B&W Film and Leica

[jan_de_ridder1]

With my 6x6 I use Tri-x and APX 100, and only these 2 films, I have

been doing this for years and years.

Now having moved sideways to Leica M6 Inaturally bought these films as

well and use them with pleasure.

I am thinking thought maybe there's another film that I completely

miss out on, a film which might be perfect for use with Leica ... so

is there such a film ?

 

(only the old fashioned type of film, I don't like the Delta's and the

T-Maxes)

 

Thanks for sharing any views you have

 

Ps. I know this is a very subjective question, it comes down to ones

taste, I know that too, but still in all my subjective objectivity I

might of missed out on something great, also I haven't looked into the

specs and tapes of film for years so I don't even know whats on the

market ....

[andyaitken]

I think there is a perfect film for the Leica but you're already using it: Tri-X. You might like to try/revisit Ilford FP4, nobody ever seems to use it anymore but I'm damned if I know why. Gorgeous film.

[al_kaplan1]

I'll second the FP4 suggestion. D-76 1:1 gives a beautiful negative.

[working camera]

I'll put my hand up for FP4, it's been my standard for yonks.

 

Some folk like the Fuji B+Ws, like SS Pan, for example but I never had much success with it.

[john_brewton]

Try Efke 25. Great shadow depth. Pan F+ is good, too.

[ilan_g]

Tri-X and FP4+ for me, D76 1:1.

 

When light is low Tmax 3200 (the only Tmax I use) in D76 undiluted. It's really much much better in my opinion than the Tmax 100 and 400, I consider it as a "super Tri-X" (price wise as well).

 

I'm (almost) sure you never used Tmax 3200 in 120 format ;-)

 

I tried Efke 50 a few years back but didn't like the tonal rendition (not same sensibility to different colors as normal panchromatic film).

[jan_de_ridder1]

FP4 is 125 film hey ?

 

Do you shoot at 125 ?

 

And the D-76 is good, I use this for Tri-x.

 

Hows rodinal with fp4 ?

 

Thanks for the replies up till now, I will surely try a couple of rolls

[stuart_richardson]

I am currently enjoying Fuji Neopan Acros in Rodinal 1:100. It is a newer style emulsion

though, so you may not enjoy it. <P>Acros: <P><img src="http://

www.stuartrichardson.com/lion-statue.jpg"><P>FP4 is another great film though, very

smooth and pleasant for portraits. It is more exposure dependent than Tri-x though, so you

need to be a bit more careful.

[olliesteiner]

Leica lenses, because they perform so well at the largest apertures, seem to invite the use of slower film. Although I shoot plenty of Tri-X (which I develope in Rodinal), I enjoy the occasional roll of Pan F+ at EI 50, developed in Rodinal 1+25.<div></div>

[ilan_g]

I shoot FP4+ at 125 and Tri-X at 400.

 

But these are "my" 125 and 400... I doubt I'm really exposing the films at these EI values (I actually know I'm not ;-).

[Rob F.]

I shoot FP4, HP5, Delta Pro 100 and 400, and of course Tri-X. I agree that FP-4 is a good film for the Leica. Plus-X is an equally good film, though I haven't used it in a long time. I try to avoid using two different films that are almost equivalent. I just use FP-4 rather than Plus-X. I shoot both HP-5 and Tri-X because I am still deciding which one I like better. I like the Delta films when shooting subjects that have a lot of detail, like architecture. Otherwise I use the older more traditional films for their tonality.

[working camera]

I use FP4 at 100, some rate it at ISO 80.

[dennis_couvillion]

Jan, you are correct that it is very subjective; but for my tastes I like Fuji Neopan 400. It is a fine grain, fast, contrasty film that adds snap to black & white images. I also like Ilford HP5 and FP4. However, until yesterday when I was finally able to obtain a brick of Neopan 400 all I could get in Louisiana, AlabamA and Florida (because of the hurricane) was Tri-X which is a great all-purpose film but it lacks the pop that Neopan 400 gives. Again, though, it's all a matter of personal preference.

 

Good shooting...

 

Dennis

[jonathan_reynolds]

Jan, why do you feel there should be a film specially suited to Leica? I mean, why Leica rather than Rollei or Canon or Nikon....

I've tried most of the films mentioned above, and although I prefer Tri-X and FP4 and Pan-F, I feel these choices would be completely independent of the camera used.

[jan_de_ridder1]

I thought because of the "leica glow" you sometimes hear about that there might be a film which captures that in a better way than the other ....

[leica ron]

Kodak BW400CN and Fuji Reala are the only two I use these days with my Leica's ...

[rj]

Hp5 and fp4 are films that I have used quite a bit of, tri-x is always a good film. I just now purchased some J and C classic 200 film and going to try that out. Can't beat the price and have heard good things about it. They market it as an old fashioned high silver content film like Kodak's Super XX, we'll see.

[bobatkins]

<em>I thought because of the "leica glow" you sometimes hear about that there might be a film which captures that in a better way than the other.

</em>

<p>

Koadak HIE (IR) film is pretty good for that...and a rangefinder is ideal for IR film since you can actually see what you're shooting with an IR filter on the lens. Rangefinders do have their uses...

[furcafe]

Fuji Neopan 1600. Because it lets you use your Leica in the dark.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/fujineopan1600/

[jeff voorhees]

I agree with Mr. Kaplan: FP4 in D-76 or ID-11, 1:1 is beautiful. So is HP5. I like FP4 in Rodinal, 1:100 too. Just processed some Fomapan 400 in ID-11, 1:1. Interesting grain.

[lee_shively]

I'm a confirmed HP5+ user for 35mm (I use PanF+ along with HP5+ for medium format). I've processed it in D76 1:3 but, most recently, I've been using Rodinal 1:75 with sodium sulfite. I like HP5+ better than Tri-X but that's just personal preference. Tri-X is a good choice.

[peter_n1664876959]

<P><I>I thought because of the "leica glow" you sometimes hear about that there might be a film which captures that in a better way than the other ....</I></P>

 

<P>From what I have read this is correct - the film is one of the factors and the old-fashioned thick emulsion films that are silver-rich are best from that perspective. Efke and Fomapan are examples.</P>

 

<P>However, film is only one of the factors; the lens, lighting, foreground/background contrast, type of background and other factors also play in. Don't expect Efke 100 to automatically give you what you're looking for.</P>

[anthony_brookes5]

I agree with others try Pan F

[art_arkin]

Neopan 1600, or tmax 3200 make a beautiful companion to Tri-X. Grain is good and to me Leica M is all about shoot anywhere, wide open available light.

 

Give fuji acros a blast if you like ultra fine grain, high contrast razor sharp or panF for that smoother look. FP4 as mentioned in umpteen posts above is obviously great and ever versatile.

[jim_simmons]

90% of my Leica work has been Tri-X at 200 developed in HC-110. But I used to shoot some Plus-X at 80 developed in HC-110 and it had beautiful smooth tone with those crisp HC-110 edges. But I agree, the point is well made that Leica and available light shooting are an appropriate match. I've been thinking of trying that out again, but don't know what films I'd use for shooting above ISO 400.