Fine grain slow /med 135 film for portraits with studio lighting?

[scott_mcloughlin]

Kind folk,

 

[i mistakenly posted this to the Leica forum. Not a cross post.]

 

I've been searching the archives (really) for a while, and I've yet to

discover a solid recommendation for good, fine grained 135 format slow

film for use with studio strobes.

 

I'll be scanning the negs (Coolscan V) and printing with MIS inks, not

wet printing. So the finer the grain the better.

 

Unfortunately, from the archives, it looks like many of the T grain

style films have contrast/highlights management issues. This is deadly

for me, because (1) I find scanning negatives poops out easily with

dense highlights, (2) it's unlikely I'll be always configuring the

strobe lightling for super flat lighting (I'd just use a simple bounce

flash for soft, even lighting).

 

So what to use? TMZ, Delta 100, Acros....?

 

I understand I'll be playing quite a bit with EI, metering and

development to "get it right" for my scanner target. I currently use

HC-110 mostly, and occasionally TMAX Dev and Rodinal.

 

I'm looking for some recommendations or pointers to get me started on

the right foot with my trials.

 

Thanks!

[furcafe]

I have a bunch of old, but still good, Kodak Panatomic-X that I can sell you. Email me if you're interested.

[john_perkinson]

<p>Hi Scott,</p>

<p>I'd use either Ilford PanF+ or Efke 25 for very fine grain 35mm portraiture. I develop both of those in Rodinal 1:100. You'll have to set your own times and temp, but my times often run around 30 minutes at 70F. Also FP4 and Acros can be very nice.</p>

<p>PanF+ is my favorite slow film - and with diluted Rodinal gives it great tonality, but I have to admit I rarely shoot it in 35mm (mostly 120).</p>

<p>John P.<br>www.orbit1.com</p>

<p></p>

[eric friedemann]

Scott, you might try Ilford XP-2 at E.I. 200:

 

 

1. At E.I. 200, grain is surprisingly subtle. You get creamy flesh tones.

 

 

2. You can have the film processed in a C-41 machine.

 

 

3. You can scan the film with Digital ICE on- a big plus.

 

 

Just a thought.

[rustys pics]

I like using the Efke films for portraits. Efke 25 is good, but can get contrasty. I think the

ISO 50 is much better, and Efke 100 is very forgiving of over-expsure.

 

Try them in Rodinal 1:50 or 1:100.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Hmm. So are TMZ and Delta 100 and Acros simply out of the picture? Surely many folks out there I would think are using TMZ and the like for studio portraits. But how?

 

Scott

[colmmccarthy]

>Hmm. So are TMZ and Delta 100 and Acros simply out of the picture? >Surely many folks out there I would think are using TMZ and the like >for studio portraits. But how?

 

I used to use TMAX 100 for portrait work all the time (with a little Pan F and Delta 100 thrown in every now and again, though I've always preferred the tonal range and look of TMAX in 35mm). For MF portraits I've pretty much settled on Fuji Neopan 400 (or TMAX 100). Never tried Acros, but if it's got a tonal range anything like Neopan I'd definitely give it an try in 35mm.

[titrisol]

For scanning chromogenic films seem to be the best, Ilford XP2 is the one I like.

 

From the traditionals EFKE 25 scans real well. BUT I'd say ACROS or Delta100 or TMX are perfect for what you want. Very controlled light conditions, just match those to the processing (do you so it yourself or in a lab???) I guess you'll have to try and see which one scans best.

[r_hofland]

Go here for another relevant thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Beaa

<P>

<P>

Working in 35mm is a two edged sword-- easy and inexpensive to work in but also small and thus all the issues about grain and latitude blossom. Thoughts to remember: <P>

<P>

1. Slower films (as well as the tabular garined films) have finer grain but usually less latitude, so exposure and development must be more carefully controlled. <P>

2. Faster films have more latitude but obviously are also grainier. <P>

3. Personally, I'd be looking at a 50-125 speed film like Ilford's Pan F and FP-4+, or Agfa's APX100.<P>

--IF you want sharpness, then my developer choice would be a well diluted Rodinal for any of them (1:50 or more-- and with Pan F at 1:100), and perhaps XTOL or D-76 at 1:3 (or more). <P>

--For a "creamier" look try developing the 100-125 class films in a "solvent" developer like D-76 or XTOL either straight or 1:1, or perhaps in modestly diluted fine-grain developers like Microdol-X or Perceptol (which should also work nicely with Pan F). <P>

4. You might also like a tabular grained film (TMax and Delta) but keep in mind they are more finicky about their exposure and development-- keeping in mind that a well diluted developer and gentle agitation should produce better gradation between shadows and highlights.

[jay_de_fehr]

TMX is definitely the finest grained of the bunch, and TMZ definitely the coarsest. TMX seems to be made for scanning. If you underexpose/overdevelop TMX, you might have contrast problems, but when handled close to correctly, it scans beautifully.<div></div>

[john_shriver]

Jay, that's a wonderful example of TMX being a great film if you have good technique, and have your processing in control. Very much like the results a local friend got with TMX for studio portraiture. But he had a long log book of processing notes, in order to get the right results out of his equipment and TMAX developer. It wasn't easy for him to get there.

 

I restarted doing B&W film processing with a bulk roll of Ilford 400 Delta, but the tail of a roll of quite-expired TMY in a used bulk film loader has got me tempted to investigate TMX and TMY as well. This old TMY strikes me as "smooth". (Yes, I know some people find it bland. But I also like Portra 400NC, so perhaps I'm bland!)

[frank.schifano]

Since you are going to be scanning these negatives, your best choice is going to be one of the monochrome C-41 films. Since you don't plan to print them optically on B&W paper, the choice of Kodak or Ilford is pretty much moot from a technical standpoint. Any of them will give you superb results. The only way to know which one you'll like is to try them. Like someone else already said, you can use digital ice to clean up small imperfections and that's going to save you lots of time otherwise spent on doing the drudge work of spotting every image. You can't do that with a conventional B&W film. Remember too that just about all film scanners were really designed with C-41 and E-6 films in mind and will be at their best with these films.

 

Certainly PanF+ would do, but it is a bit slow. If you have the wattage to get you to the F stop you need, then I'd say go for it. TMZ is really grainy and I'm not convinced that you want that look for portraits. Additionally, it's very fast, and you'll need to be able to turn down the power on your strobes quite a bit or use some ND filters. FP4+ is very nice for conventional printing, but IMO is not the best choice for scanning. The same goes for TMY, Tri-X, and HP5+ TMX, OTOH is very nice - certainly among the finest grained offerings and very sharp. Develop it in diluted XTOL or D-76 and you won't have too much problem with blown highlights. TMX will work out ok in Rodinal, but it's not at its best with this developer. You're in a controlled lighting situation so it will be relatively easy to balance things out anyway.

[jay_de_fehr]

Thanks John.

 

I think that TMX is one of the most misunderstood films around, but once understood is capable of outstanding results.

 

Jay

[chris_waller]

I'd suggest Ilford Delta 100, Kodak TMX or Fuji Across all rated at 50 ASA and devved in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C, 8 minutes. TMX and ACros wil give the finest grain but I personally use Delta 100 for its sharpness.

[scott_mcloughlin]

Thanks all. I've got some Acros and TMX in the fridge to experiment with, and I'll get my hands on some Delta 100 as well. I do use FP4+ currently, and I can always stick with that if I have to :-)

 

Scott

[test11664875106]

One thing to take into account is how much lighting control you have at your disposal to tame contrast of the scene. If you can bring the subject within film limits, then PanF is lovely, otherwise FP4 will be better. In both cases try Perceptol 1+3 with 10-20% reduced development. I have never used HC-110, but from the formula it doesn't look the best if you're concerned about grain (which you obviously are with portraits in 135 format).

 

Ilford XP-2 film is very low contrast film, which is fine if you shoot at bright sun but you might not like it otherwise, and has some "porcelane" look. If you like it, try it.

 

And completely another alternative if your goal is scanning - go for Agfa Scala b/w slide film. It pretty much ressembles their b/w negative films, but scans much better.

[dougwebb]

Ilford PanF is the only film I have found in 35mm that came close to producing the quality I wanted. If you have enough light, go for it. Big softboxes, placed close to the subject or big softbox with reflector, both placed very close to the subject will help with the contrast problems. This film will produce beatiful negatives in Ilford's DDX developer, in Perceptol, or in ID11. Try it at 25 and 50 using Illford's recommended times. If you are interested I can send you a scan of a studio lighting PanF negative. Good luck.

Doug Webb