A film for beautiful tonality?

[removedacct1]

In the past year and a bit, I've sampled most of the readily-obtained B&W 120 format films to see which - if any - address my personal aesthetic needs and notions. At this point I am finding I like many different emulsions, but I can't say I've settled on any single film as far as tonality is concerned. (I'm looking for a film that has a broad and particularly luminous tonal scale - perhaps a bit unreasonable, since many films are no doubt capable of it if used under the right conditions. Recent examples of Neopan400 have struck a note with me, for instance)
However, I'd like to ask you folks if you feel that - for you - there is one particular 120 roll film that produces an especially tactile, engaging tonality more so than any other film. Speed isn't a huge concern, but I'm not likely to pursue a fast film (over 400 ASA) because I don't like coarse grain.

Here is a piece I shot yesterday on Tmax 100, processed in Rodinal 1:50, with my Minolta Autocord - I like the result, but I find there's something about the tonal scale that - for me - feels a bit "artificial". (Something about how the middle greys suddenly transition to higher values, perhaps?) Maybe Rodinal isn't doing me any favors here - I dont know. Sometimes I really like how Tmax100 delivers tonality, and other times it disappoints me. D like to find a film that feels more consistent/reliable to me. Whaddaya think?

 

[frank]

I go with old school non-T grain film like FP4, HP5, Tri-X.

 

[snapguy]

pan

Panatomic-X.

 

[David Brown]

The "bold" statement I will make (and have made before) is that in the absence of data, in order to say things like "I prefer the tonality of film x over film y", one would at least need to do the following: make the same photographs of the same scene on various films at various exposure levels, develop them all to the same gradient, and then print them all, first on the same grade of paper, then on different grades without manipulation.

I did all those tests years ago: switching out film backs to make identical shots with different films, same films with different developers, different papers, same paper, different paper developer ...

Furthermore consider the wide variety of films great printers use. George Tice uses Tri-X. John Sexton uses T-Max. Mark Citret uses whatever he can get. It almost doesn't matter. Continuing with Sexton as an example, before the age of T-Max he used an array of films throughout his career, from long-toed TXP to FP4 to Agfa. Flip through a book like "Recollections" which has a cross section of his long career, and try to figure out which images were made on which film based on tonality. A futile exercise. They all look the same.

Unless I just happen to remember, I cannot look at any of my prints and tell you what film it is. There are just too many other variables.

I guess I'm in good company ...

 

[R.Gould]

I've used Fomapan pretty much exclusivly for the past few years, developed in either Rodinal 1/50 or D76 stock. mainly the 400 but I have recently used a bit of 200, but I prefer 400 at box speed, and I like the grain I get from the 35mm deved in rodinal

 

[wildbill]

Any film treated properly will be wonderful. Processing and printing are just as (if not more) important.

 

[brian steinberger]

I personally really like your photograph you posted. I think it has great tonality and I don't usually care for tmax films. BUT this isn't a print, it's a neg scan.

I prefer traditional films for tonality. Tri-x, FP4 and HP5. And rodinal gives great tonality so you're on the right track!

 

[fotch]

Perhaps D76 or Xtol would give you the change your looking for.

 

[JackRosa]

Tonality- Film/Developer Combo

In the past year and a bit, I've sampled most of the readily-obtained B&W 120 format films to see which - if any - address my personal aesthetic needs and notions. At this point I am finding I like many different emulsions, but I can't say I've settled on any single film as far as tonality is concerned. (I'm looking for a film that has a broad and particularly luminous tonal scale - perhaps a bit unreasonable, since many films are no doubt capable of it if used under the right conditions. Recent examples of Neopan400 have struck a note with me, for instance)
However, I'd like to ask you folks if you feel that - for you - there is one particular 120 roll film that produces an especially tactile, engaging tonality more so than any other film. Speed isn't a huge concern, but I'm not likely to pursue a fast film (over 400 ASA) because I don't like coarse grain.

Here is a piece I shot yesterday on Tmax 100, processed in Rodinal 1:50, with my Minolta Autocord - I like the result, but I find there's something about the tonal scale that - for me - feels a bit "artificial". (Something about how the middle greys suddenly transition to higher values, perhaps?) Maybe Rodinal isn't doing me any favors here - I dont know. Sometimes I really like how Tmax100 delivers tonality, and other times it disappoints me. D like to find a film that feels more consistent/reliable to me. Whaddaya think?

FP4 + PMK Pyro and FP4 + Pyrocat HD produce tonalities that impress me. However, FP4 in D76 (1+1) and Tri-X in D76 (1+1) are very, very close. I have settled on Tri-X and D76 (1+1). I also tested XTOL and ended up liking the effects of D76 better. I compared many, many, may prints side by side and settled on Tri-X + D76(1+1).

Rodinal (1+25) has been my "workhorse" for years with 8x10 negatives, but I do not at all like the result I get with this combo in smaller formats.

As far as paper: I like Oriental FB in Formulary's PD-130 developer, which I dilute (1+1). When I come across a negative that I really like, time to mix Amidol and dilute it (1+1). The new Ilford FB Classic in PD-130 (1+1) works well - results are very, very, very close to the ones with Oriental.

Hope this helps.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I've found pretty much all films capable of beautiful tonality once you dial them with experience and realize what you want. That said of course what defines "beautiful tonality" is a very subjective thing. Can you show us an example of your definition? I'm hugely into wide tonality myself over what many would call high contrast. You can see what I'd consider beautiful tonality in my Flickr stream link below. I'd be curious which you'd also define as such.

 

[removedacct1]

Perhaps D76 or Xtol would give you the change your looking for.

D76 has been my default for decades. Xtol is new to me and I am about to start a set of tests comparing it to Rodinal and D76 this weekend

 

[AgX]

Off Topic:
The car is a european Simca 1000, I even never came across here...

 

[removedacct1]

I've found pretty much all films capable of beautiful tonality once you dial them with experience and realize what you want. That said of course what defines "beautiful tonality" is a very subjective thing. Can you show us an example of your definition? I'm hugely into wide tonality myself over what many would call high contrast. You can see what I'd consider beautiful tonality in my Flickr stream link below. I'd be curious which you'd also define as such.

I agree, of course - its all very subjective. Here is a photo that illustrates what I think of as exceptional tonality:

For me, the life of a photo is almost entirely in its broad scale of greys.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Me too... I love fp4 in 4 x5 and 8x10

I go with old school non-T grain film like FP4, HP5, Tri-X.

 

[removedacct1]

I go with old school non-T grain film like FP4, HP5, Tri-X.

I admit I am liking Pan F and HP5 more than the Tmax films - so far.... And yet Tri-X doesn't do it for me!

 

[removedacct1]

Given current films have long exposure scales, and we have excellent variable contrast papers (and related printing techniques) at our disposal, you can likely use several different films and get virtually the same results.
In fact, I'm quite certain without side-by-side unmanipulated comparisons on the same paper, all the experts who swear by this and that, would be easily fooled. I'm confident I could make a contact print from a random FP4 negative, put it next to a contact print from a random TMY-2 negative, and the distribution of guesses would be essentially stochastic.

I knew this would come out of the discussion, and that's fine. Its a perfectly valid point, of course - and thanks for expressing it so eloquently. I guess to put a finer point on my question, I should ask if anyone has found certain emulsions are much more easily manipulated to perform as they want it to than certain other films? I mean - I often hear people express a dislike to the Tmax and Delta emulsions, claiming these more modern grain technologies are more difficult to work with. (Not sure I agree with that sentiment, but they do look different to me) And yet - sometimes the Tmax films give me results I like a lot. Case in point:

 

[frank]

Here's an hp5 developed in HC-110 shot the sings in terms of tonality for me.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

When you print TMax 100 negatives, I think your opinion will change. Scanning film is one thing, printing is another.

I find that I am having a lot of trouble identifying what film I used in certain prints, so much so that I have to go and check my notes to be able to tell with certainty. Most of that 'organic' look you are looking for comes with time if you truly learn how to use a certain film. But remember the film is just an intermediary, it is not a finished product until you look at the print.

Look at the work of John Sexton, for example. I'm pretty certain that he uses TMax 100. His pictures have a beautiful organic look to them. But that comes from years and years of using it and perfecting his skill with it. Then look at the prints from Tim Rudman, and I'm pretty certain he uses Ilford Delta, and his prints are so inspirational and gorgeous. And then look at Bill Schwab, who also presents really soulful and 'organic' looking prints, but uses Tri-X 400. Go figure. I don't think it's as much about the film as it is about experience and knowledge of how to use it, quite honestly.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Furthermore consider the wide variety of films great printers use. George Tice uses Tri-X. John Sexton uses T-Max. Mark Citret uses whatever he can get. It almost doesn't matter. Continuing with Sexton as an example, before the age of T-Max he used an array of films throughout his career, from long-toed TXP to FP4 to Agfa. Flip through a book like "Recollections" which has a cross section of his long career, and try to figure out which images were made on which film based on tonality. A futile exercise. They all look the same.

To this point, Michael Kenna has said that he uses whatever film is commonly available wherever he happens to be working.

 

[Neal]

It will be entertaining to see how many pages this thread grows to.

Neal Wydra

 

[removedacct1]

When you print TMax 100 negatives, I think your opinion will change. Scanning film is one thing, printing is another.

I find that I am having a lot of trouble identifying what film I used in certain prints, so much so that I have to go and check my notes to be able to tell with certainty. Most of that 'organic' look you are looking for comes with time if you truly learn how to use a certain film. But remember the film is just an intermediary, it is not a finished product until you look at the print.

Look at the work of John Sexton, for example. I'm pretty certain that he uses TMax 100. His pictures have a beautiful organic look to them. But that comes from years and years of using it and perfecting his skill with it. Then look at the prints from Tim Rudman, and I'm pretty certain he uses Ilford Delta, and his prints are so inspirational and gorgeous. And then look at Bill Schwab, who also presents really soulful and 'organic' looking prints, but uses Tri-X 400. Go figure. I don't think it's as much about the film as it is about experience and knowledge of how to use it, quite honestly.

Fair enough, and thank you. I will consider my question answered at this point

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I knew this would come out of the discussion, and that's fine. Its a perfectly valid point, of course - and thanks for expressing it so eloquently. I guess to put a finer point on my question, I should ask if anyone has found certain emulsions are much more easily manipulated to perform as they want it to than certain other films? I mean - I often hear people express a dislike to the Tmax and Delta emulsions, claiming these more modern grain technologies are more difficult to work with.

Sexton spoke on this many years ago when people were expressing frustration with the TMAX films. He said they were designed to be more responsive to Zone controls, especially expansion development, and that people really need to dial in their developments, almost to the point of being robotic about it. He said "be concerned about a one degree change in temperature."

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Perhaps D76 or Xtol would give you the change your looking for.

In my experience lighting, and exposure and development technique matters more than which developer used.

 

[darkosaric]

Processing and printing are just as (if not more) important.

Friend told me once that his colleague was on some advance training - and teacher gave all students the same negative and told them to do a print 20x30 cm at home. Later they were analyzing all prints together. Every print was totally different - some with nice tonality, some with too much contrast, good, bad ...

 

[RalphLambrecht]

In the past year and a bit, I've sampled most of the readily-obtained B&W 120 format films to see which - if any - address my personal aesthetic needs and notions. At this point I am finding I like many different emulsions, but I can't say I've settled on any single film as far as tonality is concerned. (I'm looking for a film that has a broad and particularly luminous tonal scale - perhaps a bit unreasonable, since many films are no doubt capable of it if used under the right conditions. Recent examples of Neopan400 have struck a note with me, for instance)
However, I'd like to ask you folks if you feel that - for you - there is one particular 120 roll film that produces an especially tactile, engaging tonality more so than any other film. Speed isn't a huge concern, but I'm not likely to pursue a fast film (over 400 ASA) because I don't like coarse grain.

Here is a piece I shot yesterday on Tmax 100, processed in Rodinal 1:50, with my Minolta Autocord - I like the result, but I find there's something about the tonal scale that - for me - feels a bit "artificial". (Something about how the middle greys suddenly transition to higher values, perhaps?) Maybe Rodinal isn't doing me any favors here - I dont know. Sometimes I really like how Tmax100 delivers tonality, and other times it disappoints me. D like to find a film that feels more consistent/reliable to me. Whaddaya think?

my personalfavorite for nudefigurestudies has always been Tmax400 and if you need a bit more'pop'I'd reach for Tmax 100!