Film for my folder?

[dazedgonebye]

I'm playing around a bit with an old 6x6 folder and I'm looking for

input on film for my landscape shots.

Most of my shooting takes place in the desert at around noon (no, I'm

not kidding). I don't have access to the "golden hour" light. The

good news is that no matter the quality, I do have plenty of light.

Right now (in what passes for Winter) "sunny 16" is about right. In

the Summer, I'm guessing I'll have to stop down a bit from there.

My last few blog entries at http://photosteven.blogspot.com are

fairly indicative of the type of thing I'm going for.

 

Initially, I'll be sending the film out, though I'm considering

developing my own if I find I'm doing this enough.

 

So, what film and why?

 

Thanks,

Steve<div></div>

[john_shriver]

If you're sending it out, I'd say one of the chromogenic B&W films (XP2, etc.). Otherwise there is no way you will have consistent contrast from one roll to the next. Also, the chromogenics are pretty good with very contrasty subjects, whereas "true" B&W film commercially developed is often developed to too high a contrast. (Except by a pro lab.)

[klix]

An ND or ND grad filter might help.

 

IMO, what works best for your type of photography is a slow fine-grained film that has plenty of tonality. Based on what I have used, I would vote for Ilford PanF.

 

I have never tried Efke 25, although for your type of photography, it may be worth trying.

 

You'd need to find out what's available in 120/220.

 

KL

[stoem]

Kodak 400TX or 320Txp developed in D76...

When I first got started in darkroom work, the store I bought some Tri-X 400 Pan. The salesman at the photo store recommended it. When I developed and printed my first photos, I was blown away by how great the photos looked. Keep in mind I didn't really know what I was doing, just following instructions out of a book from the library. I would say Tri-X or 400TX is a very forgiving film, great for the beginner. It can handle alot of over or under exposure and different development times. I also think it really gives you that "classic" old black and white look. Keep in mind it is a bit on the grainy side but the tones and contrast are great IMO. Tri-X is what got me hooked

on B&W film, it gave me instant gratification(although there might have been some beginners luck involved = )

[.th]

judging from the pics on your web, you're not in any troubles regarding contrast control,... nothing wrong with noon light either!

<br><br>

 

but my two cents; hp5, N-2, xtol 1+1 (if you decide to develope your own that is). why, it gives you plenty details in the shadows, and keeps the highlights from blowing out.

<br><br>

 

best - .th

[mikeseb]

Amazing what those old cameras and lenses can achieve; I've just gotten my Crown

Graphic back from an overhaul; it's sharp but in a pleasingly soft way. too many cameras,

too little time.

 

I second the motion for Tri-X, but Plus-X or FP4+, or even Delta 100 would be an

excellent choice for your subject matter. Exceptional tones and fine grain, even the much

maligned delta.

 

And I think that you are going to want to do your own B&W processing; you have little

choice if you're going to use conventional films and you want it done right. Your

scenario--high contrast, bright scenes--is tailor-made for divided development, but if

that's too far afield for you just starting out, Xtol is also a good choice. For Tri-X i wouldn't

go past 1:1 dilution; but FP4 and PlusX will look great at 1:2, and delta at 1:3.

 

Welcome to my obsession.

[dazedgonebye]

I'm taking notes...I need to look some of this up so I can come up with half-intelligent follow up questions.

 

I have some XP2 on the way. Until I start developing (if) I'd like to have better turn around time than the 10 days it takes me to get b&w done right now.

I dropped my first roll of Delta 100 off today.

[troyammons]

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

[lee_turner2]

Has your folder got the little red window in the back? If so then XP2 might be a problem as it's a C41 type film. Even with standard b&w I cover the window once the correct frame number appears. There's been some discussion with Ilford about them increasing the contrast on the paper backing as some numbers are difficult to read through the red window. I have an old Mess Ikonta and it doesn't stop on frame advance so I've got to keep an eye on the film number.

[david_beal___richmond_hts.]

My first choice would be Delta 100, which I strongly suggest you develop yourself. Expose it at ISO 50, and develop with Rodinal 1:50. (You'll get many different opinions on the "best" developer for any film; they all work. It's a matter of what look you like.)

 

My second choice would be PanF, which you can expose at 50, or go as low as 25. Try to find a lab which will use a fine grain developer such as Microdol-X or Perceptol.

 

I have used Efke 25 in bright light conditions. It has a different look because it is orthopanchromatic (for example, if you shoot athletes with Efke 25 and a green filter, their skin looks like bronze). It's worth trying a couple of rolls.

 

XP2 Super might be a good idea. I've used it in red window folders, shooting at ISO 250 outdoors, and have not experienced fogging. If you use the corner store minilab, the prints you get back will be all over the map, but at least you'll see the image. A big advantage is that you can take the negatives to a pro lab and have them printed to your liking. You can also print them yourself, on b/w paper, since Ilford doesn't put the orange undercoat on XP2 Super which appear on other C41 films.

 

Good shooting.

 

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

[titrisol]

Since your conditions are of very birght light I'd say an ISO 100 or slower film is what you neeed.

Either Ilford Fp4, Efke 100 or Kodak PlusX would be my choices. The newer crop films, Kodak TMax, Ilford Delta or Fuji Acros may also be worth a try but IMHO the old school films give a more interesting "feel" in old folders.

 

Try any of them first, shoot a few rolls and then decide for yourself.

 

If you are planning to send the film out to be developed I think it is a good idea to sacrifice a roll, shoot an evenly lit scene that contains most of the gray range yoy want to cover. Bracket from -2,-1.5,-1,-.5,0,+.5,+1,+1.5,+2 and send the film out. Check whic of the frames has the best tonal range and adjust your shooting based on that.

[dazedgonebye]

The Efke 25 sounds interesting. I don't know if it is available for 120 or not. My one concern is that it might drive me to a tripod. I know it may sound lazy, but most of my shooting happens on a 1 hour lunch that includes a 15 minute drive and a 20 minute hike. If I use a tripod, I'm going to have time left for about 1 or 2 compositions.

 

I've got a roll of XP2 Super loaded in my Retina right now (no 120 available at my local store). I'm going to give it a try.

 

My little folder does have the red window, but it also has a working film counter, so I can easily ignore it once I'm loaded.

 

David...I don't understand. You're under exposing the XP2 and sending it out for normal processing? I'll be using the local mini-lab and I'm sure they'll only be capable of a straight run on that film. They told me they can't do prints at all from XP2, but they can develop 120.

 

I'm heading out today and looking for a good book on darkroom work. I read one about 30 years ago...but it didn't stick. :-)

 

Here's a pic of my folder.<div></div>

[sanders_mcnew]

Steven, the Baldas are nice folders! I just got a Balda-made clone, a Hapo 66, that is

a lot of fun to carry around. It is smaller than my girlfriend's 35mm rangefinder yet

gives delicious 6x6 negatives. I'll attach an image from my first roll to this post.

 

As for film: I am a big lover of Tri-X. But given your desert light, you might choose

Plus-X. Plus-X can handle more light, and has a finer grain and more contrast than

Tri-X. I overexpose both films one stop to increase shadow detail -- TX at EI 200 and

PX at EI 64. Visit www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html for an encyclopedia of nearly

all possible film, developer, exposure and recipe combinations. I like Rodinal but

honestly, there isn't as much difference in the performance of most developers as

many would have you believe.

 

Have fun with that Balda. :-)

 

Sanders McNew (www.mcnew.net)

[dazedgonebye]

Nice shot Sanders! I really like the look.

That Hapo is almost exactly the same camera. Different lens, I think. Though if it is the f4.5, I'm guessing it might just be a rebadged version of the one I have.

I'm looking forward to getting that first roll back.

[lex_jenkins]

When I first got my Agfa Isolette I had a couple of all-Agfa days: APX 400 developed in Rodinal, printed on MCC 118.

 

I'm not usually a fan of APX 400 - I think Agfa ruined it when they altered the emulsion - but for some reason the tonality suited what I wanted for the Isolette. However it was closer to a 200 film than 400, which suited the exposure range of the Isolette anyway.

 

Mostly I use Tri-X, altho' the frame numbers are impossible to see through the ruby window. I need a penlight to see what I'm doing. I develop those in HC-110.

 

I dunno if photos look different because of the camera. People respond differently to the camera so it's fun to use in public. Nobody shies away like they sometimes do when I'm using my SLRs. They grin or simply look curious.

[sanders_mcnew]

Steve, thanks for the compliment -- you are generous.

 

Lex: I've had the same question running through my mind -- what gives this image a

mid-century look? There are a couple of camera-specific elements, I think. One is

that the corners are rounded, not squared as they are in a Rolleiflex or a Hasselblad.

Another is the slight vignetting in the corners.

 

The lens is fairly humble, a coated Enna Haponar (triplet), but its performance is

much better than my scan suggests -- the negative prints onto MCC 111 beautifully,

with plenty of highlight detail that appears blown in the scan. Sharp and adequate

contrast for my printing.

 

Steve: Your original post had asked us to explain our recommendations. The reason

I prefer Tri-X over modern emulsions, apart from appearance, is that the film is

amazingly tolerant of overexposure -- it loves light. Underexpose a half-stop and

you're in trouble in the shadows. But you can pour tons of light onto TX and still get

a printable negative. That is an especially appealing quality for someone like you,

who is estimating exposures without a meter. You can guesstimate your exposure,

open up another stop for good measure, and fire away.

 

Tri-X can save you at the other extreme as well. If you find yourself in low-light

situations, you can rate TX at 1600 and develop it in Diafine and get great results.

I've found negatives souped in Diafine rather iffy to scan, but they print beautifully in

an enlarger.

 

I don't much care for chromogenic B+W film. It's a crutch, really. If you're going to

make a go of 6x6 in B+W, you owe it to yourself to soup your own negatives. It's

ridiculously easy to do, and dramatically reduces your costs, and gives you control

over your art. You will be a better photographer in every respect for doing it yourself.

 

Sanders

[dazedgonebye]

Sanders,

I do actually have a handheld light meter. I've been using it with My Retina IIa and now the Balda. So far its really just been confirming that sunny 16 works very well for winters in the desert.

I'm a bit more concerned that I'll put a 1+ stop filter in front and have to compromise either my 1/100 shutter speed or f16, both of which I like for these shots.

I've got a couple of chromogenic rolls on the way as a short term solution (at least). If I keep this up long term, I'll almost certainly want to control the process and save the money by developing the film myself.

Tri-X would likely be a default because it's all I know from 30 years ago. Certainly a good place to start.

If you were to pick a modern film, what would you go with?

 

Lex,

The few shots I've made recently with my Retina reflect what you are saying. There is something difficult to define about them that I like. I also like the (for some reason) that people seem less threatened.

[jay_de_fehr]

Maybe I missed it in the thread somewhere, but What's wrong with the film you're using now? The image you posted looks great. I'd say, stick with it.

 

Jay

[dazedgonebye]

Jay,

That shot was posted to show the kind of thing I normally do. It was taken with a Canon 300D and 85mm f1.8.

 

Glad you like it.

[jay_de_fehr]

Looks great, Steve. My 85mm f1.7 is one of my favorite lenses for my Minolta XD-11. If you want to approximate the image you posted with film, I think TMY would be an excellent choice. It exhibits a short toe, long straight line section, and almost no shoulder. Paired with a good general purpose developer, like Xtol, or DDX, the range of desert light should be very manageable. Good luck, and keep up the good work.

 

Jay<div></div>

[joename]

The high contrast bright light screams for diafine & EFKE(adox) 25 - shoot it just a hair above ISO 25 (like 40) and soup in diafine. You'll love it. And diafine is cheap, tough, and long lasting. I've shot some bright light snow scenes with that combo, and high contrast is a diafine thing.

[jason_fitzmaurice]

All the recomendations for Efke 25 seem right on target. You might also try Efke 50. If you send it out, I'd rate it about 80-100 under noon sun, as most places seem to over process Efke. A big advantage of the Efke films is that the low red sensativity is a help when using those red window advances.

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto Diafine for tricky film in high contrast lighting. The best results I've gotten with Pan F+ were at EI 25 in Diafine, and this was under brilliant sunlight.

[jay_de_fehr]

PF+ is one of my favorite slow films. I shoot it at EI 50 and develop in one of my staining developers. I find it very well-behaved.

 

Jay<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Sanders, I think that part of what gives a certain flavor to some of these photos are the relatively simple, even primitive lenses. What little coating was on my Isolette lens had to be removed in order to be sure I'd gotten rid of fungus, mold, mildew or some other critter that had attacked the coating. And I don't use a lens shade. So there's an interesting combination of surprising sharpness and slight veiling flare, tho' little or no ghosting. There's also a bit of light falloff in the corners at the maximum aperture, so it's got a little of the Holga thing going on without the excessive softness and spherical aberration.

 

I'd hoped to get this effect with the Yashica 635 but even with the simpler three element lens it was too good. Too sharp, no light falloff, no real problem with flare. So I got the cheapo Isolette, which comes closer to delivering the image quality I was after.

 

Still, it took the right combination of film and developer to complete the look. So while I don't normally care for APX 400, for some reason it worked with the Isolette. I also tried APX 400 in Diafine (EI 800), which worked pretty well.