Beginning the Journey

[desertnick]

After recently acquiring an enlarging setup from a retiring photographer in the Southwest United States, I’m transitioning from color negative to black and white film. To simplify things, I’m considering committing to a single film stock, chemistry, paper, and developer. Since I primarily shoot high-contrast scenes and portraits, I believe a film stock with less contrast would be ideal for my environment. I plan to print 6x7 negatives on the LPL 4500 II enlarger with a Super Dichroic head using an 80mm APO-Rodagon-N f4 lens. I have a preference for the grain and look of Kodak Tri-X. However, my opinions are based solely on observing other photographers’ work. I would greatly appreciate advice from experienced photographers and printers on the merits of different film stocks.

I should also note that I reside in a region where temperatures typically fluctuate between 30° and 40° during the summer months. I’m concerned that the heat in my area might influence my film stock selections. Regarding development, I’ll likely need to employ an ice bath for my chemistry, and if paper development requires similar temperatures, I might have to work in the darkroom at night when it’s cooler. Even in the evening, temperatures usually stay around 26°. While I acknowledge that there might be more effective chemical alternatives, I prefer to take any chance to avoid potential hazards. I’m interested in exploring options that use fewer toxic compounds.

-Nick

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
Tri-X would be as good a choice as any. You might prefer the availability of Ilford HP5+.
If cost is a concern, there is a fair amount of FOMA film around - both branded that way and re-branded with names like Arista.
Your preference for grain is an argument against using slower than ISO 400 emulsions or any of the Kodak T-Max or Ilford Delta films, so my preference for a pair of films - T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 - probably won't suit you.
Most of the relatively easily obtained films can be used in ways to make the results come out quite similarly. For that reason, it makes sense to give extra weight to criteria like availability and cost. In addition, in light of where you live, you may want to consider the availability of data regarding slightly higher temperature (24C) processing.
Most of the commonly available and used darkroom chemicals are easy to handle and not particularly toxic at working strength. With one possible exception, you wouldn't be safe drinking them and you wouldn't want to bathe in them, but taking reasonable care should prevent any problems. Most can be disposed of in a septic system, if reasonably diluted, although I would be cautious about doing that with silver laden spent fixer, as the silver is a bactericide.
In your environment, you might actually want to pay closer attention to procedures that minimize water use.
The Ascorbic acid based developers like Kodak X-Tol and some competitors probably have the lowest environmental impact among film developers, but in essence, unless your volumes are exceptionally high - think commercial labs - the environmental impact of all the normally encountered options is quite light, if you handle things prudently. Even the most problematic solution - silver laden spent fixer - makes decent fertilizer! But if you don't have an appropriate garden for that, there are other ways to deal with it.
Given the temperatures you encounter, and the fact you will be using 120 film with backing paper, you may want to pay extra attention to the relative susceptibility of backing paper equipped film to harsh conditions. Storing film in some sort of climate controlled conditions and using relatively "fresh" and developing it promptly may be extra important for you if you wish to avoid the problems with film and backing paper interactions - "wrapper offset" and related effects - that seem more common now.
I believe that the Kodak films use the most modern version of backing paper, and that may currently be the most heat resistant, but I've seen nothing that specifically addresses that issue.

 

[BHuij]

If I could only have one B&W film to shoot (though I'm a nature photographer working in primarily low contrast areas) it would probably be HP5+ for its flexibility. That said, I prefer the slower Delta 100 (in 35mm) and FP4+ (in larger formats) to HP5+ in most cases... they're just less flexible and much harder to shoot handheld.

At the end of the day, pick one and try it, and be prepared to try out other ones to form your own opinions on what you like.

As for heat, I have a small film fridge for storing my film. I live in a desert climate that gets very hot in the summer, and the air conditioning for my house doesn't work extremely well upstairs where my darkroom is. It's not uncommon for my darkroom to be upwards of 80°F during the day in summer months. For film I find it's mostly a non-issue. I keep a jug of distilled water at room temp for mixing up my developer, and a bottle of the same distilled water in the film fridge. It's easy to mix them to get water just shy of my target 68°F for development, then add the developer, and carefully use hand heat to bring it up to working temp immediately before use. Stop bath/fixer/etc. are all just done at room temp, I've never had issues with reticulation or anything.

For printing I also just store and use the chemicals at room temp. If there is any effect, I have not been able to observe it - and that includes re-printing negatives using recorded times discovered by previously using test strips in different months. I suspect developer temp in the tray for silver gelatin printing is not a particularly critical factor, within reasonable parameters (don't use boiling water).

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A film that may suit your needs, is HP5. I've used it for decades, including 12 years in very hot, humid, southern Japan. I use its formats from 120 to 8x10. Matt recommends XTol. It works exceptionally well with HP5. My preference is a 1+1 dilution, or replenished (XTol-R). There is also Adox's XT-3, which is essentially, XTol. Cheers and welcome to Photrio!

 

[GregY]

Welcome to Photrio.
Tri-X would be as good a choice as any. You might prefer the availability of Ilford HP5+.
If cost is a concern, there is a fair amount of FOMA film around - both branded that way and re-branded with names like Arista.
Your preference for grain is an argument against using slower than ISO 400 emulsions or any of the Kodak T-Max or Ilford Delta films, so my preference for a pair of films - T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 - probably won't suit you.
Most of the relatively easily obtained films can be used in ways to make the results come out quite similarly. For that reason, it makes sense to give extra weight to criteria like availability and cost. In addition, in light of where you live, you may want to consider the availability of data regarding slightly higher temperature (24C) processing.
Most of the commonly available and used darkroom chemicals are easy to handle and not particularly toxic at working strength. With one possible exception, you wouldn't be safe drinking them and you wouldn't want to bathe in them, but taking reasonable care should prevent any problems. Most can be disposed of in a septic system, if reasonably diluted, although I would be cautious about doing that with silver laden spent fixer, as the silver is a bactericide.
In your environment, you might actually want to pay closer attention to procedures that minimize water use.
The Ascorbic acid based developers like Kodak X-Tol and some competitors probably have the lowest environmental impact among film developers, but in essence, unless your volumes are exceptionally high - think commercial labs - the environmental impact of all the normally encountered options is quite light, if you handle things prudently. Even the most problematic solution - silver laden spent fixer - makes decent fertilizer! But if you don't have an appropriate garden for that, there are other ways to deal with it.
Given the temperatures you encounter, and the fact you will be using 120 film with backing paper, you may want to pay extra attention to the relative susceptibility of backing paper equipped film to harsh conditions. Storing film in some sort of climate controlled conditions and using relatively "fresh" and developing it promptly may be extra important for you if you wish to avoid the problems with film and backing paper interactions - "wrapper offset" and related effects - that seem more common now.
I believe that the Kodak films use the most modern version of backing paper, and that may currently be the most heat resistant, but I've seen nothing that specifically addresses that issue.

Matt since the OP is in the USA SW....(especially w tariffs) i'd expect Tri-X would have a more reliable supply and lower cost than HP5 ?

 

[Paul Howell]

I have lived in the Phoenix Metro area for the past 40 years, I shoot in in 35mm, 6X6, 6X7, 6X9 and 4X5. In the past I used Kentmeye (which I still used for my point and shoots cameras that are Dx dependent), Ultafine and some Kodak double X. Without an anti-halogen layer these films are tricky to shoot due the glare. What I have found that shooting in desert is that the scenes are often quite bright but low contrast, Reflected light, dust and pollution scatter the light. When there are shadows, they can become very deep, in most cases the shadows are unimportant, and I just let them go to Zone 1 or II rather than drive myself crazy trying to get a wood pecker hole in a saguaro cactus in zone III. My day to day walk around film is Foma 400, when traveling I shoot Tmax 400 and 100. For roll MF films I gone to back to Tmax 400 as Foma MF films have too much curl. I have used many different developers, right now I have Dk50 for 4X5, D76 for 6X9 Clayton F76+ for 6X6 and 135. After a few years of using Diafine I have returned to Photographers Formulary MCM 100. I had stopped using it due to cost but never got the same results with another developer. It is quite toxic, but semi compensating, with fine tight grain. MCM stands for Miniature Camera Magazine which was an English population in the 50 and 60s, MCM 100 was developed by their staff for the grainy film stock of the day, and I find to be very good with Foma 400. Clayton F76+ is easy to use, a liquid that is used 1:9 or 1:14, it is a good general purpose developer similar to D76 in working characters. In the summer when it is 110+ day after day I use all my developers at 75 degrees but when my tap water runs 90 degrees, I use a homemade water chiller with ice to bring the wash water down to 75 to 80 degrees.

 

[BHuij]

Matt since the OP is in the USA SW....(especially w tariffs) i'd expect Tri-X would have a more reliable supply and lower cost than HP5 ?

I can find either of them in SW USA easily at local camera stores. Generally TriX is more expensive. We're in a rare moment on B&H where TriX is $9/roll and HP5+ is $11/roll. Interestingly, TriX is still more expensive in 100' bulk rolls, which is how I've been buying my HP5+ for the better part of a decade now.

 

[Paul Howell]

I think as long a folks are willing to pay the additional cost of tariffs I don't think supply will be an issue for either ILford or Foma products. The UK has a separate trade agreement with the U.S, but Foma is part of the EU so it might wind up being higher than ILford or Harman branded films.

 

[GregY]

Welcome desertnick! I don't think it matters which you choose. & there are always work arounds.
Depending on what you're after, a monopod or tripod can be the answer. In medium format, Tmax100/Delta100 are magic for bigger prints......but if i had to choose one.....it would be FP4+...(and i've got impressive 16x20, 20x24 prints).
I gather you're not machine gunning...... so if i were to choose one, i'd avoid Foma for it's qc issues.
Impressive 400 iso..... TMax400 is magic with fine reciprocity characteristics and smooth grain.
I think choosing 1 film stock and learning how it reacts under all lighting conditions is a big bonus

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to Photrio!

Setting up a darkroom is a large leap.