Help Choosing What Film to Take on Year-Long Trip

[adh_wjc]

<p>I'm planning a year-long trip abroad and will be purchasing probably 50-60 rolls in advance. My lens speed is fast (F1.4 with quality optics) so I'm leaning toward ISO 100 and ISO 400 film, all true B&W (no C41). When I return I want to develop the film myself, and will first shoot some 'throwaway' rolls back home so I don't ruin anything until I get the hang of the developing basics.</p>

<p>My preference is Ilford film. I like what I've seen online versus other films but that's just my preference. Is Ilford a good film to develop at home? I want something that will be easy to learn, but I don't want to box myself into a mediocre film or process simply because it's easy. I want to choose a film that is easy/easier for beginners but will also give me room to grow into it as my developing skills improve.</p>

<p>1) Does anyone have an argument that Ilford is a poor choice for me (from a technical perspective, not aesthetic please)? Either way, what about recommendation for Ilford Delta vs Ilford HP5, FP4 or Pan F Plus?</p>

<p>2) Also, I've heard negative film has a high latitude for exposure; is this latitude something that must be consistent across the entire roll of film? For example, I've heard you can underexpose or overexpose as many as three stops with negative film, especially with high quality optics, but must this be consistent? For example, what if some shots are underexposed and others overexposed, while some are spot on?</p>

<p>3) I've read about 'pushing' film — how does this apply when you're shooting in the field? I want to find film that is versatile, and if I know I need faster film and I have only ISO 400 or ISO 800, but say I need something even faster, do I just shoot as though it WERE faster film, make notations, and adjust accordingly when I develop?</p>

<p>So far I've only shot C41 color film with the camera. I don't really want to shoot much color film while I'm gone but may pack some Portra NC. I appreciate any and all advice on which film to take, and also advice on how to smartly take advantage of versatility/possibilities like pushing film, etc.</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p> </p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>1) Ilford doesn't make any 'bad' films. Delta is less grainy than HP5, but HP5/FP4 have a more 'classic' look to them. I'm leaning towards using Delta when my HP5 bulk roll runs out as I find it just a bit too grainy for me, in 35mm at least. How do you feel about grain in 35mm? If you love it, HP5 could be the ticket. If you loathe it, Delta 100 or Pan F+ (50) might be better.</p>

<p>2) The film will cope with too much or too little exposure, but you probably want to be consistent with your exposures for best results</p>

<p>3) Pushing involves underexposing (setting ISO 800 instead of 400 for instance) and optionally increasing development to suit, but your contrast and grain increase</p>

<p>I'd be picking up 5 or 10 rolls of one of the films and shooting lots of stuff, just to get used to it. When you get something you like, buy 2 or 3 bulk rolls of it and a bulk loader plus lots of cartridges from your local minilab, and there you go. Cheapest way to get name brand film is to buy bulk rolls.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm planning a year-long trip abroad and will be purchasing probably 50-60 rolls in advance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Traversing in and out of airports often? The accumulated X-ray exposure isn't going to do the film any favors for both the unexposed rolls and the ones already shot. The same goes for keeping film around that long at elevated temperatures. 400ISO film will suffer faster than the 100ISO.</p>

<p>If practical, you might think about posting film back and forth from home during your travels. Kodak Gold 100/200 (yes, the consumer stuff that you find hanging in tourist trap kiosks) is one emulsion that I know can take lots of storage abuse. This is what I used to keep in the car for 6 months at a stretch - cycling up to 120degF in the glove box camera during the summer months.</p>

<p>I'd take along a digicam too. This might end up as your primary camera before you know it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone have an argument that Ilford is a poor choice for me ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilford's fine. Personally, I think Kodak 400TMAX is the finest 400ISO B&W film available. It's sharp, high resolution, and low grained. It's a great choice especially for area challenged format like 135.</p>

<p>I prefer Fuji Acros in 100ISO. It's comparable to 100TMAX in grain, sharpness, etc. However, Acros has the most benign reciprocity failure characteristics of any emulsion. This is a huge win when doing multi-second plus exposures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, I've heard negative film has a high latitude for exposure ... I've heard you can underexpose or overexpose as many as three stops with negative film</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's, ummm, a third right. Negative color film has great overexposure latitude. Underexpose negative color film, however, and the images will disappoint.</p>

<p>For traditional B&W negative film, how much of the scene's dynamic range gets mapped to detectable changes in density on the developed emulsions is a "it depends." It depends on how it's exposed and how the exposed film is developed.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So far I've only shot C41 color film with the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you really want to use primarily B&W for this year long trip, spend two or three months before that shooting, developing, scanning/printing. Mindfully think about (and remember) how the target film reacts to the different shooting conditions, development, and post regimes.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

For plenty of light the ISO 125 Ilford FP4+ is a good all around choice, but take care not to overdevelop or it can get

grainy. Less grain, but more finicky to process is Delta 100. For low light take some HP5+. For very low light there's Delta

3200, but be aware its true speed is closer to ISO 1000.

[john_elder1]

<p>Whatever film you choose, and I would choose Hp5+, MAKE sure you test it with the equipment you are going to use on the trip. You need to find out the exposure index for the film choosen and your equipment. It would be ashame to shoot 400 speed film for a year's travel only to find out that you underexposed the film by 2/3 of a stop. Don't pay any attention to the folks saying OH this film has such wide exposure latitude that you don't have to worry about fine tuning your personel film speed. That a crock! Do some testing before you go. Then you can shoot with confidence.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>First off, advice from a well seasoned traveler, not processing a single film for a whole year is a real bad idea. If you have a camera problem in the first few weeks, you could end up with no photos at all. So take a hand full of 24 exp C41 type colour or black and white neg film with you and get a roll developed every three weeks or so. You may find a f1.8 or f2 lens is overall sharper than your 1.4. They are also smaller and weigh less. Developing your b&w film on the road is not that difficult either.</p>

<p>If you've only ever shot colour neg film, you have to "learn" to shoot black and white. What appears to be a bright colourful scene turn into ten shades of the same gray, and a most disappointing negative. Practice a whole bunch before you go. You should learn to use yellow green and red filters as well.</p>

<p>Ilford films are excellent, FP4 for every day usage, add some HP5 for night. PanF is nice on those dull drab days when you really need a contrasty film, but you might want a tripod at the same time.</p>

<p>Depending on where you are going, ten rolls(36exp) a week seems like a more reasonable estimate to me, that's about what I average on a three week trip if I try to conserve film, although I've had a roll of 36 evaporate in less than 5 minutes more than a few times. :)</p>

<p>The image on the film deteriorates with time, you will probably have some visible deterioration after a year with so so storage, esp if the film isn't stored frozen after exposure. Not including x-ray exposure at airports. The best thing used to be was to mail it home every few weeks, not so sure about post offices x-raying international mail these days.</p>

<p> </p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I usually shoot B&W on vacation trips instead of digital. I look at the scene, estimate the light levels and then set aperture and shutter speed accordingly. As the light levels fall I revert to deliberate underexposure (usually to keep the shutter speed up).</p>

<p>So each roll will have frames that are properly exposed, mistakenly overexposed, mistakenly underexposed and deliberately underexposed. I don't keep track of any of that and develop all the rolls the same. Then I scan them and correct any exposure mistakes and deliberate underexposures (pushing). When needed I shoot 3 stops underexposed (EI3200) without much hesitation. If you are wet printing I don't know if you could do that without pushing in the development stage.</p>

<p>I started with delta films (and tmax) but found that HP5 could handle my "old school" shooting method better. Properly exposed HP5 has more grain than the others but for me that was a plus as I like some grain and want the images to look non-digital. I might run grain reduction software on the image if I think the grain is distracting. Usually that is when printing big (>11x17"). BTW, I shoot 35mm.</p>

<p>For a long trip as you are planing I would try to mail exposed rolls back home whenever I got a chance. Otherwise you risk loosing all your film (and images) if something goes wrong.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

Is film mailed internationally x-rayed? Anyway, I'd say all these films are quite good, just get to know a couple of them well, but be very careful of airports. I always ask for hand inspections of any film, but in some countries they don't allow it so also keep the film in lead bags and get it processed when you can. I figure that if 1600 film is fogged by putting it through an x-ray once, 400 film will be fogged by putting it through 4 times.

[vince-p]

<p>Kodak Tri-X (ISO 400) and the Ilford HP5 look quite a bit alike. Old fashioned to a heart warming degree. I like the look of Tri-X better -- a little more accutance, a little more contrast, given similar processing approaches. If you're developing all this yourself you might consider also what you're going to use to develop it. I have just started this year developing and there is a BIG learning curve so keep in mind that some rolls won't work out well. I have some absolutely wonderful shots I took this year that are so stained, spotted, and streaked; or under-agitated and low-contrast; or over exposed or over processed and I don't even know which; just getting the film onto the reels is a learning curve. (Go Paterson. Take it from me.) (When you get back with all those rolls and feel competent, I have an 8-reel Paterson tank I never use and cannot imagine using and have no idea why I bought it so contact me, perfect for that kind of job...) (I mean that.) </p>

<p>Anyway I was going to recommend Kodak Xtol which is a great developer and works equally well for the relatively thick-emulsioned films like Tri X and the thin-emulsions like TMax (the ISO 100 is often written as TMX and the 400 is often written as TMY but I don't know why). Anyway if you want to experiment a little you could do some Tri X and some TMax and get a noticeably different look.</p>

<p>Do some research on divided developers. They lessen the opportunity for mistakes. At a price in terms of grain. Not effective for low-grain films like TMax, either, I've been told. Divided D-76 is almost fool proof, isn't fussy about temperature, and can be made by you very easily and cheaply.</p>

<p>You might also want to experiment with films you don't see much here but are prevalent overseas.</p>

[bgussin]

<p>Two thoughts. As stated above black and white does not capture a scene like color film. Besides learning the film's characteristics, you may want to learn how to use colored filters when shooting b/w, especially red, yellow and orange, (plus green and blue).<br>

And then, what about the possibility of developing while on your trip. You should have no problems bringing powdered chemicals with you and a small developing kit.<br>

But I'm guessing that your goal is independence from electricity and electronics. You may want to shoot C-41 color and convert to BW after the fact. Then you can experiment with color filters, etc.</p>

[adh_wjc]

<p>Thank you. This is all fantastic information.</p>

<p>I processed some C41 color at Costco and was disappointed. The scans feature lines all the way across nearly every photo, but not literally every photo (I'd say 90% or more). I'm hoping that is a result of the scanner, and not the film or the camera (Leica MP). Especially since the line appears in the same location — either 1/3 of the way from the top or 1/3 of the way from the bottom (although I have attached one photo here that appears to have no line damage at all). Even line damage aside, I am somewhat disappointed with the high grain regardless (film was Fuji 800 NPZ, which I think is designed for portraiture). Also probably plenty of focusing human error, because I am new to rangefinders. Even so, I'd be lying if I weren't somewhat disappointed.</p>

<p><strong>I also purchased eight rolls of true B&W: </strong>Ilford Delta 100, Ilford FP4 125, Ilford Delta 400, Ilford HP5 400, Kodak 125 PX, Kodak 400 TMax, Kodak 400 Tri-X, Kodak P3200 TMax.</p>

<p>Over the next few days I will shoot these rolls, then have them professionally processed so I can get a feel for the aesthetics of each, and specifically/more importantly the accuracy of my meter, which I suspect is fine (I'm under the impression Leica has excellent metering).</p>

<p>Unfortunately I leave the U.S. in only two weeks, so I have probably only one quick round of test film before I decide what to take with me. I do not think it is realistic to develop film on the road, partly because I don't think being in eastern Siberia/rural China is the best place to learn how to develop film, and also I can't imagine customs would respond well to "powdered chemicals." Seems like more hassle than it is worth. But I did love the suggestion about developing a roll of C41 every few weeks just to make sure everything is still exposing as it should. </p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[adh_wjc]

<p>The lines are more pronounced here: </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>I am somewhat disappointed with the high grain ... film was Fuji 800 NP</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That looks about normal-ish. The frame could have used more light. That would have both reduced apparent grain as well as given overall more definition. For this scene, point the meter on the darker shadows and lock exposure there. Take a look at the i<a href="../bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=23786284">mages of this comparison</a>.</p>

<p>For C-41 film, rule of thumb is to place exposure on the shadow and let highlights fall where they may. The Leica meter isn't "smart." The decision on where to place the exposure is entirely dependent on you.</p>

<p>I've never been all that pleased with 800ISO C-41 films, especially in 135. The emulsions just don't perform that well. 400ISO is as fast as I'd go. As you've also seen, you also practically lose a stop or two right off the bat if good looking shadow details are important.</p>

 

[adh_wjc]

<p>@ Robert Lee — Thank you!<br>

<br />What is the rule for true B&W film? Do you also meter the shadows and let the highlights fall as they may? Moving forward I plan on shooting almost exclusively black and white because I want to learn to process it myself.</p>

<p>Also, any idea why those lines appear on my scans? I hope it was just a dirty/bad scan job as opposed to something I'm doing wrong. Unless there is something perhaps scratching my film as it advances... ???</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

[randall_pukalo]

check your NPZ negs. If you dont see a scartch as in the scan, then this is caused by dust on the scan sensor. I get these sometimes with my f235 scanner, when ICE is turned on, if I dont recalibrate after a few rolls. I would also suggest 5 rolls of Provia 400X slide to emjoy the beauty of color fi;m, with versatile 400 speed, and far, far, far superior image quality from scans. Plus, the drop dead beauty of a slide in its own right, whether help up to the light, placed on a light table, or best of all, projected to 5 feet wide images. Simply jaw dropping experience.

Been scanning again recently, and struck again by how vastly superior image quality is from scanned slide film over negative film.

[randall_pukalo]

check your NPZ negs. If you dont see a scartch as in the scan, then this is caused by dust on the scan sensor. I get these sometimes with my f235 scanner, when ICE is turned on, if I dont recalibrate after a few rolls. I would also suggest 5 rolls of Provia 400X slide to emjoy the beauty of color fi;m, with versatile 400 speed, and far, far, far superior image quality from scans. Plus, the drop dead beauty of a slide in its own right, whether help up to the light, placed on a light table, or best of all, projected to 5 feet wide images. Simply jaw dropping experience.

Been scanning again recently, and struck again by how vastly superior image quality is from scanned slide film over negative film.

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Provia 400X scan samples:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/pukalo/sets/72157624706161656/</p>

[mark_schott]

<p>Back to your original question about BW film, I studied abroad for a year and made the deliberate choice to shoot BW film. I had the same idea as you--use only one or two types of film and develop it all when I got home. After about a month of shooting and not getting to see the results, I had my family mail my developing equipment to me. I lived in my own apartment and was able to easily develop all of my film as I shot it.<br>

As for film, I started shooting FP4 and HP5. In the last half of my year, I shot 90% FP4 and 10% HP5. Do I like one better than the other? Not really. I simply shot more in full daylight than in dusk/evening hours. <br>

What did I learn? Really try to focus on one or two films. It's easy to get carried away and try every film out there. I didn't get <em>better </em>by shooting one film, but I got much more <em>consistent</em> results. Carry along a digital P & S just for kicks. Digital vs. film aside, digital cameras are great for simple snapshots where the memory is more important than tonality, grain, exposure, etc. And buy bulk rolls with a loader and plenty of cartridges. Without having to worry about film costs, I just shot more pictures.<br>

Best of luck!</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>The quality of your photos will be determined by:<br>

A: The ability of the photographer<br>

B. The quality of the lens<br>

The two top rated color films are Portra & Ektar. Can't go wrong with either. Personally, I have shot with 6 year old expired B&W film (storage conditions unknown) and have had excellent results but then again it is the quality of the lens. All in all you are the best judge of your own images. </p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>What is the rule for true B&W film? Do you also meter the shadows and let the highlights fall as they may?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, kinda, but not really. See, the thing with traditional B&W emulsions is that its behavior changes significantly depending on the development regime - the type of developer, the dilution, development time, agitation scheme, etc. Having more knobs to turn is great, but knowing what to turn and by how much is important. This all takes time to learn.</p>

<p>Since you've only two weeks before the trip, here's my suggestion: practice with just Kodak 400CN. This is a B&W emulsion compatible with the standard C-41 process. As such, it can be developed by any 30 minute minilab jock in the world. More importantly to you as the photographer, it shoots just like the color negative film you're already using. Shoot it under cloud cover, shoot it under noon sun, give it more light, give it less. Get to the point where you know reflexively how it behaves.</p>

<p>If you're not so set on using a B&W emulsion, it's a better idea to use color negative film. Do the B&W conversion in post, where having color recorded means much better ability to finesse the tonal relationship on the B&W print. </p>

<p>Which color negative film almost doesn't matter. A consumer film like Fuji Superia 400 is mildly preferable because it's more likely to be available in more places. Again, stick with this one film over the next weeks. Get really to know it (and your camera.)</p>

<p>Lastly, getting the image recorded is only half the work. The rest of it is in the darkroom and producing a satisfactory print. This you won't get from an automated minilab, and very rarely a "pro" lab. So, get the scan back. Read up on and try digital darkroom workflows.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>If you are new to rangefinders, there is one more warning. There is no mirror to stop the sun from burning pinholes in the shutter if your camera has a cloth focal plane shutter. So keep the lens capped and don't forget to remove it before you push the button.</p>

<p>Enjoy your adventure.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

 

[jeremy_john]

<p>I have not read all the responses, but I will offer this. I have settled on two primary films for general use--Tri-X (ISO 400) and FP4+ (ISO 125). I choose these two, because (1) they are GOOD classic looking emulsions, (2) they are flexible (can be pushed or pulled if necessary), (3) they are forgiving, (4) they are rather easy to develop and do well in basic D-76, (5) they are available in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, and (6) if I had to bet on what the last films left on the market would be, these the two I would guess. Now not all these factors may be important to you, but I think that if you are asking about what film you should take, you are best to grab a classic film that has been used for decades to make amazing images and work with it until you have a reason to change. I recommend two films: a 100/125 speed for outside in the daytime, and a 400 speed for inside/night. Good Luck!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>FWIW, I was writing a response yesterday and my computer locked up, I would make this much simpler somehow. Just take some assorted color print film and have it souped and scanned and make what you want later. It will also be much more forgiving with the exposure and everything else. Save the B&W for a future project when you come home. Just my 2 cents :-) </p>

[ken a.]

<p>I am not certain what your expectations are from your proposed set-up, but it strikes me that you have a large number of uncontrolled variables, and seem to be adding more. While many photographers still dream of loading up a Leica with B/W film and travelling around the world, I am a bit concerned about your expectations for your final product. From reading your posts, it seems like the Leica is new to you, as is shooting with B/W film. In short, you are heading out on what sounds like a major trip with little familiarity of any of your specific equipment. If you are comfortable with being on the beginning end of a learning curve, then you may have the time of your life. If you are expecting top notch results because you are carrying a Leica and B/W film, please remember that owning a fine musical instrument does not make you a better musician, lots of practice does.</p>

<p>Mastering B/W film as well as mastering a Leica takes a bit of time, even if you are exceptionally gifted. You are certainly asking many good questions, but I am not sure how much of the advice that you receive will be fully absorbed and integrated in your shooting in two weeks. If I was in your shoes, I would give some consideration to carrying a DSLR instead of, or in addition to, your Leica because I can think of no better teacher to accompany you on your trip. In addition to acting as a camera, a DSLR can conveniently, and more importantly, immediately, teach you about many of the fundamental the principles of photography through its LCD display. Yes, you can learn the same lessons with a Leica and film, but not until you have developed the film. I do not want to rain on your parade, so to speak, but I would also hate for you to get back home and find that you were not as far along on mastering the Leica and B/W film as you thought you were. Either way, I wish you a great trip and happy shooting.<br>

Good luck,</p>

<p>--Ken</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>as mentioned earlier, consider how you are going to develop. Are you going to scan these images to digital, or do you intend to print with an enlarger (ie, darkroom)? Diafine is a great developer for when you intend to scan, and it gives you a speed increase. I tend to think that the FP4 and the HP5 are a couple of great films, and with Diafine, you could rate your FP4 at 250, and your HP5 at 800. This may give you the flexibility to go with the FP4 as your sole film.</p>