what are good B&W films for portraits?

[justin_monroe]

hey john! that rollei ortho picture is exactly the kind of cystal clear tonal quality and sharpness i'm looking for, but rollei has gotten so damn expensive.

 

can someone post some panF+ results? i'd greatly appreciate it.

[justin_monroe]

and yes john post your studio lighting shots, i'd love that:)

[willscarlett]

Hey Justin, if the Rollei Ortho is too expensive for you, you could also try the Adox Ortho.

$5.99 for a roll of 135 or 120, vs. $11.79 for 135 Rollei and $9.99 for 120 Rollei.

 

I found some Pan F+ shots, I'll post them. I don't want to post my Rollei Pan 25 studio shots

cause I don't like them... haha<div></div>

[willscarlett]

That Ilford shot was developed normal in straight D-76. I'll post one more Pan F+ shot below

that was taken outdoors and developed D-76 1:1, but def check out Pan F+ in Rodinal if you

can. Even better sharpness and tonality!<div></div>

[justin_monroe]

what format was that rollei ortho shot taken with?

[justin_monroe]

and what developer was it, i use XTOL for everything.

[willscarlett]

The Rollei Ortho shot was on 35mm. I've printed other shots done on Rollei Ortho 25 at

16x20, and there is the potential to go much larger. As for the developer, that particular roll

I wasn't able to do myself, so I took it to Kelton Labs in NYC's Union Square. They developed

it in HC110 diluted 1:12, which actually gave pretty contrasty negs, but this was before the

Rodinal developing info for this film was available. I've since done rolls in Rodinal using

Rollei's recommended times and the negs are much nicer.

[justin_monroe]

cool, thanks for the info! I might try the ADOX ortho film, it's still a bit pricey but it's not $11.00. what is your experience with the adox, does it deliver the same crystal clarity and printing potential as the rollei? how would it compare to lets say, panF. I noticed that your panF shot,despite the speed, has a noticable grain to it. did you push?

[willscarlett]

i actually have the adox ortho film but haven't used it yet, so i'd ask around to see if someone

else could help with that. but in general, the adox ortho is ASA 25 and pan f+ is ASA 50, so i

think the adox would be finer grained. my pan f+ shot does look grainy, but i didn't push it. i

wouldn't take that as the end all of how pan f+ will look in the studio. comparing that shot to

digital ones that i took during that session, the film was a harsher look. maybe try using a

red filter to compensate? pan f+ is still a good choice tho.

[jim_hobson1]

I'm a little late, but here goes. I've almost always used Ilford XP-2 for portraits in 35mm & 120. I've also used TRI-X when I needed that look. They both scanned well for me. Some pix I did with XP-2 and scanned can be seen at www.flickr.com/baddawg.

[justin_monroe]

thanks! i'll check it out.