A film for beautiful tonality?

[bjmc]

There was a similiarish thread on RFF a while back - some of the discussion may be relevant.

I'd say, try TX400 @ 100, develop with Xtol/D76, subtract 25% off standard (400) developing time, and see what that gets you.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

There are wonderful photographs in this thread. Gives me hope I may someday make a decent photograph.

 

[gone]

If you're looking for tonality, Tri-X and D76 is a tried and true combination. I shoot it all the time, both in 135 and 120 formats. I also like Arista EDU Ultra 100 developed in Microdol-X full strength for a sharper and less grainiy look. You can still buy a fair amount of Mic-X on auctions, and I have yet to find a bad package. I like Rodinal for its sharpness, but for tonality, you really can't beat Tri-X/D76. Myself, I like it shot at 200-250 ISO.

 

[Black Dog]

There are wonderful photographs in this thread. Gives me hope I may someday make a decent photograph.

Hold that thought! I've tried pretty much every film out there over the last 30+ years, but HP5+ remains my workhorse [also XP2] and I'm pretty familiar with it by now. I do miss Verichrome Pan though, and was a big fan of Forte's film as well as their paper.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Interesting. The OP posts one of my photos which is developed in Rodinal as the type of tonality he wants. But as I mentioned, developer don't matter...


Albany roof garden macro SL66 80Planar(old) Neopan400 Rodinal 1-50 9min30sec 22C 1minAg 2008-06 ES 4990 001 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

.... And yet Tri-X doesn't do it for me!

It's only because you have not experienced it with a developer in which you "clicked".

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Paul (OP), curious if you like the tonality of either of these:


San Quentin Beach Rolleiflex2-8E Planar 400TX(Tri-X) HC-110dilH 9min 19C 30secAg1x 2012-09 VSmac 9000 Scan-130105-0004 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


Fern grove-Lily pond GGP Rolleiflex2-8EPlanar 400TX(Tri-X) HC-110dilH 04-2012 VSmac 9000 Scan-120425-0007 FFw by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[removedacct1]

It's only because you have not experienced it with a developer in which you "clicked".

Surely Tri-X @ 250ASA in D76 1:1 ought to have "clicked"?!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any film you choose will have much better tonality if you develop the film in replenished XTOL.

 

[cliveh]

Doesn't the subject and lighting provide the greater degree of tonality rather than the film?

 

[removedacct1]

Paul (OP), curious if you like the tonality of either of these:

The first one (San Quentin Beach; beautiful image) I like, yes. The second one - not so much - it has a less tactile quality for me, which I think is because the leaf textures are more "invested" in highlights at the top end of the scale. The second image is one I think of as a "typical Tri-X" look, but the SQ Beach has more "life" in it for my tastes, and its because of those rich, subtle greys.

Was this a trick question? You state that both of these are Tri-X in HC110.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Richard,

Those photos are beautiful, and further proof that it's ultimately the mind of the photographer, and the choices he or she makes, that creates the picture.

Paul (OP), curious if you like the tonality of either of these:


San Quentin Beach Rolleiflex2-8E Planar 400TX(Tri-X) HC-110dilH 9min 19C 30secAg1x 2012-09 VSmac 9000 Scan-130105-0004 by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr


Fern grove-Lily pond GGP Rolleiflex2-8EPlanar 400TX(Tri-X) HC-110dilH 04-2012 VSmac 9000 Scan-120425-0007 FFw by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

 

[Alan Klein]

This is Tmax 100 processed by a lab in Xtol. I haven;t printed it only scanned so for what it's worth. Of course I played a little with the contrast but I suppose you do the same thing with chemical printing. No?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Surely Tri-X @ 250ASA in D76 1:1 ought to have "clicked"?!

Well, yes, it has the potential too. For example, I used to think HC-110 was nothing special. Then something happened. Now I love it. I joke now that they must have changed the formula. But it's me who figured out or dialed it in....

 

[Alan Klein]

Michael: I agree with you. That's why I said I adjusted the contrast before posting, something you can do with chemical processing as well. So my picture is as valid as any other pictures posted as an example. So I guess the point is as others have said. It all depends on how you process and print it.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

This is Tmax 100 processed by a lab in Xtol. I haven;t printed it only scanned so for what it's worth. Of course I played a little with the contrast but I suppose you do the same thing with chemical printing. No?

View attachment 101115

Alan this is really nice.

 

[polyglot]

All of them. "Tonality" is 99% in your lighting.

 

[marciofs]

For tonalities I think more about filters. The orange filter often gives more tonality range as far as I can notice, specially when photographing in the woods with many shades of green and brown in the scene.

My attention towards negatives are about sharpness like Pan F for its soft look. I like Delta for its well distributed tonalities and sharpness but I prefer Fomapan because it has something in its look which looks more classic, and so on.

But what ever I use I think on filters when look for tonalities.

By the way, I don't like Kodak black and white films at all.

 

[flavio81]

All of them. "Tonality" is 99% in your lighting.

and filtering and exposure and development time adjustments.

 

[cliveh]

All of them. "Tonality" is 99% in your lighting.

The subject is important.

 

[Sirius Glass]

All of them. "Tonality" is 99% in your lighting.

Subject, subject surfaces, film, developer, printing, print developer, paper, toners, ... I only addressed the film developer.

 

[Axle]

Surely Tri-X @ 250ASA in D76 1:1 ought to have "clicked"?!

Personally I like Tri-x @ 250 in PMK Pyro!



Or TMax 100 @ 32 in Xtol

 

[L Gebhardt]

I will agree that most of the tonality comes down to light. But there is also a component to it involving grain, enlargement size, developer staining, edge effects, etc. They can all have a visible impact on the perceived tonality of the print. I think the smaller the format the more the choice of film matters to the look of the image since you are magnifying the film more so the structure of the film is more visible.

In that regard I really like TMY2 shot at 200 in replenished XTOL for my medium format film. It has about the same grain as FP4+ (which I also like a lot), but is two stops faster. I find this combination gets out of the way when making prints. But there are probably tons of other film and developer combos that can equal this, so I'm not saying in any way TMY2 in XTOL is a magic bullet.