The JOYS of iso100 Black-and-White film

[sfcole]

<p><strong>Here's my 2 cents. Most of the 100 speed films I've tried sucked, no matter who made them. Acros gave me gray photos that looked as if they were desaturated color digital.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Sounds like user error to me, either development, scanning, or poor enlarging.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Most of the 100 speed films I've tried sucked, no matter who made them. Acros gave me gray photos that looked as if they were desaturated color digital. Sort of like bad T-Max, another film I hate."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I disagree, I can see Steve's point. Many folks want zappy contrast with as little effort as possible. I sympathize because that's my justification for preferring digicams that can deliver great JPEGs straight from the camera.</p>

<p>But...</p>

<p>Starting out with a neutral b&w negative gives us more room for creative interpretation in the darkroom. If your darkroom ambition extends beyond straight printing on grade 2.5 paper, or variable contrast paper without using VC filters, it's usually best to avoid negatives that dictate the outcome by being too contrasty or grainy.</p>

<p>After a multi-decade love affair with the original Tri-X (not the current stuff, which is actually closer to the original T-Max 400), I gradually and grudgingly came to appreciate T-Max 100 and 400 for the greater versatility. But these films demand more direction in the darkroom - creative dodging and burning along with appropriate use of yellow and magenta filters in selected areas. It's a lot of effort but worth it.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>I am reminded of various comments about Ansel Adams's negatives, which were often quite ordinary in terms of their exposure and development. Adams was the undisputed master of the darkroom, and his genius was expressed in his finished products, not in his negatives.</p>

<p>I've been slowly working my way through a fairly large quantity of Plus X Pan that expired in 1983. It's been frozen the entire time and I find that, in order to wind up with properly dense negatives, I need to increase developing time by about 1 minute. I use D-76. But the results are very good, I think. This Plus X is the only ISO 100 (ISO 125, actually) B&W film I've used for many years. I've also used some unknown stuff that was probably Foma, and had good results with it, as well.</p>

<p>Canon IIIa rangefinder with 50mm f/1.8 Serenar. Plus-X, expired in 1983:<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/canoniiia_bigdawg1.jpg" alt="" width="646" height="1000" /></p>

<p>Nikon F, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, more of the expired Plus-X:<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/nikf_alexchick1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="1630" /></p>

<p>And a shot from that ISO100 mystery roll, probably Foma. Canon FTb, FL 35mm f/2.5.<br /> <img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/krf_valves1.jpg" alt="" width="1000" height="665" /></p>

<p>I usually prefer contrasty images when I'm shooting B&W, and I find that the amount of contrast I get with this old Plus-X is sufficient, and the contrast with the Foma(?) was quite good. Besides, I can always bump up contrast in post processing quite a bit before it begins to negatively impact image quality.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Care to share your workflow on these, Michael?</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>Gary, while I have two 120 film backs for my K-O Rapid M, some tests I done with a sacrificial roll of film say that one of them is advancing properly, but the other one needs some maintenance or repair. So I will go out with only one back loaded, ten shots. It might take me a few days to shoot those, but the next film won't get loaded till the first roll is done. <br>

Michael, part of what is fascinating about those expired Plus-X images is that areas of the image's background are quite low contrast, but there is crisply contrasty foreground subject matter, too. Are those raindrops on the lens in the sky portion of the car lot picture? Somehow they don't seem like a mistake looking at the entire frame.</p>

[mwmcbroom]

<p>C Watson, I'm sort of old school, and don't really think in terms of "workflow." I'll describe what I did, if that's what you mean. For both the Plus-X photos, I developed the rolls in full-strength D-76, increasing developing time by about 1 minute. I've learned through trial and error that, with this old Plus-X, I get better negative density if I increase the developing time. I've also considered down-rating the film's ISO and then developing normally, or possibly extending the developing time even with the down-rated ISO, but I haven't done either of these yet.</p>

<p>As for digitizing the negatives, I have an Epson 4990 scanner, which I find does a respectable job with medium format size negs, but I'm just not getting the sharpness I require with 35mm. So I rigged up a duplicator setup, consisting of a gutted "digital slide duplicator" I bought off ebay, in which I removed everything and is now essentially just an extension tube with 52mm threads so it will mount to the front of the lens. To this tube I attach a roll-film stage (or slide duplicator stage for duping slides). The lens is a 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. To get as close to 1:1 image size as I can with my crop-body Canon DSLR, I've added about 25mm worth of extension behind the lens. I mount this contraption to my DSLR using a Nikon to EOS adapter. Here's a shot of the disassembled duplicator rig, showing both the slide and roll-film stage:</p>

<p><img src="http://michaelmcbroom.com/images/duplicating/duperig1.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="900" /></p>

<p>I convert the images in my image processing software to positives and usually add a bit of curves adjustment to the left side of the histogram and sometimes to the right; it all depends on the image. I'll also usually add a touch of USM, but this also depends on the image. Sometimes it helps, sometimes all it does is add noise. I save the images as .tif files, then convert to .jpg for posting on the Web.</p>

<p>Steve, you've got a good eye. I barely even pay attention to those spots, they're so slight. Actually, they're spots on the negative. I should rinse them again. :)</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>Thanks, Michael. DSLR scanning will probably soon kill flatbeds. I've been hacking one of those atrocious old slide duplicator thingies, too. For me, the grail is getting a rig to handle 120 and 35mm.</p>

[gene_aker2]

<p>Medium format and medium speed black and white! You Can't go wrong. Let's add D76 to that list! <br>

I've always liked Fp4 for its robust character--it loves almost any developer. Frankly, I can't tell much difference between Hp5 (iso 400) and Fp4 (iso 125). Over the years---like all photographers---I have made comparisons and "tests." Enlarged beyond 8x10--I can see differences in "sharpness'---but that's often offset by tonality and subject and acuity.<br>

I tend to favor Hp5 because I can handhold: my Rolleiflex, my Rolliecord, my Yashica, my old Blad, and my pristine VOIGHTLANDER PERKEO II WITH THE COLOR SKOPAR LENS. (YUM, YUM). I will be taking it to Sicily with me this summer.</p>

<p> </p>

[wblynch]

<p>The harsh contrast look seems to be in trend but I have always liked medium speed films for the subtle, smooth transitions in the mid-tones. That's where the picture lives for me.</p>

<p>Try HC-110 at Dilution H sometime. I was very pleased when I finally did.</p>

 

[steve_fay]

<p>I've started the first test roll in the K-O Rapid M. I decided to go with the TMax 100. I may wait until this one has been sent off and results are returned before I start the next roll of medium speed B&W, since this first one might reveal a problem with the camera...unless I just can't wait to start the next roll.... I real possibility.</p>

<p>Bill, I'll be shooting middle-speed in the Middle West.</p>

[allancobb]

<p>Verichrome Pan was and still is (I have two bricks in the freezer) my favorite overall film for its IMO unsurpassed smooth creamy tones and wide range. I have my last long roll of Plus-X in the bulk loader, just having put it in last night. In the meantime, I've been shooting TMX and discovering how much I really like it. And to top it off, I'm going through a couple boxes of 4x5 Ektapan I acquired over the past two years... all 100 to 125 speed films.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15945340-lg.jpg" alt="Tidal Pool" width="499" height="650" border="0" /><br /> Verichrome Pan, straight D-76</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17078479-lg.jpg" alt="Behind Cross Mountain" width="548" height="700" border="0" /><br /> 4x5 Ektapan (expired 1992, HC-110 dil. B)</p>

<p>I find myself gravitating to this regime, even though higher speeds my have more utility in some respects; I guess I unconsciously place a high importance on the sharpness and finer grain that these films generally inherently possess!</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>Verichrome Pan, Allan, great to see that.<br>

Gonna, send that roll of TMax 100 of to a lab in the morning.</p>

[allancobb]

<p>Thanks Steve, and let us know how the TMX works out. In my experience, another advantage of medium-speed films is their better "keeping time" after being expired for a while, especially if it's been taken care of in the fridge or freezer. Some of my VP goes back to 1999 with no noticeable fog, and I've used VP and PX dating as far back as 1980 with some fog but not so much to be a problem, especially with HC-110. All of my 1992 Ektapan has been fog-free, or so little to be virtually non-existent.</p>