Thinking about changing films

[dave_snay]

Hi all,

 

I've been considering a change in film. I've been using Kodak Plus-X

and Tri-X in both 35mm and medium format for a couple of years and I'm

generally happy with what I've been seeing. However, the cost is

starting to rise and I think now might be a good time to experiment

with other films, for the sake of experimenting if nothing else. I

generally like "soft" prints more than high contrast ones.

 

I'm wondering what the differences are in the various Ilford (Pan-f,

HP4+, HP5, Delta) and the Fuji Acros film. Is there really that much

difference in the Ilford films? The descriptions don't really seem

much different for them.

 

I know the decision on which film to use is very much subjective, but

if anybody can explain the differences in these films and why you

would choose one over the other it would be very helpful in my

decision making process.

 

Right now I'm using HC110 for my developing, but I'm open to

suggestions if there is a compelling reason to change based on film

choice.

 

Thanks again,

Dave

[david_carper]

ILFORD films fall into two main groups; Delta and Plus.

 

The Plus films are traditional technology; using the same basic techniques that have been employed for decades (although greatly improved over what was produced in the past). In this range are Pan F+ (ISO50), FP4+ (ISO125) and HP5+(ISO400) They have moderate grain size and sharpness for the speed, and a very smooth tonality. They tend to be quite forgiving of both exposure and processing variations, with the HP5+ being the most forgiving.

 

The Delta films (Delta 100, Delta 400, and Delta 3200) are modern technology films. These are made with a method that closely controls the size of the crytals of silver, allowing for a more uniform size. This gives a film with considerably finer grain for the speed; the Delta films are also very sharp. However, this same characteristic makes these films a little less forgiving of variations in exposure or developing, so are more suited for the experienced user than for the student.

The Delta 3200 is a little special; it is actually an ISO 1000 film, but is designed for push processing to get usable photos in conditions where you would otherwise not be able to photograph.

 

So for the practical differences, the Plus films are ideal for portraiture (due to the soft grain and smooth tonality), for students, and for shooting in conditions where the light is unpredictable or very high contrast.

The Delta films are ideal for the experienced photographer who wants the greatest sharpness and fine grain, which is often prefered for landscape and architectural work.

 

The other ILFORD films are XP2 Super, a C-41 black and white film; SFX, an extended red film that can give some infrared results when properly filtered, and Ortho Plus (sheet film only), a continuous tone orthochromatic film designed primarily for copy purposes.

 

Hope this helps.

 

David Carper

 

ILFORD Technical Service

[jimvanson]

Dave: I can not say enough about Agfa APX 100 at about $2 a roll developed in Rodinal at 1+100 -- developer cost less then 15 cents a roll.<P>As you're probably aware contrast is usually controlled by development time.<P>Agfa says 20 minutes @ 68 degrees -- thats spot on for me. You may find that 17 or 18 minutes is better for you.<P>I'm also a fan of 120 APX 400@250 in 1+100 Rodinal but it may very well have a grittier look then your looking for.

[john_cook1]

There are minor differences among various films. While we all have our favorites, subject matter and the ability to handle their idiosyncracies are more important.

 

My two major compelling reasons for choosing Ilford products are (1) they are more likely to continue manufacturing b&w than some other firms, and (2) the technical instructions on their website are superb.

 

After buying a $3000 camera and a few $1000 lenses, 57 cents for a sheet of 4x5 film is not a big deal for me.

 

In case you haven?t tumbled to it yet, both Agfa and Kodak are in the process of getting out of the film business. Would not be surprised if Fuji was right behind them. Agfa recently discontinued all sheet film. Kodak just dropped Plus X sheet film, and I hear Tech Pan has gone as well. Just waiting for the other shoe(s) to drop.

 

It is very expensive and time-consuming to test film and developer to become comfortable with it. Having a manufacturer dump a material you just got through testing is extremely frustrating (and expensive).

 

Photography is like religion: whatever screwball theory you come up with, some denomination will agree with you and another will disagree. After you have heard a few dozen conflicting opinions go over to the Ilford website, download and read all those nifty technical data and follow them to the letter. You will not be sorry.

[michaelging]

Dave,

I use mostly Tri-x and Plus-x as you do. I also have tried all the Illford films, Fuji , Agfa,

and off brands. Acros is a very nice film ,I like the grain , and tones you get. I also agree

that most films and developer combinations are subjective.I also think with the ammount

of money that my cameras cost, transportation to where I am photographing,the cost of

chemicals,ect. that film is the least expensive link in the chain.Its is also the one thing

that you are left with years later.Long after the camera,has been sold, the trip forgotten

and your credit card paid off,you still have the film. I have been scanning in photos from

35 yrs ago and I am surprised of how little my film has changed. I buy the best film I can ,

learn how to use it and then I can concentrate on the creativity of photography. Have you

also looked into bulk loading.you get aprox 18 rolls of film off of a 100 foot roll. The only

problems I have had are no dx-coading( you can buy stickers to put on the film) and a

possable scratch from dust on the light trap. It's much cheaper than factory loads. If its

more, wanting to experiment,and find THE film I understand that as well. good luck

[dave_snay]

Lots of good info folks. Thanks for that. It sounds like it will be worth experimenting with the Delta.

 

One thing I haven't seen any comments on is the choice of developer. Is there some information somewhere that I can use to determine if there is any reason to change from HC110 or better yet, if there is a reason to use something else in addition to HC110 for different results depending on my vision at the time of the shoot?

 

thanks,

Dave

[al_divenuti]

I don't completelly agree with John.

 

Firstly, most of Ilford's product development of late is in the digital arena. Second, I've not seen them introduce one new film B&W product since they were sold by International Paper in '99.

 

If you're really going to practice 'silver-based photography survivalism', then buy from Foma, Forte, and Efke. These folks don't have the capitalization to compete in digital will merrily serve the film B&W world until their tooling fails, or they are acquired.

 

And lastly, though Ilford's web site is superbly well organized their tech. sheets leave much to be desired.

 

I dare you, for example, to show me a legible D log H curve for a multigrade paper product. Their tech sheets PALE in comparison to AGFA and Kodak (the latter not easy to find, but very complete), IMO.

 

I say use whatever appeals to you at any given time. To paraphrase Keynes: "In the long run we will all be discontinued"

[al_divenuti]

BTW: The above isn't intended to be a diatribe against Ilford. I do use FP4+ in 135 and find it to be an excellent medium speed film.

[johnmarkpainter]

Dave,

 

Unless you are just bored....

 

You have spent a couple of years getting to know your Developer and Film

and you are happy with what you are seeing. Why not just Bulk roll your

35mm and stick with what you have?

 

jmp

[johnmarkpainter]

P.S.

 

Not intended as a lecture to you or anything.....It's just that I have wasted a lot

of money buying different Films & Developers when I should have just been

shooting TriX in Rodinal and working on my shooting.

 

jmp

[scott_esposito]

For developer, here goes:

 

I've had excellent results with HP5+ in HC-110. I rate the HP5+ @ about 200 and develop it @ 68 F, for 4 min 1:31 (use a high dilution if 4 min is too short for you).

 

I love the Deltas in Rodinal, especially Delta 100. Their fine grain is a perfect antidote to Rodinal's typical graininess, and the detail is extraordinary. I do both 100 and 400 for about 7 min at 1:25.

 

You can also try the Deltas in XTOL.

 

FP4+ in XTOL or Rodinal gives good results.

 

I've heard Delta 3200 in Microphen is the way to go for that film.

[al_divenuti]

>>I say use whatever appeals to you at any given time.

 

Let me rephase: I say continue to use whatever appeals to you and don't be swayed by fears of discontinuation. Film gets discontinued and people die. Enjoy the time you have together with both.

[tim obrien]

Mr. Painter said...

 

"Not intended as a lecture to you or anything.....It's just that I have wasted a lot of money buying different Films & Developers when I should have just been shooting TriX in Rodinal and working on my shooting."

 

Never happen. The investigation into the process is just as valuable as the end product itself. We all grow from the knowledge we aquire, both shooting and processing. Your knowledge on this board is AMAZING.

 

tim in san jose

[the_macman]

In my area there isn't any significative difference b/w Kodak and Ilford, price wise. If you're

looking to save film, check out Agfa. Here, one roll of Agfa costs about 30% of the price of

the other brands and Agfa makes great stuff which gives fantastic results if properly

souped. Check out, maybe the same price difference can be found in your area... I have no

clue their behaviour in HC110, though.

 

Someone on this forum specified that Orwo films are in fact FP4+ for half the cost. Check

that out as well.

 

>>>> The descriptions don't really seem much different for them.

 

There aren't any descriptions for films and whenever you see some consider them as pure

marketing bullshit which is not to be believed... It's all a question of film+soup

combination.

[the_macman]

Precision: descriptions per say are to be believed, such as those explaining what the film is

made of at the microscopic level. Descrptions which talk about results are to be dismissed.

[dave_snay]

Okay, so let's say I want to give Delta 100 a try in XTOL. The Ilford data sheets give development times for lots of developers, but not XTOL. Anybody got some numbers for that? I've lost track of how to find that massive chart.

 

thanks,

Dave

[jay_de_fehr]

hi Dave. For the past several months I've been working my way through several rebranded/repackaged films from various sources, and I can say with confidence that they're all excellent films, but for economy, Freestyle's Arista Edu. line in 100,200 and 400 speeds are the cat's meow. They are made in Hungary by Forte, and can also be found as J&C Classic Pan, Bergger BPF/BRF, and Fortepan. When you buy 20 rolls they cost $1.20 +/-/roll of 120. I've had great success with these films in all of the developers I've used which include several of Pat Gainer's developers, Xtol, and TmaxRS, but after using the Gainer's developers I'll never go back to the commercial stuff. PC-TEA is an amazing single solution developer consisting of only three ingredients (Phenidone, Vitamin C, and Triethanolamine)that lasts forever on the shelf and costs about a nickel/roll of film. If you're used to using HC110, PC-TEA will be a natural. It's highly concentrated like HC110, and diluted 1:50 for use, but offers better film speed, finer grain, and excellent gradation. If you're interested in trying a new technology film like Ilford's delta, or Kodak's Tmax, you might consider J&C's pro 100. Super-cheap.Good luck and enjoy your explorations.

[bill_dewberry]

One word, Fuji Neopan.

[jimvanson]

I trust the charts found at Ed Buffaloe's <a href="http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/times.html"><b>Unblinking Eye</b></a>. I can not say the same about the massive site as there has been a lot of misinformation listed on it in the past.

[fredus]

I think I'm with bill on this one. I've heard amazing things about Fuji Neopan 400 and 1600. This is definitely the next film I'm going to try. As a beginner, I'm sold on FP4+ for slow film.

 

Fred

[codyj1286]

I bulk roll FP4+ and I love the prints that I've gotten from it. I use stock D-76 for the

developer and it also works great. Everyone, EVERYONE has their own "special"

combination. There are other great films out there, and bulk rolling saves money (if you

do it right, no scratches). Find something that is highly rated and stick with it, you will get

good results.

[johnmarkpainter]

Tim O'Brien said:

 

<<Never happen. The investigation into the process is just as valuable as the end product

itself. We all grow from the knowledge we aquire, both shooting and processing. >>

 

Tim, I COMPLETELY agree with you...but in the original post, the only reason Dave gave for

switching Films was "rising cost". Had he given any complaints or misgivings about his

images, then constructive advice could be given to him.

 

Instead....this is just another "What is your favorite Film/Developer combo?" thread. Which

of course is useful.

 

I (for now) am very happy with PX & TX in Rodinal or Diafine. Every now and then I grab

something else from my Film Fridge but only when I am shooting something that isn't

important.

 

My favorite Film combos give me what I need. If the image isn't working, I know it is

because of something I did wrong and not my Film :)

 

I REALLY wasn't lecturing Dave....it is just annoying when you end up with a big stack of

Negs of "Film tests" instead of continuing to improve on what you already have a good

grasp on.

 

TriX in HC110 is a tried and true Combination that can (and has) yeilded thousands of

excellent images.

 

At the end of my lecture :) ....I would like to state that I know several Excellent Pro Photogs

that have only ever used one B&W Film. Generally either TX or HP5. Their images are

great....they have no idea what Developer their Lab uses to process them.

 

jmp

[chris_waller]

Dave,

 

I use Ilford Delta 100 almost exclusively, rating it at 50 ASA and devving in Rodinal, 1:50, 20 C, 8 minutes. That's for a diffuser head enlarger. While it's grain is not quite as fine as TMX it is very, very sharp. And I have problem with Kodak TMX in medium format due to Newton's Rings.

 

Delta 100 like all new technology films, is very sensitive to development and precision is necessary to get the best out of it - don't over-develop it. I recently shot some portrait work on 35mm Delta 100 and enlarged to 12x16". Even at that degree of enlargement and with an acutance developer, grain in barely perceptible and sharpness is biting. If you like 'soft' prints (I myself am trying to achieve that '1950s' look) then I suggest this combination.

[dave_snay]

Guys,

 

I'm really sorry this has turned into yet another "which is your favorite film/soup combination" thread. That was not my intent. I started out wondering about a few specific films from Ilford as I have not been able to find any meaningful descriptions for the differences between them. Maybe I'm naive to assume there has to be some difference in them.

 

I have several reasons for exploring new films, cost actually being the least important, curiousity being the most driving one. I'm a self-avowed geek of the first magnitude. Tests have been known to spark new areas of exploration for me when I'm in a funk (as I am right now).

 

So while some of you might be frustrated by the direction this thread has taken, I'm grateful. I will be trying some things with Delta 100. I'll do some tests and develop it in both Xtol and HC110. I might also try developing some of my Kodak film in Xtol if I like it's effect on the Delta.

 

So again, thanks for all the information. It has been helpful to me as always.

 

Dave

[jay_de_fehr]

Dave, Xtol is superior to HC110 in every way but two; economy and keeping properties. I think you're in for some enjoyable testing!