Walking Trip (100 miles) and 'Suitable' Film

[lilserenity]

Hiya,

 

I have searched the archives and gleaned a lot of useful information to narrow down the following decisions but I

was wondering if any one has had prior experience...

 

By way of quickly introducing the premise, in a month's time (just under in fact) I will be walking the South

Downs Way in Southern England, which is 100 miles in length from Winchester to Eastbourne. I actually live part

way along just south of the trail in Worthing, so I know the trail pretty well but all the same I have never

walked it in one go before, and will not be using any motorised transport. In other words -- this is a pretty big

deal for me, I'm very excited and very much intenht on capturing this properly. As such I will be taking my Canon

EOS 3 in tow.

 

I am a pretty experienced amateur photographer and have been passionate about black and white from a young age

and mostly shoot in black and white. In that time I mostly shoot Tri-X, FP4, HP5 or XP2. I do sometimes try dip

into something else but that is the bulk of my work.

 

My immediate idea was to order at my local shop 10 rolls of HP5 as I think that I will appreciate the extra speed

and the feel of grain in the photos, I'm not out to create the most grain free photos here! The eventual outcome

is to create a photo book, about 8x10 in size and have it done up properly, I may even 'self publish' it but it's

more of a document for me and my family and friends than anything.

 

Looking around I've held off from ordering the HP5 as I have also this crazy notion of trying something new

having been impressed by comments on here and results I have seen on-line and to some degree in person.

 

Lens wise I'm not 100% certain yet but I think it is very likely I will be taking two manual focus Takumar lenses

(via M42 mount), a 35mm Super Multi-Coated at f/2 and my beloved early 60s pre-set Tak 135mm f/3.5 which is a

wonderful piece of glass. Into that I also pretty much expect to take the 70-200 f/4L but the jury is out.

Essentially I have some half decent glass which always gives me good results so really my concern now is the film.

 

I'm wondering specifically, has anyone here got experiences of Fomapan 400 and Agfa APX 400 when used for

landscape purposes? I can actually still get hold of some APX 400 and having only really taken a vested proper

interest in photography since 2004, I didn't get to experience any of Agfa's films before they went out of

manufacture. I have been also suitably impressed by the results from Fomapan 400 but have read warnings about

sometimes rather thin negatives that have a tendency to curl, but the results I have seen with it have been

rather excellent.

 

I can get 10 rolls of either for pretty much the same as I can for HP5.

 

Are there any other walkers who have a preferred film that is good for dramatic landscapes, but also doubles up

as good for pleasing and warm portraits?

 

My head's in a bit of spin trying to make sure I get it right, but I'm being adventurous in daring to at least

even think of something other than my Ilford faithfuls! I'd generally say that slower than ISO 400 would perhaps

not be considered as some of the work I can see being done in low light handheld situations. (Although I do have

a couple of rolls of Neopan 1600 and FP4 knocking around which I'm sure to take anyway!)

 

Many thanks,

Vicky

[frank.schifano]

The Foma 400 is ok, but just ok - nothing special. In 35mm format, I don't find that the base is any thinner than anything else I've used and it doesn't curl. Medium format roll film does curl a bit, but it is not the worst I've seen. Chinese made Lucky Pan is the worst offender in this category by many orders of magnitude. Forte medium format roll films were pretty bad too, but they are also out of business.

 

My main complaint with Foma 400 is with the emulsion. I don't think that it is a bad film at all, and I use quite a bit it because it can be had for very little money here in the US under Freestyle's house label, Arista.EDU Ultra 400. You just need to know that this film is not in the same league as HP5+, Tri-X, or Neopan 400. While I'm very comfortable rating any of these three films from the big boys, Foma 400 can't match them. Depending on the light, my best results are had when I rate the film anywhere from 250 to 320. This film does not like to be pushed either. Extending development in an attempt to wring a little more speed out of the film will likely disappoint. Like any other film, you get precious little, if any, improvement in shadow detail. Grain is more apparent than it is with 400 speed films from the big three, but it is not ugly. At around 8x to 10x magnification, it is only slightly more noticeable. You say that in your market the price of HP5+ and Foma 400 is about the same, and if that is the case, then I'd go with HP5+ for this trip. It is the more forgiving of exposure errors and can be pushed at least a stop if need be, without too much image degradation. I'd say the same for Tri-X, which I personally prefer for more critical and important work. I don't have enough experience with Neopan 400 to say much one way or the other. The little of it I've used has yielded nice negatives, quite on par with Tri-X and HP5+, but I've never pushed it. Fuji doesn't offer it in long rolls here in the US and that's how I buy most of my film.

 

Grap a couple of rolls of Delta 3200. I prefer that to Kodak's TMZ for extreme low light work. You'll be on the road for a few days at least, and there's a chance to get some "human interest" photos of your travelling companions at day's end as you all discuss the day's events.

[sg_adams]

If this project is important stick with films that have already produced favorable results rather than gambling.

[robert lee]

I had used quite a bit of HP5 but really ended up liking the look and behavior of newer emulsions much better. Neopan 400 is very good, but I'm really enamored with the latest 400 TMAX (TMY2). It is just so wonderfully sharp and tonally rich: really standout qualities when shooting small format film.

 

If you can spare the carry weight of a second body, load it up with Fuji Acros. This is my favorite B&W medium speed film. One of its most endearing feature is its extremely benign reciprocity failure (or lack thereof) characteristic. If I remember correctly, no exposure adjustments are required out to 10 minutes. In high dynamic range, long exposure situations this means highlights will not blow out due to film non-linearity in low light.

 

Acros and 100 TMAX are the bets for landscapes, or whenever a tripod can be tolerated.

[lex_jenkins]

I'd stick with one film. No need to experiment with several different films, especially when taking only one camera body.

 

HP5+ will be good for everything. Exposed at around 200-250 with appropriately shorter development in ID-11, 1+1 dilution, I've gotten enlargements up to 11x14" from 35mm that were virtually grain-free, with beautiful tonality. And it pushes well in ID-11 up to 800. Beyond that I'd switch to Microphen.

 

Film and developer alone aren't the primary factors in creating a certain "look." It's as much exposure technique and lighting as anything else. Beyond that, printing techniques come into play.

[lilserenity]

Thank you ever so much for the wonderful responses. It's been very interesting reading them.

 

I agree that it seems rather 'rash' to try something I never have done for my trip but felt it was worth throwing out a couple of wildcards to see what people think.

 

I'm interested in the new emulsions people have mentioned, I have from time to time shot with Delta 100 and had good results (I'm on Flickr if you want to see more of what I get up to ) -- but I have never tried either the new TMax 400 emulsion, or indeed the Fuji Acros films. I think what I need to do today is pop into my local store and see if he has these two, and get out there and shoot more or less the same subjects and do a comparison with the main body of my work which is mostly Tri-X and HP5.

 

As for Delta 3200, I have used it, mostly for gigs and I do like it, grain is quite an important quality to me and for me, again my Flickr profile has some of that work.

 

I will only be carrying the one body but I may also slip in my Olympus Trip 35, it has a tack sharp 40mm Zuiko on it and it's fab for 'snaps', I most often use it for street photography, particularly on the tube (London Underground).

 

So I think I have narrowed it down to Tri-X, HP5+, Acros (100 or 400) and new emulsion TMax (100 or 400) - I was never overly struck on the older TMax and a recent review in Black & White Photogtraphy seems to confirm that it's a good choice,

 

Many thanks for yout thoughts, I now have plenty to think about. I will definitely be sure to keep you updated on the final choice and of course, the results.

 

Vicky

[lilserenity]

Nb: Just to say I put down Acros 400 but of course there isn't a 400 speed is there ;) Just to clarify that one!

[dennis_oconnor4]

I'm not sure I would carry a zoom telephoto for a long walk like that where you expect to shoot mostly landscapes, rustic buildings, etc... If you say the weight doesn't bother you, then I would exchange the zoom for a monopod, or a short tripod (set it on walls, logs, etc.) and a cable release...

 

You will want a red filter and either a medium yellow or a light green... A polarizer can be useful also... Zip lock bags for keeping film and gear dry (it has been rumored that Britain gets rain now and then).. Several pairs of socks, etc... If you are not an experienced hiker do a bit of web searching for the best socks, etc... Sore, wet, blistered, feet will ruin a trip faster than anything...

 

As far as the film I would suggest three... The HP5 you are familiar with should be about 2/3 of the rolls... The balance to be XP2 and some 400 Tmax TMY2...

 

My opinion, ymmv...

Post us a couple of shots when you get back...

 

Cheers ... denny

[kentigern]

For a slightly odder choice, if you like grain, then a couple of rolls of SFX could provide some interesting results - although it is best with the SFX filter, I get good results with the B&W deep red.

[ad trace]

I wouldn't dismiss the telephoto too quickly. I have seen deer up there a few times walking the dog (I live in Sompting) at fairly close range (but never when I have the camera, of course). Plenty of foxes, birds and other wildlife too, but you'll probably need something longer for that.

 

You can also use the telphoto for landscapes....

 

AD

[ad trace]

Forgot to say - either Tri-x or HP5 will do the job for you - why change what you are used to? I find discount films direct fairly cheap and reliable for HP5/FP4 (my choices).

 

And I second the red filter for landscapes (orange if you don't want black sky).

[machts gut]

I second the suggestion to stay with HP5+. If you are familiar with it, why change? It's a an excellent all purpose film.

Personally I would reduce equipment for a 100 miles walk to a minimum. If you don't have any special interests (like birds or deer) a telezoom is in my opinion not useful for a south downs walk.

BTW do you know of the work of Hamish Fulton or Richard Long? Land Artists who's major intent was to catch the essence of the experience in long distance walks. Richard Long even made a book for children with photos from a walk across the south of England.

[pc_b]

I do not really get why you make all this fuss.HP5+, if you like it, is just perfect. On notoriously sunny days

AND if you want to cut on grain size you may go ISO200, on too-dreary days up to 800 - all with just about any

developer.

With a combo of 24mm-ish, 35mm, plus 70-200 you're set. Forget the extra 135.

Maybe a pocket camera with some 400ISO-colour for exceptions?

Pack all of your photo gear such that every piece is _always_ handy - and buy at least 20 36-rolls not only 10 -

or do you plan on walking it in three days?!?

Best,

Pete

[wolf_rainer_schmalfuss]

Hi Vicki,

 

the better is the good enemy! I can recommend to you the new ROLLEI SUPERPAN 200 PRO!

 

Cheers

[sg_adams]

I totally agree with the HP-5. I looked at some of my old work at a friends house and it is better than I remembered.

And I think the grain is pleasant rather than harsh and gritty like a Delta 3200.

Ihaven't tried my HP-5 in HC110 developer yet, but got such pleasing results with D-76 1:1. Beautiful grain, tones and decent enlargments in both 35mm and 120 roll. So far I am more favorable to HP-5 than the TriX 320 I have been trying out. Not bad, but not HP-5 either, and thus I still feel stick with something familliar. A very forgiving and easily manipulated film.

[lilserenity]

Hiya,

 

Wow the responses here are fantastic. Thank you so much. Sorry for my delayed replies, I have had a couple of very hectic days at work but I shall read up on the new comments and reply now,

 

Thanks,

Vicky

[lilserenity]

Basically I'm a very kean and well acquainted shall we say walker, I walk on the downs virtually every weekend and am quite used to carrying heavy backpacks. As such carrying the 70-200mm isn't going to be posing me any problems. I've decided on taking HP5+ for the vast majority of shots, as well as a couple of rolls of Velvia and some Neopan 1600 as well.

 

As for whether 10 rolls is enough, the jury will be out on that until I finish it but on an average walk of about 12-15 miles I rarely use up an entire roll, and at most I'll only be walking 16 1/2miles. Usually I shoot about 20-25 frames in the distance I usually walk.

 

My camera kit is going to be the EOS 3,70-200mm f/4L and Super M.C. Takumar 35mm f/2, the film and that's about it. If I have room I'll take the Olympus Trip 35 I have which is a natty little sharp thing just in case.

 

I do have varied interests in the natural landscape from wildlife but more keanly insects (butterflies, dragonflies etc.) but also the human interaction on the landscape, and the natural landscape as a panorama, so I think I have probably covered my bases as best as I can with the kit I have. It will all be back securely and well as it usually is.

 

I'll definitely be sure to let you know of the results :) I can't wait!

 

Thanks again,

Vicky