b&w cityscape

[cigardoc]

<p>i will be spending two days in downtown chicago in early january. i want to shoot b&w of buildings, river, lake, and combinations thereof, and am interested in what type of film you guys would use. i use a yashica 35mm slr and most likely a yashica 50/1.4 and 28/?. i'm interested in possibly doing some enlargements in the future.<br>

while i'm not averse to using something like ilford fp4, i'm leaning toward tri-x, since i will be shooting hand-held and most likely in low lighting between buildings, and, of course it is winter. i realize grain will be an issue with tri-x, although it's grain is unique, and have thought about shooting at 200 or using the tri-x 320. thanks in advance for your suggestions.<br>

david</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>Well if you are worried about grain use TMY-2. Do you process it yourself? If so what developers do you use? I love it in HC-110 and for a little extra speed and kick XTOL.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Is this the look you are after?<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1141/5110523906_055e87e2a4_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>and</p>

<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1150/5109928053_e1f5c687c8_d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>LuckySHD and Xtol with a rangefinder (Kiev4a) on a recient trip to NYC. It's not so much the film, its the XTol when dev 1:2. It's nice edges and little grain.</p>

[cigardoc]

<p>thanks for the replies. i'm not developing my own film, presently, but plan on getting my darkroom back into shape after many, many years. i'm definitely looking for high contrast and low grain, although, as i mentioned in my first post, i'm not averse to the type of grain i see with tri-x. unfortunately, i realize that without control over the entire process, i'm doomed to get what's coming to me.</p>

<p>oh, by the way, what is "LuckySHD"? i figure it has something to do with hand-held...</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Lucjy SHD is really cheap Chinese B&W film.<br>

Tri-X has the "gritty city" look, so it would be my first choice for something like this.<br>

Tri-X 320 only comes in sheet film sizes, never came in 35mm, recently discontinued in 120 and 220. Tri-X 400 is available in 35mm and 120.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>Dave, LuckySHD is a "really cheap" Chinese film that I use for screwing around. I made the point of using it to find out how sharp my lens was and how well XTol can do with the edges. I was a little surprised with the results and now is my go-to combo for the rough-cityscape kind of look you were asking about.</p>

[larrydressler]

<p>I too have found a use for Lucky. Rodinal 1-150 for 1 hour at full stand is pretty nice.</p>

[cigardoc]

<p>i think the chinese may have a sleeper, although i haven't seen or used the film. those pics are tack sharp and do have great contrast. i'll probably not chance it since i don't get to chicago often. tri-x seems like the best bet for me, and maybe i can get it developed in xtol.<br>

thanks</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>The rub with the LuckySHD is the film base. It invented the word "curl". My 35mm scans are unaffected because my Plustek film holder clamps the film flat. With 120 I usually resort to a wet scan to keep it flat.</p>

<p>Dave you are right about the "sleeper" thing. Many have ranted on how bad it is, but I think they just got distracted by the curl and didn't focus on the emulsion. It responds extremely well to my WD2D+ and XTol.</p>

<p>But we got a little OT. The point I was trying to make was the "look" you were after is more on how it was shot and developed than the film itself. I had some really good overcast hazy sky which allowed my to shoot all day. Here is most of the set.....</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157625104991195/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157625104991195/</a></p>

[cigardoc]

<p>nice photos. i have a kiev, but haven't used it much. might pull it out and try out some of that "really cheap" chinese film. i think b&w seems more realistic in a city, with the stone buildings, concrete sidewalks and contrasting black streets.<br>

again, thanks for all the replies.</p>

 

[scott_norville]

<p>I like the contrast and tone of the Chinese film, and hated the curl. The only thing that made me decide not to use any more of it was how easily the emulsion "chips"--actual divots coming off (with or without hardening fixer) and how many crescents showed up in the skies. This was all 120, of course.<br>

Ultrafine 100 seemed to be nearly the same, with the red firecracker paper backing.</p>