Choosing versatile Bulk roll(s) - HP5, Delta, other?

[pentaxuser]

You'd have to shoot a lot to cover the cost of good bulk loading gear (not cheap !) before it's interesting. Sure, it will be at one point and for folks shooting large volume and commited to one film it can make sense.

Yes it all boils down to how large a volume, how long you have to live and crucially how long you can be sure you will be interested in film. In the case of two same speed films such as D400 and HP5 I'd have thought it was unlikely you will abandon either before using 100ft or 30m. In terms of the equivalent in cassettes a bulk roll is only 20 rolls. .

There are still reasonably cheap second hand bulk loaders.

pentaxuser

 

[thinkbrown]

A darkroom and some scissors makes for a pretty cheap bulk loading experience.... That's how I wrangle the 400ft rolls I have

 

[pentaxuser]

A darkroom and some scissors makes for a pretty cheap bulk loading experience.... That's how I wrangle the 400ft rolls I have

You are right but the main reason why more may not try this when they consider bulk loading is that it sounds much more difficult than loading a reel in the dark where the consequences may ruin a lot of film in the case of your method

Most people feel very uncomfortable if the greater certainty of a bulk loader is exchanged for the uncertainly ( perceived or real) of total darkness and scissors

The answer of suggesting that all that is required is sacrificing the equivalent of one cassette's worth of film plus plenty of practice is valid but has appeal to only a few brave and adventurous souls

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

There are still reasonably cheap second hand bulk loaders.

pentaxuser

I was gifted one of the original Lloyds Bulk Loaders - clearly well used, but in fine working condition. Those can be had for $25-$40 USD on the marketplace if you watch carefully and have some patience.

 

[F4U]

I have my original Lloyds loader I bought new. I keep it in its box with the store price sticker still on it. Camera World $5.95. Works perfect. Of course at that time a 100 foot roll of Tri-X was outrageous. $17.00

 

[MattKing]

Matt, would you mind elaborating this a bit?

You can manipulate the curve shape a bit with T-Max 400, if you vary the developer and development technique.
And its inherently fine grain means you can both under-expose and over-expose it, adjust development time accordingly, and the resulting increase in grain doesn't penalize you as much as with other films.
I expect @Steven Lee is the type of photographer who refines his approach to film in order to wrest the highest amount of detail and tonality out of the results. And if you do that, your results from T-Max 400 may very well resemble the results from digital.
But there are many other things you can get out of T-Max 400.
And there is absolutely no doubt that if you prefer to print optically, you want a film negative - whether or not you are looking for something that behaves like digital.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I am inclined to agree with this, but - I also find T-max films to be reasonably malleable in terms of the look they deliver.
Where a film like Tri-X or HP5+ have a characteristic look “baked in” to them, T-max is far more neutral. This is because Tri-X has an S-shaped curve, whereas T-Max 400 has a much more straight line curve. (forgive me if I am overstating the obvious)

Often, photographers prefer a film that has a definite “look” bias; they know their images are going to have a certain visual character if they choose something like Tri-X, and they know how to work with those characteristics. For many, T-Max can appear sterile and overly clean, lacking the qualities that define it as having "film" traits. This perception of “digital-looking” is valid, as T-Max’s lack of distinct traits may not resonate with all photographers.

But I have learned to be thoughtful about which film I use for the circumstances. Sometimes Tri-X (or FP4+) is better suited to how I see a scene, and other times I want that T-Max neutrality for an image.

Some examples, photographing the same scene on different days (but similar lighting conditions):
This photo was made with Tri-X
This photo was made with FP4+
and this photo was made with T-Max 400

The differences are subtle, but discernible to the trained eye.

Paul,
Couldn't pull up your FP4+ photo, but I get the drift of what you're talking about or explaining.

 

[retina_restoration]

Paul,
Couldn't pull up your FP4+ photo, but I get the drift of what you're talking about or explaining.

It appears that the link I put in for the FP4 negative didn't get saved. You can view that image here.

 

[Paul Howell]

For B&W films, I agree. T-Max 400 is the winner, hands-down. It has finer grain than some ISO 100-125 films and an almost straight-line H&D curve. I'm not sure why it isn't more popular.

Many think it is too clinical, the straight line H&D curve. I shoot Foma 400 as my daily walk around film, when traveling Tmax 400 and 100. Tmax 400 can be shot at 800 without increase in developer time, 1600 is a true push about 1 1/2 stops. Tmax 400 works well with a range of developers, for full speed and shadow details, DDX or Tmax developer, for finer grain XTOL or D76, and it is very good with pyro.

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Tmax 400 works well with a range of developers, for full speed and shadow details, DDX or Tmax developer, for finer grain XTOL or D76, and it is very good with pyro.

Yet another reason to like it, at least to me.

 

[pentaxuser]

You can manipulate the curve shape a bit with T-Max 400, if you vary the developer and development technique.
And its inherently fine grain means you can both under-expose and over-expose it, adjust development time accordingly, and the resulting increase in grain doesn't penalize you as much as with other films.
I expect @Steven Lee is the type of photographer who refines his approach to film in order to wrest the highest amount of detail and tonality out of the results. And if you do that, your results from T-Max 400 may very well resemble the results from digital.
But there are many other things you can get out of T-Max 400.
And there is absolutely no doubt that if you prefer to print optically, you want a film negative - whether or not you are looking for something that behaves like digital.

Matt, I once bought a block of 5 rolls of TMax 400 in 120 in those far-off days when it was a reasonable price . It was a fine film but once the price gap with the likes of D400 or HP5 grew ever bigger I didn't buy any more

I can't say when I printed from either D400 or HP5+ I noticed that I had lost that seemingly "bit extra" that Tmax is said to give by its supporters

Can I say that "at the extremes" TMax doesn't give that little bit extra that neither D400 or HP5 can give? No I can't as I don't work with prints sizes or scenarios that require bit extra

Can I say that others do not need what is said to be that bit extra that TMax gives? Again, no I can't. However what I will hazard a guess on is that few do either and on a "bang for buck" as the famous Robert used to say I just fail to see any real advantage

I'll admit to being the "man in the street or Joe Public" when it comes to what I demand from my prints but I suspect that describes most of us or at least those of us who do take the "bang for buck" into account

These days does a Ferrari or Aston Martin give that little bit extra that you can use compared to say a Ford, Toyota etc and is that little bit extra usable on enough occasions to make the price premium worth it ?

No prize for guessing what my answer is


pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

@retina_restoration Those are gorgeous images. Too good! When an image is so appealing, it fails to serve the tech/demonstration purpose you had originally shared it for.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

@retina_restoration Those are gorgeous images. Too good! When an image is so appealing, it fails to serve the tech/demonstration purpose you had originally shared it for.

Completely agree. What these images demonstrate is the artistry of @retina_restoration which is of a very high order of excellence. I would love to see the images without any postprocessing other than setting of white and black points as such images will give a better idea of the differences between the films and how much postprocessing is needed for each.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

But there are many other things you can get out of T-Max 400.

Thanks Matt. This is exactly what I want to learn from you. Would you mind sharing your learning?

 

[GregY]

In N America there is a $10 USD price difference between Delta 400 & HP5 in 100' rolls.
Pick one & use it. Only by using a particular film will you develop the understanding of the nuances of exposure & development under different light conditions, which will allow you to optimize your results.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Completely agree. What these images demonstrate is the artistry of @retina_restoration which is of a very high order of excellence. I would love to see the images without any postprocessing other than setting of white and black points as such images will give a better idea of the differences between the films and how much postprocessing is needed for each.

When and if I post any image here it is always as straight out of the "oven" as possible. When you doctor or fudge with an image and then post it you're actually committing fraud unless you actually tell everything thing you've done to the negative, print or slide in post software app and scanning.

 

[John Wiegerink]

It appears that the link I put in for the FP4 negative didn't get saved. You can view that image here.

Paul,
Thanks, I would say that any of those three images would be more than just fine stuck in my print file folder. Very nice indeed!

 

[MattKing]

Thanks Matt. This is exactly what I want to learn from you. Would you mind sharing your learning?

Well, first and foremost, that long straight curve and relatively fine grain means that you can obtain very usable results whether you expose down near the toe of the characteristic curve (less than normal exposure), in the nice long straight part - where its more like digital (normal exposure) - or up near the shoulder (more than normal exposure).
The toe does reveal detail well, so I normally find I don't need to meter at a less than box speed setting to get necessary shadow detail, and I can concentrate on getting the mid-tone and highlight rendition that matters most to me.
Due to the fine grain and good shadow performance, I find that T-Max 400 doesn't penalize you as much as other films if you increase development in order to boost contrast. And if the highlights go dense, you can print through that extra density and still get highlights with detail and "life".
I don't do a lot of developer switching, so changing developers and agitation patterns in order to modify curve shape isn't something I can point to as being in my regular tool box, but I certainly have seen results from others that indicate that a somewhat more pronounced "S-curve" response is available. You can see a bit of that when you look at the older film datasheets, where the curves are shown for T-Max, D-76 and Duraflo developers.

 

[retina_restoration]

When and if I post any image here it is always as straight out of the "oven" as possible. When you doctor or fudge with an image and then post it you're actually committing fraud unless you actually tell everything thing you've done to the negative, print or slide in post software app and scanning.

“Fraud”??!! So now I’ve committed fraud? It’s no wonder people are hesitant to share their work on this forum.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Paul,
I use the word "fraud" rather loosely and should have used something different. Very sorry and it wasn't aimed at you, Paul. I have no problem at all with folks here showing their final worked-over pictures for viewing and I would do the same. My problem is when a person is making a statement saying something in the order of, "Tri-X has much larger grain than HP5+", for example and then shows two of the same images, one was smoothed out in post and the other maybe not so much.............well, that sounds a little fraudulent to me. I like apples to be apples and oranges to be oranges if you are comparing fruit.
Oh, I also spent yesterday morning looking at hundreds of your photos on Flickr and really, truly enjoy your work and think it's some of the best I've seen. What really interested me was the fact that you used many of the older cameras I use and love to make many of those fantastic pictures. I have a soft spot for 1940, 1950 and early 1960's Kodak cameras like the Medalist I and II, Signet 35, Retina IIa, IIIS and other Retina cameras, Kodak Monitors and some of their old folders. Those old cameras had great lenses and with modern films like HP5+, Delta, Kodak T films they really shine. Paul, your "fraudulent" photos are a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say shine. Great work!

 

[darkroommike]

thanks for the answer, for me, not accounting for the price of the loader but including the price of cartridges, bulk loading illford film can save me at least 30% which is nice, not a huge saving but better than nothing,
when you say "blow a couple of rolls", do you mean screwing up in the loading process ? I've never done it before so i need to be pretty careful, any tips ? i got the AP bulk loader BTW.

And you're right about getting a couple rolls of delta 400 before committing to the bulk roll, i'll probably do that to test it out a little, at box speed.

Re: "blowing" a couple of rolls, a couple of scenarios come to mind:

1. Reusing a factory cartridge and having the new film detach from the stub remaining of the old film strip.
2. Reusing a factory cartridge and YOU mis-identify the film in the cartridge.
3. Reusing a factory cartridge and the camera DX system mis-identifies what ISO speed film is in the cartridge.
4. Mis-loading the camera and not getting the film to wind onto the takeup spool meaning that you shot you entire vacation on the leader of your roll of film.

I'm sure folks can chip in with a whole lot more potential pitfalls.

 

[Steve York]

A darkroom and some scissors makes for a pretty cheap bulk loading experience.... That's how I wrangle the 400ft rolls I have

I once handled some 400' rolls from Orwo. Great value but talking about burdensome. It took me 3-4 nights in a hot closet to spool even one of them up! Told myself, never again.

 

[mcafeejohn]

Re: "blowing" a couple of rolls, a couple of scenarios come to mind:

1. Reusing a factory cartridge and having the new film detach from the stub remaining of the old film strip.
2. Reusing a factory cartridge and YOU mis-identify the film in the cartridge.
3. Reusing a factory cartridge and the camera DX system mis-identifies what ISO speed film is in the cartridge.
4. Mis-loading the camera and not getting the film to wind onto the takeup spool meaning that you shot you entire vacation on the leader of your roll of film.

I'm sure folks can chip in with a whole lot more potential pitfalls.

Yeah that can happen for sure, I got those plastic cartridges and i intend on using them twice each to avoid any light leaks in the future, so far so good, a already loaded a couple of them, taping the film to the spool, and it works great ! i could maybe save some film length by taping it to the base of an already-attached film, I could gain maybe an inch or two but it aint worth it for me, and yes it can be difficult to keep track of which roll is which, especially when they're all black with no indications, even more when i start to do some 24exp rolls, i should probably put some tape on them and write it so i dont mistake them with the 36exp ones, also, keeping the exposed ones in a separate box until development helps to avoid mixing them with the new ones.
All in all, i didnt think I'd find being able to load 12-24exp rolls so useful but it really is ! should start developing them soon and I'm pretty impatient to see the result, also to see if i loaded them in adequate darkness (I did it correctly but i suspect a little light leak from the door when I loaded the bulk roll in the loader, i hope my film won't have too much of a base fog, we'll see !)
NB: Got the Delta 400, the results should be pretty nice and sharp (I hope)

 

[Dr. no]

i intend on using them twice each to avoid any light leaks in the future

I have plastic cartridges I have used/reused since ~1983 (Negrapan from Spain, long defunct) and others that I have no idea of provenance... In the last year I have marked them so I can track which roll was in what to watch for light leaks, though. I did have an Agfa Superpan metal cartridge that had felt scratching the emulsion.

 

[darkroommike]

Yeah that can happen for sure, I got those plastic cartridges and i intend on using them twice each to avoid any light leaks in the future, so far so good, a already loaded a couple of them, taping the film to the spool, and it works great ! i could maybe save some film length by taping it to the base of an already-attached film, I could gain maybe an inch or two but it aint worth it for me, and yes it can be difficult to keep track of which roll is which, especially when they're all black with no indications, even more when i start to do some 24exp rolls, i should probably put some tape on them and write it so i dont mistake them with the 36exp ones, also, keeping the exposed ones in a separate box until development helps to avoid mixing them with the new ones.
All in all, i didnt think I'd find being able to load 12-24exp rolls so useful but it really is ! should start developing them soon and I'm pretty impatient to see the result, also to see if i loaded them in adequate darkness (I did it correctly but i suspect a little light leak from the door when I loaded the bulk roll in the loader, i hope my film won't have too much of a base fog, we'll see !)
NB: Got the Delta 400, the results should be pretty nice and sharp (I hope)

The other big issue with plastic cartridges in the last few years including so we ordered in for the school is absolutely ZERO quality control. We got cartridges with no felt, one with the felt at 90 degrees to the cartridge lips, and some so tight they squeaked when film was pulled through them (wrong spools).

And the other boogerbear for all reloading is grit in the felt on reuse. If you're as careful as I am you can reuse cartridges a few times and then should plan on throwing them in a box for spares, caps and spools can be salvaged if needed. I even make tally marks on my Kodak "Snap Cap" Magazines and only use them 5 times before I relegate them to testing only.