of a digital disaster, I make 500MB+/- scans of the images- which scans really become my originals- and will probably never use the film images again.<div></div>

Regarding Efke 25, here's an interesting article by a somewhat eccentric fine art photographer who shoots Efke 25:

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml