B&W

[jim mucklin]

Hello from Kodak land (Buffalo /rochester) land. Ive read most of the

posts and am now ready to start again. While I know everyone has a

preference, could someone recomend to me an easy/forgiving 35mm b&w

film along with chemicals to get me started.

I also purchased my first med format (an Yashicha 124 G) and would

also like a recomendation for portraits in the 8X10 and 11x20 size.

I would like to do these in the matted look with soft available

light. I did take everyones advice and found some great used books on

darkrooms and how to get started (thanks)

With so many films mentioned it's hard for a re-starter to get a

handle on it.

Thanks in advance

Jim

[john_cook1]

You are going to get a million different answers to this one. Might as well have asked what toppings we like on our pizza.

 

My advice is to go with an ISO 400 film: Tri-X, HP5 Plus, or APX 400. While they have only slightly increased granularity, their overall "look" seems to be better. With all the current problems over Kodak changing Tri-X, my choice for you would be Ilford HP5 Plus.

 

Stay away from TMAX for now. It has unusual characteristics which make it very difficult to handle. Delta is a little better.

 

I'd use liquid chemicals, purchased in small containers (for freshness), made by the same manufacturer of the film and paper you choose. Crossing brands can be good for experienced photographers. But it isn't advisable for those who need a lot of printed instructions. Ilford's website is loaded with information.

 

If you go with RC paper, Ilford has always had a slight edge in quality on that over Kodak. And right now they make several "colors" in variable contrast. And, again, use their liquid chemistry.

 

Next year, when you are again comfortable in the lab, you can begin horsing around with Pyro and all sorts of concoctions from Photographers' Formulary.

 

Regards,

 

John

[stephen hazelton]

Kodak has a bunch of information on their website, too, including basic guides on developing your first film, printing your first print, as well as data sheets for each film. Ilford has similar information on their website.

[ed b.]

I'd go with Delta 400 or Tri-X in Rodinal (1:50).

[continuity]

<i>With all the current problems over Kodak changing Tri-X</i><p>

John, I'm confused by this part of your answer. All the recent test results (Photo Techniques magazine) & anecdotal evidence I've seen indicate the opposite -- That the dev. time hasn't changed much, and that Tri-x is now even finer grained.<p>

Disclaimer: I'm no B&W expert, but all I shoot lately is Tri-x, and I have yet to develop a roll of the new stuff, but I'll have to very soon ;)

[conrad_hoffman]

Surprisingly little has changed. Sure, we have t-grain films, and lots of papers and chemistry is no longer available. There's TMax developer and a few others, but I asked the counter person in the RIT bookstore what people were shooting these days and I was shocked at the answer- Tri-X in D-76! Heck, that's what I was shooting back in '70. These days I'm partial to FP4+ or HP5+ souped in homebrew stuff from Photographers Formulary, but the old standbys can still hold their own.

[john_cook1]

Jeremy,

 

Like you, I don't have time to run tests on everything, every time some manufacturer changes something. And I agree that Tri-X has always been the "gold standard" for b&w film.

 

My point was that from what I can make out from posts on these forums, both new and old Tri-X are currently in the pipeline. Some people like one, some like the other. There seems to be confusion.

 

My advice was not intended as a path towards the very best imaging at any cost. But rather one which will yeild the best results with the least confusion. I suspect that in a year or so, when the dust settles, I can again recommend Tri-X for inexperienced workers.

 

John

[moore_photography]

Tmax 100 (rated @160 in medium format and 200 in 35mm are my preferences) in diafine or Tri-X (@1200 in both formats) in the same. Easiest developer to use... ever.

[chris_waller]

Try Ilford HP5, it's a very tolerant, flexible film. I would suggest Ilford ID11 as

dev but if you're only going to be working intermittently at first then maybe

Kodak HC110. My choice of dev is Agfa Rodinal but I would only recommend

it with films of 200 ASA or slower unless you particularly want grain. For

portrait work in medium format try rating HP5 at 160 ASA and devving in Ilford

Perceptol at 1+3 dilution, 20 C, 13 minutes. This dev time is for a condenser

enlarger so for a diffuser try 16 minutes.

[doug_bennett]

Another vote for Tri-X. I've tried 'em all, but keep coming back to Tri-X for a higher speed film. Get your exposure to within a stop or two, aim the camera in the right general direction, and Tri-X will yield a decent negative. Definitely a very forgiving film, but capable of spectacular results.

 

I'm enjoying using Formulary's WD2D+ pyro developer. Liquid concentrate, very easy to use.

[jim mucklin]

Thank you all so much for the info. It is nice to have a forum like this with so much experience.While I haven't been in a darkroom since the seventy's I"ll get it back. Now all I need is the time.

Thanks again

Jim

[montague_withnail]

Agfa APX 100 and Kodak TRI-X 400

[frank.schifano]

There's no way you are going to go wrong with Tri-X. There is a reason why this film is so popular and that is because it is good. I've used plenty of HP5+ and the old version Tri-X in both 120 and 35mm formats. My preference is for Tri-X. Both films are good, but Tri-X is consistently easier to print - period. It is more tolerant of exposure and processing errors than is HP5+. If economy is your goal, then you can't beat powdered D-76 or ID-11 for a developer. I can get enough powder to make a gallon of stock solution of either developer for under $5 in my neck of the woods. My experience shows that the stock solution has a shelf life in full stoppered bottles of at least 6 months and maybe even more. If I have any older than that I'd toss it, but I rarely if ever do. Dilute the stock solution 1:1 and use it one shot for Tri-X and you have a combination that's hard to beat. Grain might be an issue when making 8x10 or 11x20 prints from your 35mm negatives, but you'll have no problem from your medium format negatives.

[m_bailey]

I'd like to cast another vote for Tri-X in D-76. The new Tri-X seems to be even more forgiving then the old, especially in overexposed highlights. Yeah, both have been around forever, but in today's environment of hundreds of films and now so many different types of digital backs on the market, nothing -- to my mind -- produces the classic "film" look of Tri-X. Or to put it another way, there's a REASON they've both been around forever.

[david_h._hartman]

I�ll recommend Tri-X ISO 400 exposed at EI 200 and developed in D-76 1:2. I like the grain structure of 1:2 better than 1:1 or 1:3. 1:1 is a little too large and mushy, 1:3 is quite fine but harsh so I split the difference. I also develop a little soft and print on grade 3 to 3.5. That�s N-1 developing in zone speak. It�s well to avoid printing at grade 0 or 1 so as to avoid the "Chalk and Soot" look. You might like Ilford HP5 Plus treated the same way.

 

David Vestal wrote something to the effect that shooting Tri-X at 200 ASA was about "as dangerous as taking extra sandwiches to a picnic." Ansel Adam recommended N-1 developing for roll films with subjects of varying contrast.

 

Hope this helps,