100 Speed Portrait Film Advice

Paul Sorensen · Dec 30, 2005

I am going to be working on a family portrait project over the next year or so and I expect to be photographing 20 to 30 families. I will use largely strobe or available light and was thinking that I would want to use a 100 speed film for this project to work with a large aperture and shallow dof. With the demise of APX 100, I am not sure what film to try. I can develop it in anything, so that would be part of the discussion as well. I was about to order some Acros, but I thought I would see what folks here had to say about film for portrait work. Any ideas?

Oh, and I will be shooting 120 film with an RB67, for what it is worth.

Thanks!

Paul.

bobfowler · Dec 30, 2005

I'd probably grab some FP4+...

Paul Sorensen · Dec 30, 2005

bobfowler said:
I'd probably grab some FP4+...

I guess that makes sense since it is also a traditional grained film. Hmmm, for some reason I hadn't thought of it. I have not used enough of it to have formed an opinion. Of course, that is the problem, I haven't used enough of anything except for APX.

Paul Sorensen · Dec 30, 2005

jdef said:
Rest assured that whichever film you choose from the list, it is a world class product made with unrivaled QC, and backed by a leader of the industry, and since Acros made it to my short list, and was your first choice, I say; go for it. Good luck with your project, I find no other subject as satisfying as my family, and your family will benefit from your work for generations to come.

Jay

I may do that or I may choose to try it out and FP4+ to see which I like more. I am going to use a tripod and enlargement size will proabably be 11X14 images, with 16X20 at the most. Thanks for your thoughtful advice.

Thanks also for your kind words. Actually, I am not shooting my family, but about 20-30 different group portraits of families. It is a church project that I hope could end up being bigger than that as well. As such, I really do feel that you are right about the QC issues and had already decided to probably limit it to the same companies that you did.

One other thing, however. And this is for anyone who might care to chime in. Are there films that you think are better suited to portraiture. Perhaps they are more forgiving, or have smoother tonality in the middle gray area where much skin tones are. (I don't know the exact racial makeup of the group, but I would expect majority white based on the members of the church.)

Thanks for any information and advice, I appreciate it greatly.

Paul.

eumenius · Dec 30, 2005

I think that any old-style film like Fomapan 100 or FP4+ would work nicely, the only film I would personally avoid (and not in all cases, though) would be hyperpanchromatic-sensibilized films like Forte 400, with their extended red sensitivity. For me, they deliver portrait pictures with unnaturally smooth and light skin, and the lips are usually far too anaemic-looking - just like using a good red filter over your lens. But sometimes it is an advantage, when someone wants to deal with skin blemishes

Davo5X7 · Dec 30, 2005

Jay, Very helpful postings for me.. I am setting up for a similar project, shooting 645 and only enlarging to 8X10. I was leaning towards a traditional emulsion 400 speed, which after testing may end up inthe 250 range, and give a little more wiggle-room for hand holding. Any comments on Neopan 400 for portraits? (I'm trying to de-Kodak my life). Thanks in advance, sorry for the non-topic interjection.

vet173 · Dec 31, 2005

Like you my standard film was APX 100. When that was gone I switched to Ilford FP-4. I think if APX 100 came back out I would stay with FP-4. Looking at the sensitivity curves, APX is much more blue sensitive. That is why I had to filter the sky much more than I do FP-4.

jmdavis · Dec 31, 2005

vet173 said:
Like you my standard film was APX 100. When that was gone I switched to Ilford FP-4. I think if APX 100 came back out I would stay with FP-4. Looking at the sensitivity curves, APX is much more blue sensitive. That is why I had to filter the sky much more than I do FP-4.

FP4 is a good choice. I personally believe that Forte 200 could be a good choice as well. I'm not sure if its available in 120 or not though.

Mike Davis

Lachlan Young · Dec 31, 2005

jmdavis said:
FP4 is a good choice.

FP4 is lovely stuff - I recently shot some, through a Mamiya C330f with a Vivitar 283 on an off camera handle, rated at EI 250 and souped in Diafine. The prints were stunning with virtually no grain and a look very similar to the old press pictures shot under flashbulbs.

Don't know if this helps,
Lachlan

David A. Goldfarb · Dec 31, 2005

If you liked APX 100, your best bet would probably be Efke 100 or FP-4. Efke strikes me as tonally more like APX, but there have been reports of light leak issues, so load and unload with care, and store exposed rolls in an opaque bag. If you don't want to deal with that, then use FP-4.

Ronald Moravec · Jan 1, 2006

FP4 or Plus x in D76 stock. The sharpness loss is insignificant at 16x20. Either film will give nice tones unlike the T grain stuff. I do 35mm in D76 stock.

Right now I`m pretty upset with Kodak`s policy and business plan so I won`t buy Kodak anything. That leaves FP4.

And the D76 is home mixed, so that is not Kodak. Mostly Chemistry Store and Photographer`s Formulary and some inherited stuff. I can`t separate it performance wise from store bought and the cost is about 1/2 in gallons and 1/8 if you measure quarts.

If you have enough light, over expose 1 stop and cut development 20% and you will get negs full of shadow detail and no blown highlights. These will be a joy to print and subjects will love them.

I had a 150 soft focus for the RB and it was very nice but slightly short. There is a 180 soft focus that should fill the bill now.

battra92 · Jan 1, 2006

jmdavis said:
FP4 is a good choice. I personally believe that Forte 200 could be a good choice as well. I'm not sure if its available in 120 or not though.

Mike Davis

Yes it is. It's also available in Arista.Edu(Made in Hungary) packages from Freestyle Photo.

aldevo · Jan 1, 2006

jmdavis said:
FP4 is a good choice. I personally believe that Forte 200 could be a good choice as well. I'm not sure if its available in 120 or not though.

Mike Davis

Forte 200 is indeed available in 120, though perhaps not by the name with which you are familiar. Bergger BPF/BRF 200, Arista.EDU Hungary 200, and J&C Classic 200 are identical to Forte 200.

But Forte 200 (and clones) is not a good general purpose substitute at all for APX 100 - which was also my ISO 100 standard. It's probably a bit grainier than the best ISO 400 speed films, is only about 2/3s stop faster than APX 100, and isn't particularly high-resolving or sharp.

Tonality is very much in the eye of the beholder. I like Forte 200's tonality overall but it's exposure latitude where highlights are concerned seems to pretty poor. I suspect is hasn't got much of a shoulder and that makes sense given that Platinum printers (dense negatives uber alles) and those that miss the old Kodak Super-XX seem to place great stock by it.

I'm making the above observations having used about 15 rolls of the stuff in the 120 size in generally contrasty, natural lighting conditions. I've tried souping it in Gainer PC-TEA, Edwal FG-7, and Rodinal 1:50. None of these seem to change its characteristics to any great degree.

The film is hardly a disaster, but I don't see it as a good general-purpose replacement for APX 100. You may well like it for portrait applications (haven't tried them) where lighting can be controlled. Just don't expect the same degree of enlargeability that you could find from other films.

aldevo · Jan 1, 2006

I've heard that Fomapan 100 is sufficiently similar to APX 100 that it is suspected to be the APX 100 emulsion coated on a different film base.

Foma and Agfa did have a joint license agreement about 10 years ago (will post the link referencing it if I can find it) but it's not known what formulas Foma licensed or which arrangements are still in effect today. I suspect it more to do with color film technology.

fschifano · Jan 1, 2006

Jdef's analysis is right on the mark, and I also agree with him regarding the available light portraiture that an ISO 400 film might come in handy at times. I'd keep some of both on hand and use whichever is more appropriate at the moment.

MY own personal preference would be to use either FP4+ or Plus-X in the ISO 100 category, not because I think they are so much better than the rest but simply because I'm most familiar with these films. For an ISO 400 film, I've found absolutely nothing that can beat Tri-X. Fuji's Neopan 400 comes close and I'd use that if it were more affordable. But right now, where I am, Tri-X is less expensive and does the job extremely well. HP5+ comes close, but no cigar. Some folks can do greate things with TMY and Delta 400. I've never used Delta 400 to any great extent and TMY simply doesn't look right to me for portraits.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 1, 2006

Wouldn't consider myself being a portrait specialist or anything, but since APX100 disappeared, I've been using FP-4 and nothing else for important work. It is an outstanding film that has served me well in the few portraits I've made.
Nice tonality, responds great to different developers. I use it with Rodinal 1+50 for 13 minutes, but if you're making 16x20 enlargements, you may want to use a fine grain developer instead. FP4 does not have the tightest grain around, but is still a fine grain film.

Another film that I tried and liked for portraits was Efke 50. It is orthochromatic, so will not respond to red light, which could be a benefit in making portraits to smooth out skin tones. The Efke is very fine grained, and will work extremely well if you're enlarging to 16x20. I realize it's 50 speed, but I'd consider it. The Efke 100 I don't think is orthochromatic, so used as portrait film it doesn't have the same advantage. It's also not nearly as fine grained as the Efke 50.

- Thom

aldevo · Jan 1, 2006

huggyviking said:
Another film that I tried and liked for portraits was Efke 50. It is orthochromatic, so will not respond to red light, which could be a benefit in making portraits to smooth out skin tones.
- Thom

Diminished red sensitivity will darken lips, freckles, and facial blemishes. Not necessarily bad depending upon what your after, but the effect is generally that skin possesses a greater sense of texture - i.e. it isnt' smoother at all.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 2, 2006

Paul, I do tons of natural light family portrait work (as you know ) and wouldn't recommend standardizing on an ISO 100 film if you intend to use mostly natural light. Shooting on location indoors with natural light, I rarely have the luxury of getting anything faster than f/4 @ 1/125 -- with ISO 320 film. Remember that the more subjects you have, the more you'll have to stop your aperture down (and/or get your subjects on the same plane) to get everyone in focus.

I'd recommend Tri-X 320 or 400. There is some grain, but it is attractive, and I've enlarged it very big with great results. Believe me, you'll still get shallow DOF, particularly when you get close to the subjects and/or move them well in front of whatever is behind them.

- CJ

fhovie · Jan 2, 2006

If you abandon natural light - and want 16x20 - I would use Ilford Pan F. It is 50 ASA and will stay a lot tighter in your enlargements. For natural light, I am thinking either TRI-X or TMAX 400. TRI-X is very forgiving and has edgy grain but TMY has much finer grain and greater contrast. The contrast will be useful in low light situations. TMY (or TRI-X) pushed (ASA1600) in XTOL (sharper) or Microphen (smoother) retains a reasonable grain structure and is great for lower light situations. There is nothing wrong with FP-4 (I shoot a lot of it) it is not significantly fine grain like the Pan F. I shoot it for its contrast and tonality characteristics.

df cardwell · Jan 2, 2006

Hey Paul

The thing that has always been the 'thing' about APX 100 is the color rendition. I'm reasonably content with TMY and a little filtration.

For studio conditions, why not just run with TX Pro ? Available light, TRI X.

bjorke · Jan 2, 2006

An extra feature (for me, anyway) of TXP is that, unlike Acros, it comes in 220

This is a lot of talk, the only real answer will be to buy a roll of each, find a hapless test subject and shoot a few pix. Saying "good for portraits" is really pretty darned vague, there are as many types of portrait renditions as there are possible varying dilutions of Rodinal. Make some pictures, pick based on the characteristics that you see, then choose a direction and go with it...

Natural light, ISO 320-400, Rodinal 1+50:

35mm Tri-X

645 HP5+

Paul Sorensen · Jan 2, 2006

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Paul, I do tons of natural light family portrait work (as you know ) and wouldn't recommend standardizing on an ISO 100 film if you intend to use mostly natural light. Shooting on location indoors with natural light, I rarely have the luxury of getting anything faster than f/4 @ 1/125 -- with ISO 320 film. Remember that the more subjects you have, the more you'll have to stop your aperture down (and/or get your subjects on the same plane) to get everyone in focus.

I'd recommend Tri-X 320 or 400. There is some grain, but it is attractive, and I've enlarged it very big with great results. Believe me, you'll still get shallow DOF, particularly when you get close to the subjects and/or move them well in front of whatever is behind them.

- CJ

I also like TriX, but I am largely going to be using strobe (sorry Cheryl, I know that this hurts your feelings ), so I am not sure that it will work well. I need to do some testing to see that it won't bee too fast for my needs. Perhaps it will work well and that will be great for me, since I have a mess of it already. I will certaintly use it to the extent that I do available light. I think also that I will use FP4+ if I want to have something slower for strobes. At least I will give it a try. Thanks everyone!

Paul.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 2, 2006

Paul, FWIW, I've used Tri-X 32 and 400 extensively with strobes as well (in a previous life, I mean!) and it worked just ducky. Shhh..... don't tell.

Paul Sorensen · Jan 2, 2006

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Paul, FWIW, I've used Tri-X 32 and 400 extensively with strobes as well (in a previous life, I mean!) and it worked just ducky. Shhh..... don't tell.

Well, the only time I did it I didn't set the lights up and I was working at f16 and above. I was not happy with the situation. Perhaps the key here is setting up the lights appropriately for the faster film. I will look into that as well.

Hey, I am making my 1000th post. Woo hoo!

By the way, where's Laz? I wanted him here to celebrate with me.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 2, 2006

Good lord, man. You joined a year and a half after me and have that many posts? What's wrong with you? What's wrong with ME?

100 Speed Portrait Film Advice

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency