Looking for guidance on film selection

[eric_cable3]

<p>I am a full time photographer, and have shot nothing but Hasselblad and Canon digital in the last 7 years. My memories of shooting real film are hazy. I have an upcoming project that I have decided will be best shot on BW film, but I really need some guidance, especially as I will not have much (or any) opportunity to test in the environment I will be shooting in before the actual shoot. I will be using a Mamiya 7 with a 43mm lens, and probably will have a polarizer. The environment will be medium altitude mountaineering (10,000-14,000 feet) and will all be on snow and ice and probably in the direct sun. From my memory of BW films, it would be very easy to end up with very high contrast negatives in this situation, and that is not what I want to end up with. I need a good tonal range, the snow needs to have detail, and there HAS to be some mid tones available (there will be people in these photos). The film HAS to be something easily purchased, and HAS to be able to be commercially processed. I do not have time and no longer have the equipment to develop film myself. The final negatives will be wet scanned on an Epson 750 and printed on an Epson 9900. Just looking at the films that are readily available, Plus X 125 appeals to me.... Good choice? Bad? I am totally open to suggestion.<br>

Also, all of the labs (that I am aware of, at least) in my area (Portland, Oregon) have long since closed up. I have no idea where to send film for develop and contact sheets, any suggestions would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Eric Cable</p>

[dpbours]

<p>Plus X is a fine choice in the rather hard light you will be experiencing.</p>

<p>I might shoot Tri X 320 with a neutral density filter, but that is just because I like the fact that tri x is more forgiving, ie. wider exposure latitude, and I have used it already quite often - I know how it combines with my Mamiya TLRs. You'll get less chance of clipping in the whites. Then again, if you like that specific 'effect' of Plus X, stay with plus X.<br>

For 35mm I'd go for Agfa APX100, which comes very close to Plus X but also a bit more forgiving in the whites. Another option is Rollei Retro 100. Actually this is Agfa APX100 as far as I am concerned, but Agfa does not make 120 rolfilm anymore... But again Plus X is very close to APX or Retro 100.</p>

<p>In short; Plus X is a fine choice. Rollei Retro 100 is almost the same, perhaps slightly more forgiving in harsh light. Tri X w ND will give even less chance of clipping in the whites.</p>

 

[bobcossar]

<p>Just about any of the slow/med speed emulsions will do the job.....but I have yet to see anything that can equal Fuji Acros......Regards, Robert</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>A couple of issues that you may not quite like, in the context that you have said that everything you've done in the last 7 years has been digital and so I'd guess that either you haven't used a Mamiya 7 before, or if you have well it was a long time ago.</p>

<p>First I take it that you are aware that you can't see the effect of a polariser through the finder. Most people use a polariser with a Mamiya 7 by twiddling the filter in hand till they see what they want, noting its position vs edge markings , and attaching the filter to the camera and rotating to the same position. Its kind of important in the context that the viewfinder appears kind of polarised anyway. </p>

<p>Second, and again on the polariser, I take it that you're aware that using a polariser with a wide lens may well result in differential polarisation across the frame, in particular darker bands of heavier polarisation. Many people avoid the use of polarisers with wide lenses for this reason. With an slr you can see this to some extent, with a rangefinder you can only see what you see with the filter to your eye, so look carefully. Better yet if you simply want to darken the sky use an orange or a red filter. If your purpose is to cut glare from the snow then you need the polariser.</p>

<p>Third, how are you going to meter these shots? I know b&w negs will make life easier in this respect but the Mamiya's non ttl meter takes a bit of getting used to and with a 43mm lens will behave like a fat spotmeter. Some people, including me after 10 years with a Mamiya 7, prefer to use a hand held meter though that may not be the most convenient thing if you're clinging to a rock. But then neither is changing films every ten shots. Either way, you can't treat the Mamiya 7 like a big point & shoot, and halfway up a mountain might not be the best place to start thinking about the complexities of a meter you're not familiar with.</p>

<p>Lastly you intend to scan on a V750 and print. How big do you expect these prints to be? A V750 isn't a Coolscan, or an Imacon, or a drum scanner and this decision may well limit the quality of the final prints if they are to be large. You don't get the benefit of the big neg unless you have all links in the chain working at that quality level. The camera is fine. The film will be OK unless you make a really dumb choice, the printer's fine. and you haven't mentioned paper. The V750 is a decent flatbed scanner ( I have the V700) but it is not at the same level as the other links of your chain. </p>

<p>Film. Well I'm biased. I like Tri X . Easy to buy, easy to get processed commercially, grain doesn't much matter with MF. No doubt there are other films that would work, but Tri X would work too especially if you're killing a couple of stops through filters.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Just about any standard b&w film will deliver good results in the situation you described, given appropriate exposure and development for the conditions. This is a classic case for giving a little more exposure and a little less development to retain the full range and avoid the risk of excessive contrast. For the sake of consistency and simplicity stick with incident metering.</p>

<p>If I was shooting handheld, I'd go with an ISO 400 film like Tri-X, TMY or HP5+ rated at 200-250 and soup in D-76 or ID-11 at 1+1, time appropriate for temperature and desired contrast. Plain vanilla stuff, nothing fancy.</p>

<p>If you plan to tote a tripod or monopod a slower film will do. Personally, I can't reliably handhold steadily enough with slower films anymore and don't enjoy lugging the extra weight of a tripod, so I tend to favor faster films and rerate them as needed for finer grain.</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>As I read your initial post, I was thinking exactly the same thing that David wrote regarding the polarizer and other filters. The use of any filter, other than a very pale yellow filter, will cut down quite a bit of light so you might not want to use a slow film anyway. Somehow, I don't think that carrying a tripod is in your plans.<br>

I will take issue on the issue of film. If you want a long tonal range, it will be hard to beat C-41 monochrome films. They have tremendous over exposure latitude and can hold detail in very bright whites with no special consideration given to processing. Simply run it through the standard C-41 process and you're golden. You will, of course, need to be careful with your metering. All the white from the snow will skew your exposures downward.<br>

Ilford's XP2 Super is available in 120 only, and Kodak's BW400CN is available in 120 and 220 (if you can use it). Both are ISO 400 speed films, so hand holding the camera even with filters should present no problem. Either of these films should suit your needs perfectly if you plan to scan the film. Ilford's product offers the flexibility of easy printing in a traditional B&W darkroom should you desire.</p>

[eric_cable3]

<p>Thanks for the info!</p>

<p>True enough, I did not totally think through the filters. I have used a Mamiya 7 extensively, but it has been a long time, and I have never used it with a polarizer. My subconscious brain knew a red filter would darken sky, but my current, digital brain thinks polarizer. I will get both. Metering, no doubt about it, I will go incident. I will not have time to familiarize by practice the Mamiya's built in meter. For film, sounds like pulling is where it is at. Good point about the scanner.... I bought that scanner when it came out, and have never really used it. Bottom line the Epson 750 produces less of a scan than a Coolscan? I owned Coolscans back in the day and I had real problems keeping the film flat. I think i need to make a trip to the mountains and try this out ahead of time.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Eric Cable</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Talk to whoever will be processing your film. Can they pull it? This sounds like an assignment where pulling is in order.<br>

Also, don't forget the option of the chromogenic B&W films, Kodak BW400CN, and Ilford XP2 Super. Great latitude, hard to blow out the highlights. A different look from real B&W films, only moderate acutance, but never grainy. A cinch to get processed, since it is a C-41 film.<br>

You may want to compare wet scanning on the Epson V750 with the custom adjustable film-holders from http://www.betterscanning.com. I have the large format one, and it makes a big difference being able to adjust for maximum sharpness. The 120 one is easier to use (no scotch taping the negative), but is equally adjustable for optimum sharpness. Both of them hold the film really flat. Either is an infinitely simpler process than wet scanning.<br>

That said, I don't expect the Epson to have as much resolution as the Coolscans, but there's no way I can justify the cost of a Coolscan 9000, and it only goes up to 120 size. (I have and even take pictures in 116, 122, 9x12cm, and 4x5.) You can maybe eek 1800 to 2400 ppi of real resolution out of that Epson. My Coolscan IV provides a reliable 2900 ppi, although it does have those well-known film flatness issues, but they mostly manifest themselves on curly coarse-grained films (like Kodak 2475).</p>

[gary_stallsworth]

<p>The others have covered film options. Blue Moon Camera still processes black and white film. They are in St. Johns. <a href="http://bluemooncamera.com">http://bluemooncamera.com</a></p>

 

[gt1]

<p>If you are set on using the polarizer get the Mamiya one that flips up in front of the viewfinder and meter. Much more convenient even if you're not using the built-in meter.</p>

[richard__]

<p>While it may be fun to test, under that environmental situation I doubt I'd ever shoot a red filter.</p>

<p>I mean it's as previously noted already contrasty enough up there.</p>

<p>Depending on the film's characteristics, I still doubt that a red filter would produce easy to print negatives ...</p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>Digital or analog, a polarizer will work the same way. With a wide angel lens, the difference in the amount of polarization from one end of the frame to the other will vary quite a bit. The technology used to capture the image won't affect the way that the polarizer works.</p>

[loren_sattler]

<p>I have some experience shooting snow pictures in bright sun shine. My best results have been Tri-X 400 with a yellow filter, shot at ASA200 and pulled in D76 1:1 (7:15 at 68 degrees yields plenty of contrast). But, my experience is near sea level, not high in the mountains where there is probably more blue in the light. I have shot Kodachrome with a polarizer skiing in the Rockies to intensify colors. I do not believe you need the polarizer here for B&W. The yellow filter at sea level reduces some of the blue in the light and adds texture to the snow. I would guess it would work the same way at altitude. <br>

Tri-x should be a safe choice with your situation of having a lab do your work. It is very forgiving in the highlights. My knowledge of slow and medium speed films is they are more prone to blowing out highlights in high contrast situations. <br>

If your lighting is somewhat consistent and you work with a good lab, they could develop a couple of rolls, print and adjust development of the remaining rolls accordingly.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

[xxloverxx]

<p>Kodak BW400CN is less contrasty than XP2, from the few rolls I've shot.</p>

[thomas_akin]

<p>Eric,<br>

You might also want to pick up the external battery pack for the Mamiya 7, once the batteries get cold enough to lose a little efficiency the 7 tends to die. The external pack lets batteries sit in your pocket & stay warm enough for the camera to function. <br>

Best,<br>

Tom</p>