Are there any dual layer B&W films left after VP's demise? Anything that approximates the look?

[doug elick]

I recently returned to the the world of B&W photography, only this

time using MF equipment instead of ol' 35mm. In my 35mm days, I shot

Tri-X almost exclusively, with some Plus-X and APX-100 thrown in.

 

After the move up in format, I stuck with my patterns an tried some

Tri-X, Plus-X and the then new T400-CN. Tri-X gained beauty, but Plus-

X remained the same lackluster film I always remembered it to be (I

was quite impressed with T400-CN).

 

On the advice of a few Photo.Net members, I tried a few rolls of

Verichrome Pan and immediatly fell in love. Even hastilly souped in D-

76, it was far superior to anything I'd done with Tri or Plus-X. The

tonality and beautiful grain just blew me away. I had just discovered

the film I would be happy to use for the rest of my life just as

Kodak announced they were discontinuing it!

 

Are there any "dual layer", 100ish ASA films still in production? I

read that FP-4 was at one time, but can't confirm that it still is.

Now that VP is dead, what would you suggest I use to replicate it's

deliciously long tone and wonderful glow (creamy)?

 

Let me say that I have tried T-Max and it's ilk, and even after

getting over it's touchiness, I found that though it can be a nice,

clean, smooth film, the T-grain films I've tried seem

too "mechanical" compared to the "organic" grain patterns of old

emulsions.

 

So what say you, good people of Photo.Net? Is there any conventional

B&W film out there that approaches the VP look? Something that

really shines in Rodinal (if not D-76 1:1)?

 

 

Thanks,

 

D.M. Elick

[ryuji_suzuki]

Forget about Rodinal for that purpose. It's nice in some cases, but it's not the solution here.

 

> Now that VP is dead, what would you suggest I use to replicate it's deliciously long tone and wonderful glow (creamy)?

 

If you can take a bit more grain, here's what I found to work. Film I tried are Plus-X and Delta 400, but HP5+ also works. Develop PX in Microdol-X or D-76 stock (or 1+1 if you like, stock strength preferred) or Delta 400 in Microdol-X or XTOL 1+1. Overexpose appropriately for Microdol-X, and then overdevelop a bit to increase creamy touch although if you do this too much grain will soon become too disturbing. Try 20% increase from your normal time as a starting point.

 

Plus-X is idiosyncratic but it can be very nice if you make it work. I stoped shooting it for a while, but I love it so much that I bought bricks again.

[m0002a]

Bergger BPF200 is a thick emulsion film, but only available in sheet sizes. Ilford FP4+ is probably the best alternative and it works well with Rodinal and many other developers.

[chris_waller]

I believe that Ilford HP5+ and Agfa APX 400 are dual layer but I don't know of any slower films with dual layer emulsions. Check their websites for details. In any event I rate HP5+ at 160 ASA and dev for 9 mins in Rodinal at 1:50. Have you tried TMX in Rodinal? I rate TMX at 50 ASA and dev in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C for 7 mins.

[ryuji_suzuki]

One more thing. Be sure to reuse full strength Microdol-X a few times, by increasing the time by 10% each roll per liter. It may lose a bit of speed but will enhance the creamy touch. Unless you want to experiment with developer formulae, this is the easiest and best method I know.

 

Either way, you should test and adjust for yourself. It's deviated from fool proof manufacturer-recommended proceduresrs.

[matthew_stanton2]

Have you tried apx 100 again ? I find that it has many

charecteristics in common with some of the older emulsions

and comes up beautifully rated at ei:50 processed in d-76 1:1.

A longer, more beautiful tonal range and reduced grain is

achieved when rated at ei:50 with an appropriate reduction in

processing time.

 

The best results i have seen with Rodinal is apx 100 rated

at ei: 25 processed in rodinal diluted at 1: 100. Just make sure

you have 1 litre of developer solution per 120 roll of film. There is

certainly a speed loss at this dilution but for some subjects this

is not a problem.

 

I have tried fp4 plus which whilst a good film seems to lack the

beauty of apx 100. Plus-x is closer to the mark but i think overall

apx 100 is a slightly better film in regards to grain and tonality.

 

I havent tried microdol-x stock strength before but Emmet Gowin

used to get some beautiful tones from the old tri-x processed in

undiluted microdol-x with his medium format work. Speed loss

is again unavoidable.

 

hope this is of some use.

[john_fleetwood]

Forte 400 is supposed be a dual emulsion film. Grainy, but beautiful tonality. Daylight ISO is 200. Looks wonderful at ISO 400 in Diafine.

A local camera shop practically gives Forte film away.

[ann_clancy3]

Per John Horowy owener of Bergger, BRF200 roll film is the same as BPF sheet film. Code is different for id purposes only.

[m0002a]

BRF200 is available at B&H in 120 and 35mm sizes. For some reason, it is not listed on the English version of the Bergger web site, but it is listed on the French version.

 

Anchell and Troop ("The Film Developing Cookbook") recommended BPF200 to large photographers and said it was similar (but not identical) to the discontinued thick emulsion Kodak Super XX.

[graphicjoe]

Douglas,

I was very surprised to see your comment that �Plus- X remained the same lackluster film I always remembered it to be.� Plus-X is a wonderful film that has been used successfully by thousands of photographers for decades. I use a lot of it. It works best for me when developed in FG7 as per Edwal�s recommendations and exposed at 80-100. A wonderful film. A classic look, plenty of punch, good tonal gradation, excellent latitude, good shadows, etc. etc.

 

I am also very fond of APX 100 exposed at 80-100 and processed in Rodinal at 50:1 for 17 minutes at 68 degrees. It�s important to keep to this temp in order to fully exploit the compensating quality of the developer. It�s especially good in MF where the grain is not likely to become overly noticeable. Tri-X is also a good choice, but in general, I think it�s best to stay with 100 films if the conditions permit.

 

And Ryuji, why are we to �forget Rodinal?� I�m not clear about that comment.

Cheers,

Joe Stephenson

[lex_jenkins]

I'd agree with the suggestions to keep trying APX 100 with varying Rodinal solutions 'til you find something that suits you or decide it doesn't do the trick.

 

I just tried this combo - APX 100 normally exposed, 500ml Rodinal solution used once at 1:100 to soup TMY, then remixed to bring the solution up to 1:50 and reused for the APX (pardon my idiosyncracies) - and for the most part was pleased with the results. I had a theory that silver from the TMY would be redeposited on the APX. Dunno but the Rodinal solution was a nasty looking gray-green when I dumped it after the second go 'round.

 

This was my first roll of 35mm APX 100 and it looked entirely different from the 120 version processed in TMAX developer. A big grainier, less contrasty with longer tone.

 

This scan doesn't do justice to the print but it's the best I can do with my ancient Umax Vista-S6 flatbed. APX 100 on Ilford RC Satin VC paper, dichro head, no contrast adjustment:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/984831&size=lg<div></div>

[j_anon]

Give APX-100 a try in Paterson FX-50. I think you'll like it

[doug elick]

First, thank you all for the answers you've given.

 

Joe--

I've altways thought that within reason, a given time @ 68 degrees equals a shorter time @ 72 for example. Is the explanation you've given because at higher temps, the increased developer activity upsets the compensating effect beyond what shortening the time can compensate for? Is it that warmer water just circulates more (has more energy) and disrupts the local exhaustion in highlight areas? Would a viable solution to keeping the dev. solution @ 68 degrees be to move the dilution from 1:100 to 1:110 for example? Or how about a water bath? I'll be building a darkroom in my basement and in the summer, it'll be a real bear just to keep my chemicals in the 70's.

 

I appreciate all the suggestions for developers, but I want to reduce the number of variables I'm dealing with as much as possible. I've found D-76 to be great general developer for my tastes and Rodinal is my choice for "special projects", though it may become my staple.

 

I'll try APX-100 and go from there; how well does it respond to N- developing? I think Plus-X doesn't very well, and that's why I've never really cared for it.

 

Perhaps good 'ol Tri-X deserves a second chance, but maybe pulled a stop and N- developed in a good compensating dilution (would you Vote for Rodinal 1:100 or D-76 1:1 and why?).

 

Maybe I'm going in the wrong direction by moving to slower films and would be satiated by the long tone a aggresively pulled faster film can provide.

 

Have any of you used ADOX/EFKE films? How do they rate?

 

I just loved VP though; it was the film I was looking for.

 

Thanks,

 

D.M. Elick

[matthew_stanton2]

Tri-x @ 200 asa in d-76 1:1 is lovely. 7-8 minutes @ 20 degrees

is a good starting point.. Avoid excessive agitation 4 gentle

inversions (10 seconds) per minute after 30 seconds initial

agitation will help improve tonality. I dont pre-soak.

 

If i were using rodinal with a fast film i would try apx 400 first.

They are an excellent combination.

 

Rating it at EI:160 and processing in rodinal 1: 50 for around 8

minutes should get you in the ball park. Apx 400 shows finer

grain in rodinal than other 400 speed films. Just dont use Agfa's

processing times whatever you do!! they are far too long.

I've never tried it at 1:100 in rodinal but your real film speed may

well end up around 100 asa at this dilution. Compensating

action would be great however.

[m0002a]

Tri-X is going though a change because of the switch to the new manufacturing plant. I would not try it until the new stuff hits your retailer shelves, unless you are willing to throw a bunch of the old stuff in the freezer.

[rob_gruber]

Tri-X 120 developed in HC-110 has really beautiful tonality. It's

definelty worth a shot. I used Verichrome for awhile and

eventually got a little put off by it's creaminess. I like a more

neutral negative. You can always use a warmer paper when you

print or tone in the creaminess.

[david_parmet1]

Rob - are you talking about Tri-X PRO 120? I soup it in HC110 as well but I

find it only really works if you have decent control over the light as in a studio

situation.

 

I have twenty or so rolls of VP left. I'll miss it when I'm gone.

[david_parmet1]

that should have read 'it's gone" not "I'm gone".... I'll be here for quite some

time longer than VP.

[rob_gruber]

Not the Pro version, the regular Tri-X 400.

 

I haven't tried the Pro version but the regular version,

overexposed a bit and underdeveloped works really well for me.

 

I find when I flip through all my old prints and contact sheets,

taken with Tri-X, Verichrome and Tmax, my eye is always really

pleased by the Tri-X and I noticed a sublte but very nice shift in

tonality when I switched to HC-110 from D-76. That could just be

me getting better at developing, though.

[graphicjoe]

I may have this garbled, but here goes. At the lower temp, and accompanying longer development time, the restrainer/silver solvent (I forget if it�s sodium sulfite or a bromide compound) has a longer time to operate, thus producing n enhanced compensating effect. Some of the silver in the highlight areas is dissolved, making for a better tonal range.

 

Water bath development does the same thing to a greater degree, but for a somewhat different reason. In a water bath�or with high dilutions�the developer is quickly exhausted in highlight areas and the weaker areas have additional time to develop. It works best with thicker emulsions.

 

This is what I have read. I�ll leave it to you to decide if it makes sense. My impression is that I get better highlights and retain good shadow details when using Rodinal at 20 degrees C.

 

The good news is that there are a lot of good film/developers to choose from.

Cheers,

Joe Stephenson

[doug elick]

Well, I spent some of my down time today looking at the curves of various films. VP has a resonably nice shoulder while PX and PXP seem to have only a very slight one. T-Max films, of course, are nearly straight lined. This partially explains my preference for VP (and TX) over PX/PXP and TMX.

 

After reading your suggestions, I think I'll give APX-100 in Rodinal a shot and go from there; APX-100 appears to have the best shoulder (curve) of all the 100ish films I checked (even better than VP, but with a distinctly different spectral sensitivity).

 

I have all kinds of questions about extreme dilution, compensation, restricted agitation/stand developing and how to force a shoulder on the last few rolls of PXP I have, but I'll save those for another thread.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Douglas M. Elick

[andy_buck]

John Davies (http://www.daviesphoto.demon.co.uk/) uses APX-100 at ISO 80 and develops in ID-11 1-3. The tonal response his images have (in his books, anyway) is beautiful. You can sort of get the idea on his website, but not really.