B&W Film Suggestions for 120?

Tmax is far less grainy than Tri-X; for example you can make a 16x20 print from 6x7 TMY2/xtol and not see any grain. Lots of examples here. And you can shoot it at EI800 easily without getting problematically high contrast.

If you want the little extra sharpness and bite of some visible grain, soup your Tmax in Rodinal. The grain has more magnitude than in Xtol or D76 but it is much finer than with Tri-X.

snegron said:

I need a tad (just a tad) of grain; enough to let the images stand out as only true film can. While I convert a bunch of color to B&W digi files all the time, it's just just not the same; they lack soul.

The 90 does do well on shadows, but it lacks contrast/saturation (at least with the Porta films I put through it). I'm guessing if I use a filter on it I will get better results, but then my hopes for handheld diminish even more.

Click to expand...

Both of those statements indicate that your scanning workflow is lacking but this isn't the place to talk about it. I have a C41 scan howto in my FAQ (see below) though and you might want to play with S-curves to make your B&Ws punchier.

When I'm after a vintage look I go with Fomapan 400. Otherwise, I shoot Ilford HP5.


Kent in SD

PS the above is not to denigrate 400TX (Tri-X), which can look pretty damn good in medium format. However it (like HP5) is pretty damn crunchy. IMHO if you're moving to medium format, you want high resolution I don't reckon that 400TX in medium format is much better than Pan-F or Acros in 35mm. So I shoot T-grain films in big sizes.

snegron said:

I'm shooting for the closest "Ansel Adams" look without having to go large format...

Click to expand...

then you want slower film so you get more information on the neg, whether you can see it or not, your mind knows it's there. Uncle Ansel made contact prints from 8 by 10 negs...

so go slow, Ilford Pan F asa 50, or fuji acros asa 100 (wonderful stuff) -- if ur shooting portraits and landscapes you don't want high-speed anyway. Slower film will give you better tonal ranges, too, and amazing detail. I have the 11 by 14 blow-ups from Rolleiflex negs to prove it..

if you still want speed, use Ilford XP-2, the c-41 process stuff -- it has an amazing tonal range when exposed at asa 400, grain better than asa 100 film, amazing blacks and whites without blocking up or blowing out. I can personally vouch for its wonderfulness.

First is tri x in d76 using rb67 and 50mm lens,Second is tmax 400 and tmax rs developer mamiya c330.I prefer tri x. but it's all good!

snegron said:

Last time I used Tri-X I think was back in 1987. From 1983 to 1987 I was shooting several rolls a day and doing my own developing/printing for press work. I still have a few developed negatives from back then; they look grainy compared to what I do now in PS!

Click to expand...

You should just buy a roll and shoot it to see. Like I said, even in 35mm format it's quite fine grained. It's really a new film that share the common name.

Shoot TriX400 and develop it in Diafine 5+5 AND LIVE WITH IT. nothing is better or even comes close. Get it while you can. Once Kodak stabs us in the back its over!!!
Logan

Since you'll be scanning, why not use a clean color negative film like 160 or 400 Portra. They scan really well and have little grain. Since you'll be working with PS, you can punch up the contrast in post. You also will have more control of the conversion to B/W starting with color negatives than with B/W negatives. You can make lighter or darker monochrome tones for each color separately. You can't do that with B/W negatives.

polyglot said:

Tmax is far less grainy than Tri-X; for example you can make a 16x20 print from 6x7 TMY2/xtol and not see any grain. Lots of examples here. And you can shoot it at EI800 easily without getting problematically high contrast.

If you want the little extra sharpness and bite of some visible grain, soup your Tmax in Rodinal. The grain has more magnitude than in Xtol or D76 but it is much finer than with Tri-X.



Both of those statements indicate that your scanning workflow is lacking but this isn't the place to talk about it. I have a C41 scan howto in my FAQ (see below) though and you might want to play with S-curves to make your B&Ws punchier.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Beautiful images! Anything close to that is what I'm aspiring to achieve.

While I will eventually be developing my own negatives in the future ( I have new stainless steel tanks and reels for 120/220, several new dark plastic containers for chemicals and even some unopened D76 in a box somewhere), for the time being I plan on sending my negatives to a lab for processing. One of my main reasons is that due to the fact that it has been so many years since I develop my own rolls, I will more than likely have to go through several rolls before I get it right. Once I get a few sets of developed negatives back from a reputable lab, I will have a baseline standard to compare with once I start doing it myself. I also have to set up one of my bathrooms for film developing as well. Both have windows and there is plenty of light that comes through them no matter what time of night. I will have to practice loading reels in a large dark bag, but I have to do more research on the most practical method.

Scanning is another issue. While I plan to have the labs scan the negatives when they develop them, I plan to scan them again. I have a couple of old scanners I use and I have gotten pretty decent results with them in the past (scanning both 120 color Porta and 35mm slides). I might need to update to a newer film scanner soon, but I don't want to spend a small fortune on this. My medium format B&W experiment is just for fun (artistic self-satisfaction with the hopes of creating large prints for hanging on my living room wall), not for any commercial workflow.

p.s. Thanks for the link to your FAQ page as well! Very helpful info there! I will definitely be using it as a reference guide throughout this whole experiment! Thanks!

snegron said:

Thanks Rolfe! I have never used TMAX-400. How does it compare to Tri-X in terms of grain/tonality? Any major differences/advantages over Tri-X?

Click to expand...

Tons has been written about the differences between TMAX-400 and Tri-X. Suffice it to say that both have been re-formulated from their original incarnations. They are now more alike than different -- Tri-X is now finer grained and TMAX-400 now has more guts in the mid-tones. Personally, I use TMAX-400 in 120 as I'm usually using it for portraits or other subject matter where a clean look works aesthetically. In 35mm, I use both films, but I have to say the low grain in 35mm TMY almost eliminates the need for 100 speed film in that format.

whlogan said:

Shoot TriX400 and develop it in Diafine 5+5 AND LIVE WITH IT. nothing is better or even comes close. Get it while you can. Once Kodak stabs us in the back its over!!!
Logan

Click to expand...

Some people might chuckle at this advice, but I think it's the best advice in this discussion so far. Not that the others are off-base, but that Tri-X and Diafine is an outstanding combo and it also scans very nice too. I don't use it very much at all anymore mainly because my style/type of photography has changed. This stuff is a low-light, street photographers dream come true. Diafine is always in two containers on my darkroom shelf and if I need it I rate my Tri-X at between asa/iso 1000 and 1250. The nice thing about Diafine is that if you should buy it to try and aren't real keen on it don't worry, it last almost forever and trust me, you'll find uses for it. I use it with cheap film to test used cameras out that I fixup and repair. There are sites on the NET if you search Diafine and scanning or Diafine with a particular film, that will help you out. I'm not saying it's a magic bullet, but it comes pretty close. Oh, and it's not just for Tri-X either! I did try some Fuji Across in it a couple of times and was very happy with it. I just bought some Arista EDU 100(Foma) in 120 format and will run one roll in Diafine to see what it does. Someday I might even get a few rolls of Arista EDU 400 to try with it. I would seriously think about Diafine and think it might be just the "look" you are after. Just my opinion of course! JohnW

summicron1 said:

then you want slower film so you get more information on the neg, whether you can see it or not, your mind knows it's there. Uncle Ansel made contact prints from 8 by 10 negs...

so go slow, Ilford Pan F asa 50, or fuji acros asa 100 (wonderful stuff) -- if ur shooting portraits and landscapes you don't want high-speed anyway. Slower film will give you better tonal ranges, too, and amazing detail. I have the 11 by 14 blow-ups from Rolleiflex negs to prove it..

if you still want speed, use Ilford XP-2, the c-41 process stuff -- it has an amazing tonal range when exposed at asa 400, grain better than asa 100 film, amazing blacks and whites without blocking up or blowing out. I can personally vouch for its wonderfulness.

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% regarding slower film. My main reason for going with ISO400 is for the few extra stops I get with the hopes of hand-holding my 645. I will most likely use a tripod with my RB67 though as it weighs 8 pounds with CDS metered prism attached!

Thanks for the tip on the Ilford!

Rolfe Tessem said:

Tons has been written about the differences between TMAX-400 and Tri-X. Suffice it to say that both have been re-formulated from their original incarnations. They are now more alike than different -- Tri-X is now finer grained and TMAX-400 now has more guts in the mid-tones. Personally, I use TMAX-400 in 120 as I'm usually using it for portraits or other subject matter where a clean look works aesthetically. In 35mm, I use both films, but I have to say the low grain in 35mm TMY almost eliminates the need for 100 speed film in that format.

Click to expand...

I'm probably going to buy a few rolls of both to experiment with. Tmax seems to be more what I'm looking for, however I would like to shoot a few rolls of Tr-X to see how it has changed since the last time I used it.

tkamiya said:

You should just buy a roll and shoot it to see. Like I said, even in 35mm format it's quite fine grained. It's really a new film that share the common name.

Click to expand...

Thanks! I will be buying a few Tmax and Tri-X rolls to try them out.

Arista edu 100 and 200 souped in hc-110 or xtol.

Alan Klein said:

Since you'll be scanning, why not use a clean color negative film like 160 or 400 Portra. They scan really well and have little grain. Since you'll be working with PS, you can punch up the contrast in post. You also will have more control of the conversion to B/W starting with color negatives than with B/W negatives. You can make lighter or darker monochrome tones for each color separately. You can't do that with B/W negatives.

Click to expand...

It would feel too much like converting my normal color digital files to B&W! I really can't complain about the current conversions I get in PS; I tweak them to the point of looking as if they were shot with film. They key words are "looking as if" they were shot with film. There is a richness in tones that can only be achieved with true B&W film. The biggest challenge is scanning the negatives as best as possible to capture those tones. While I have recently printed/framed 16"x20" B&W conversions for commercial display, I know I could have gotten even richer results had I started with a B&W negative.

Thanks everyone! I ordered several rolls of Kodak Tmax and Ilford Delta 400.

I've found that Fuji SPD developer results in much less grain than D-76 when using Tri-X 400. D-76 requires more vigorous agitation to avoid uneven development but that results in more grain. SPD works great with very slow agitation (continuous for first 60 seconds followed by 10 seconds each additional minute). Speed of agitation is about 4 full inversions in 10 seconds. With D-76 I find that I have to do much faster and more frequent agitation for about 4-5 seconds every 30 seconds or else the edges get bright and center is dark. I've just purchased a bunch of T-Max 400 and a bottle of Ifosol 3 so we will see how that turns out in a few days.

I'm a custom lab tech and use T-Max TMRS developer on T-Max Films in particular TMY with good results. A lot of my customers are in the Annual Report business and shoot in all kinds of lighting conditions.
Bill LaPete

bill@lapetelabs.com said:

I'm a custom lab tech and use T-Max TMRS developer on T-Max Films in particular TMY with good results. A lot of my customers are in the Annual Report business and shoot in all kinds of lighting conditions.
Bill LaPete

Click to expand...

My next project is finding an online B&W lab where I can send my rolls to be developed.

snegron said:

My next project is finding an online B&W lab where I can send my rolls to be developed.

Click to expand...

Why not just do it yourself? It's easy and so cheap.

revdocjim said:

Why not just do it yourself? It's easy and so cheap.

Click to expand...

I plan to in the near future. For now I have to use a lab. I don't have the space/facilities to develop my own rolls at this time.

snegron said:

I plan to in the near future. For now I have to use a lab. I don't have the space/facilities to develop my own rolls at this time.

Click to expand...

I develop my film at the kitchen table. All the chemicals and equipment fits in two shopping bags and gets stored in a closet when not in use. I hang the negatives to dry just about anywhere in the house and then scan them at my desk.

revdocjim said:

I develop my film at the kitchen table. All the chemicals and equipment fits in two shopping bags and gets stored in a closet when not in use. I hang the negatives to dry just about anywhere in the house and then scan them at my desk.

Click to expand...

Finding a dark enough space in my house is a problem. Working inside a bag (loading film onto a reel inside a bag) is next to impossible for me! Back in my much younger days when I used to develop my own negatives and printed my own work, I had trouble loading film onto reels; and that was in a large darkroom! As for the chemical storage, I remember it having to be refrigerated (especially due to the fact that it is very hot here in Florida); that would take up precious real estate space inside my refrigerator!

For these first few rolls I would like a pro lab to develop them. If I like the results then I will invest more time and effort into creating a small lab in my house, then I will develop my own stuff.

I am not very experienced... but here goes what I have tested in 120.

T-max 400 in Rodinal 1:50 has non-perceivable grain in a 16x16 inch enlargement (about 7.5x) as seen from 1 foot.
It is less grainy (a lot less) than a Tri-X at 10 to 12 inch side print (4.5x to 5.5x), from Rodinal 1:50 development.
It was immediately apparent that the grain structure was not the same.

Depending on your enlargement sizes, T-max 400 might be the only film you will ever need. It is also one of the cheapest 400 films in Europe, if not the cheapest.

http://www.macodirect.de/roll-film-c-1_6_37_322_324.html