which film for portraits

[sfdgs]

I began photography in the digital age, but recently purchased a used Canon

EOS3 to shoot b&w portrats in the studio and on location. I have been using

Ilford Delta 100 in studio and Delta 400 outdoors. I love the look I get from

each film, but was curious as to whether or not there is a better portrait

film. Thanks

[leicaglow]

I think those are good options for portraits, and I'd probably stick with it until we see how the film market shakes out. There's rumors that Agfa may be back, and if that's the case, then there are some good options there too.

[wigwam jones]

Agfa will not be back. Factory is gone. End of story.

[aurelien_le_duc]

For portraits, all fine grain films are good options. But there is a difference between old fashioned films like FP4+/PlusX and modern grain films like delta or T max. Personally, I prefer old fashioned one, and Plus X with its round fine grain is very very beautiful in portraits. But a little hard to find.

[christer_almqvist2]

QUOTE "curious as to whether or not there is a better portrait film"

 

No, not really.

 

It is all a question of taste and how well you know the film. I used to be a Delta man, but

when Ilford films got difficult to obtain I switched to TMax. It took me a long time to get

the results I wanted, but after much trial and error I finally arrived.

 

Here are some Delta shots:

 

http://www.almqvist.net/chris/portraits/

[robert himmelright]

I'm a fan of plus x when theres enough light, tri-x when lights are getting lower and delta 3200 when lights are really low. To each their own, each film has its own look, and some portraits might look good on these, while others would look like shit, but look amazing at tmax, its definitely part in the developing and printing though too!

[rothelle]

Both film are great portrait for studio and location. Delta 100 is my main outdoor portrait film. You get some of the most rich and beautiful prints from it. I also use Plus-X, Tri-X because I love the look you get from this old school film. I can beat the hell out of it and it never let me down no matter what type of lighting I'm in.Some time TMax 100. My #1 film is Tri-X. If you realy want to see what you like is to shoot them all and make prints and then you will know what you like. But if I were you I would stick with the two you are using now.<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

You can do nice work with Delta 100.

 

Some time in the future after you have had time to experiment, do give Plus x and Tri x a change. Over a few generations of changes, these have become closer and closer and the smooth tonal gradiation is wonderful for portraits.

 

Shoot at box speeds if your meter and shuttr are perfect. Develope in D76 undiluted and you will love the results. Don`t screw around pushing or using rodinal or staing developer. Just follow directions. You will suffer some grain penalty compared to delta, but the results will be worth it.

 

TEST and print first. Then do an important shoot.

[chris_waller]

I use Delta 100 almost exclusively rating it at 50 and devving in Rodinal. Also consider FP4, a film that I've reacquainted myself with recently, and HP5 for location portraits where light is at a premium. Agfa 100 is also worth a look for its particular tonality.<div></div>

[zachariah_edwardson]

I would keep shooting the Delta films, They are very good for what you are shooting and while their are other options you can try, If you like the results of delta, then go for it!

[neil_rankin1]

I shoot portrait with either HP5 or Tri-x. For me, I like a bit of flattery in portraiture. I find

ways of getting what I want with these films.

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hello Wigwam Jones!

 

You're wrong, there is still so many AGFA APX available, that you can load your camera with it each day for a long time to go. As roll film 120, it is the ROLLEI RETRO 100 and 400, which is original AGFA APX film material. And, if this supply is gone, there is still the possibility, that these films can be re-activated, if there is a requirement.

 

Cheers

[alan_rockwood]

Rothelle,

 

You have posted a lot of pictures and I must say you are an extremely excellent photographer in my opinion.

 

Now for a technical question. I know you use a PhotoTherm film processor. Do you have a favored developer or film/developer combination, and do you generally shoot your film at box speed?

 

See this is how I figure it: if I use the same equipment and supplies as you and shoot at the same ISO ratings my pictures will be just as good as yours. Just joking about this of course, but serious about the question above.

[wigwam jones]

<blockquote><i>

Wolf Rainer Schmalfuss Photo.net Patron, feb 17, 2007; 01:33 p.m.<br />

Hello Wigwam Jones!<br />

<br />

You're wrong, there is still so many AGFA APX available, that you can load your camera with it each day for a long time to go. As roll film 120, it is the ROLLEI RETRO 100 and 400, which is original AGFA APX film material.

</i></blockquote>

<p>If you are trying to say that there is a lot of left-over stock of Agfa B&W films still available, you are correct. There is a lot of it about. The Agfa film company no longer manufactures it, they are defunct.</p>

<blockquote><i>

And, if this supply is gone, there is still the possibility, that these films can be re-activated, if there is a requirement.

</i></blockquote>

<p>No, there is no such possibility. The factory was sold, the equipment was taken out and sent to Korea, the workers were fired, and now I understand that the factory is being torn down. Agfa Photo will not be 're-activated', that company no longer exists as a going concern. I'm sorry.</p>

[rothelle]

(Rothelle,

You have posted a lot of pictures and I must say you are an extremely excellent photographer in my opinion.

 

Now for a technical question. I know you use a PhotoTherm film processor. Do you have a favored developer or film/developer combination, and do you generally shoot your film at box speed?}

Alan thnak you for your comments. My favorite combination has to be Kodak Tri-x and Plus-X with microdol-X. I love this mix with my films and have some lovely print from it even before I got my sidekick. Second will have to go with HC-110 and then third TMax Developer. I have also play with the pyro's but I all ways end up using Microdol-X no mater what. I rate all my film at box spedd as I use to do the 1/2 speed and the I just learn to meter and develop all my films at their box speed and I have been happy with the results. I have 3 developers in my darkroom. Microdol-X, HC-110 and PMK. As you know we process at a temp of 75 degrees so my film is developed in minutes. Yoou can always email me if you need more info.

Rothelle;D<div></div>

[willscarlett]

Jason, have you tried the Rollei Ortho 25 film? It's incredibly sharp... I shot one roll and love

it. Efke 25 and 50 are also good... some people complain about it, but I've never had bad

results. Rollei Ortho and Efke 25 also have unique spectral responses.<div></div>

[willscarlett]

Here's the Efke 25<div></div>

[gnashings]

This is one of those perpetually asked, fully loaded questions. Personally I think that asking if there is a "better film for ..... " is kind of like asking if there is a better colour than your favorite colour.

If you like what you are getting, then why switch? If you don't - identify what it is you dislike and then you can identify the films that have characteristics which address those issues (or rather film/developer combos).

Besides, what is a "better portrait film"? Better how? What constitutes "better"?

But you say you like what you're getting... At that point, you name a film, and I will show you a person who will tell you its the best thing ever and they would shoot nothing else.

This is the fact: all films from Ilford or Kodak are excellent in terms of quality and ability and consistency. They are different, and can give you many different looks. Buy some film, shoot some photographs and see what you like or dislike about them.

The internet is an odd blessing in a sea of curses... I wonder where people incapable of forming their own opinions used to obtain them before the advent of the world wide web...

[bgelfand]

As Peter wrote, this is a loaded question; it depends upon your taste, and to an extent, the subject.

 

Of the films that are currently available, I like Ilford Pan F+ developed in Rodinal 1:50, Delta 100 developed in Perceptol 1:3, or Delta 100 developed in DD-X.

 

These are just some combinations you might try.

[doc_w]

On the sub-topic of this thread, I read contradictory reports. There is Wigwam's version, i.e., this is just remaining stock being sold off. And yet, I keep reading from reliable sources that there are other financial interests taking over Agfa for limited production. I guess time will tell.

[wigwam jones]

I believe the confusion stems from Lupus' announcement that they have purchased the rights to the Agfa brand name and logo on film, single-use cameras and digicams, and that they intend to begin 'producing' film shortly. However, careful reading of the *entire* press release as well as a little investigation into Lupus reveals that they are a 'marketing' company. To them, 'produce' means to sell. Not necessarily to manufacture. They own no factories, they have no means to 'make' film. If they had purchased Agfa's factory, that would have been in the announcement, as well as the usual chest-thumping about having put X number of workers back to work.

 

I *surmise* that they intend to 'produce' film from existing stocks, which have been previously reported by industry insiders on PN and APUG as being basically quite large - warehouses full of the stuff.

 

That report jibes with the recent announcement from Forte that they were quitting the film business, in which they cited the market having been flooded with inexpensive left-over stocks from a certain Germany provider - hmmm, who could that be?

 

So, I do not believe Lupus, a marketing company, has suddenly purchased themselves a factory and will shortly begin 'producing' film in the sense of 'manufacturing' it.

 

Others disagree. I think there may be some wishful thinking going on.

 

I am sure time will tell, but as the first stocks hit the market, there will be many more breathless excited announcement that "AGFA IS BACK!" by the well-intentioned but insufficiently informed.

 

I wish Agfa Foto was back in production. I like APX100 quite a bit. But Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away, so to speak. It went into bankruptcy, was broken up, and the parts sold for what they would bring. Agfa Foto as a going concern no longer exists, that's fact and not subject to interpretation.

[sg_adams]

Is there a better film? Well, you may have answered your own question since you like what you are already using. Maybe compare FP-4 and HP-5 to your Delta results. I happen to be quite fond of using HP-5, esspecially behind vintage lenses without modern coatings even though it is grainier. However, grain isn't always a bad thing. Fuji's Acros 100 works well for some folks. In a recent test I ran out of lens resolution and maxed out a 4800 dpi scan enlargement without distinguishable grain. Impressive, but may require more testing than other films with more latitude.

I exposed for ISO 64, reduced development time 20% and still needed to pull my development more asthe highlights werestill slightly blocked up, but not unprintable images. The midtones and shadows were just really nice, which may lend itself well for skin tones. The Delta 100 I have tried was similar in this respect, but I find the thin clear base of Acros scans well.

[brucecahn]

Just about any b&w film may be used if you do it right for that film. T Max and Delta are very contrasty which means it is hard to get a full range of tones. The faster films such as Tri-X are lower contrast but may be too grainy, depending on what print size you want. I would recommend Rolleipan 25 shot at 18, T Max 100 shot at 80 or possibly FP4. The T Max is usable despite it's contrast problem if you keep the negative thin and print on the right grade of paper. Permawash will remove the reddish anti halation coating. This must be soaked off to get a good print. You can probably get similarly good results with Delta 100. In large format the choices are more clear. Rollei R3, Bergger or Tri-X 320.

[doc_w]

Wigwam says, "Others disagree. I think there may be some wishful thinking going on. "

 

I am often amused by the somewhat perverse wishful thinking on the part of those who seem to desire the demise of film (not you, Wigwam). There is almost glee in the attitude of some digital converts who think that if they do something, everyone else must do it too, in order to make it legitimate.

[profhlynnjones]

To Miss Rothelle,

 

I love your work!

 

To Jason, in addition to the films you are now using, you might try the NEW Plus X pan with D76 full strength, D76 1:1, Rothelle's Microdol X, however with this film you don't really need a true fine grain developer. With straight D76 it easily tolerates 20X enlargements.

 

Lynn