Favourite B&W film for ULF...

[argus]

... tell me, and most important: why and how you develop it for different output processes.

Thanks.

G

 

[scootermm]

Efke PL100 7x17...
developed in "straight from the faucet" tap water with Pyro HD 1:1:100.
I mix usually 5 liters of working solution. 50ml A, 50ml B, 5L water in a 16x20 tray.
I develop usually 4 7x17 negs in this. One at a time.
I use a large 10" hake brush to brush the developer over the emulsion side of the neg.
after about 7mins in the developer I turn on a faint green safe light to inspect (DBI) the highlight density. Usually put it back in the developer and wait another 2mins and check it again. I can manage 4 7x17 negs from this 5L working solution. Sometimes the last neg takes a little longer but thats dependant on the time needed for the first few. havent noticed any bad fogging or the like from the safelight. only scratching I get comes from me fouling up somehow.
and that happens.

hope that helps G

 

[Jim Noel]

scootermm,
How are you printing these negatives?
I have been using the same film and developer, but in1 1/2:1 1/2:100 dikution and they are too flat to print easily with Pt/Pd.

I have just finished testing the film in 2:2:100 and boosted the Dmax considerably.

 

[scootermm]

Jim
Ive gone through my fair share of Pyro HD and after experimenting with the 2:2:100 dilution and even the 1.5:1.5:100... I settled on 1:1:100 as it worked best for me. Im exposing my Efke PL100 film at about ISO 50 and the negs seems to take about 7-10 mins to get the highlights where I want them (granted in the summertime my dev times are short and in the wintertime they are longer - given the temp of the tap water used to create the working solution).

I'm developing strictly for pt/pd printing and doing gum over pt/pd printing.

Perhaps you are exposing it at an ISO of 100 - I had failed to mention my EI of 50 in my original post - so it would seem to make sense that the 1.5:1.5:100 dilution would then work better for you at an ISO of 100.

Im still pretty much exposing/developing my negs the same way even now with the larger 12x20 negs and its pretty much the same beast (only larger). My method is pretty much literally "exposing for the shadows, dev for the highlights"

hope that helps.

 

[Jim Noel]

Thanks for the info.
Jim

 

[garysamson]

Kodak 12x20 400 Tmax film
E.I. 320
Developer Pyrocat HD diluted 1.5:3:100
Processed one sheet at a time in a Jobo 3062 tank using a Jobo CPP2 processor
Temp. 75f for 16 minutes
Contact printed on platinum / palladium paper

 

[Colin Graham]

I've been using 1:1:100 pyrocat too, although the p-aminophenol version, and get plenty of density for kallitypes with fp4+ rated at 64. I use a slosher tray with constant gentle agitation, usually 24C around 10 minutes for a SBR of 7. This gives alot of contrast without too much density so my printing times under a bank of BL tubes are in the 10 minute range.

 

[photo8x10]

I'm a newer in ULF, now I'm using Bergger 200 developed in ABC pyro or in pyrocat-HD 1:1:100. I'm waiting my 8x20 ilford films(FP4+ and HP5+).
Developed in tray once or twice at time.
I'm sure I'll use my 8x10 favorite films(Ilford fp4+, HP5+, tmax400, Bergger200 and Efke 100), in pyrocat-hd and ABC pyro.
Contact print in AZO and Platinum/Palladium

Best
Stefano

 

[SAShruby]

8x20 Efke PL100 in Xtol1+1, Xtol1+3, Pyrocat HD 2:2:100 in Trays. MOre in Xtol because I don't have LODIMA yet.

 

[doughowk]

Efke 25 & Ilford FP4 for 7X17 developed in tubes with Rodinal. Being relatively new to ULF, I've just been using what works for me in the smaller formats. Once I can standardize on a printing process (Lodima, Kallitypes or Carbon), will then re-evaluate my negs.

 

[MikeK]

... tell me, and most important: why and how you develop it for different output processes.

Thanks.

G

New to ULF but using and more than pleased with Ilford HP5+ in 11x14 size. I have used ID11 (1:1) in trays and a home made tube and prefer the tube.

So far only exposed and developed for printing on regular VC fiber paper while I get used to this new beast of mine.

By the way for 5x7 and 8x10 I have used Efke PL 100, Kodak Tri-X and HP5 and have standardized on HP5 as it is easy to source.

Mike

 

[jp80874]

7x17 and 8x10 FP4 for fine grain detail. T Max 400 when speed and reciprocity are a problem. How - Rollo Pyro in Jobo CPP-2, contact printed or the 8x10s enlarged using Durst 138S converted to 12x12 cold light on Kentmere FB VC. Why - The Jobo gives consistent, repeatable results with minimal exposure to chemical allergies.
John Powers

 

[Michael Kadillak]

Favorite B&W FIlm for ULF

T Max 400 for 8x20 and 11x14 developed in trays with pyro. TMY is manufactured to high standards and I have never experienced an emulsion defect with this film. The film speed and the marvelous reciprocity characteristics are icing on the cake.

Cheers!

 

[sanking]

T Max 400 for 8x20 and 11x14 developed in trays with pyro. TMY is manufactured to high standards and I have never experienced an emulsion defect with this film. The film speed and the marvelous reciprocity characteristics are icing on the cake.

Cheers!

I agree with Michael on this. Efke/Adox Pl-100 and Ilford FP4 are nice films but TMY is in a class by itself in my opinion, because of the fine grain, speed and great reciprocity characteristics. The only reason I would not want to use it would be in those rare conditions where fast speed is a disadvantage, and those times are rare with ULF work in my experience.

Sandy King

 

[alec4444]

Efke PL100 in 11x14. Developed in Rodinal 1:50, water stop, and TF-4 fix. I like it because of the "look" really - I feel confident I can pick out a photo taken with Efke over the others. Great tonality, very fine grain (I use it for my medium format as well) and a reasonable price.

I think the TMY runs about $9/sheet vs. $4.20 or so for the Efke. I like to take my ULF for a spin more often than a few times a year - and I'm not made of money. I think the fact that I use this with MF (solely for it's merits) as well also plays a part: you use what you feel comfortable with.

Cheers!
--A

 

[jp80874]

... tell me, and most important: why and how you develop it for different output processes.

Thanks.

G

Geert,

Tell us, if you will, why someone who has designed and built his own 7x17 camera, makes and sells ground glass, has over 1600 posts here and many more on the LF Forum, asks this question? What film (s) have you been using, why and how do you develop it for different output processes? What results would you like that you are not achieving now? Why do you think you are not achieving these results now?

These questions of course are at the core of what we all do, but for me it is also interesting that such an experienced person is asking them. Please forgive me if I push too far.

John Powers

 

[Dave Wooten]

It is good to get insight from others...note the varied responses and methods used to get the desired results..

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Geert,

Tell us, if you will, why someone who has designed and built his own 7x17 camera, makes and sells ground glass, has over 1600 posts here and many more on the LF Forum, asks this question? What film (s) have you been using, why and how do you develop it for different output processes? What results would you like that you are not achieving now? Why do you think you are not achieving these results now?

These questions of course are at the core of what we all do, but for me it is also interesting that such an experienced person is asking them. Please forgive me if I push too far.

John Powers

John- perhaps he wants to experiment, but doesn't want to do so blindly.

 

[Jim Chinn]

For a long time I have used FP4 and HP5 in various dillutions of HC110. In trays for anything larger than 8x10. Why Ilford? Because I have never had a single sheet of Ilford film with a problem and I like the versatility I can get between the two films. Only problem is the cost limits my shooting.

I have experimented with Efke film in the past but was a little wary of quality control. But after seeing current work by Donald Miller from his trip to Italy I plan on buying Efke 100 and souping in Pyrocat-HD. Plus the cost is about half of Ilford. Currently everything is exposed and developed for contact printing on silver gelatin papers.

 

[argus]

... Tell us, if you will, why someone who has designed and built his own 7x17 camera, makes and sells ground glass, has over 1600 posts here and many more on the LF Forum, asks this question? ...

Hi John,

no offense taken. Sorry it took me so long to reply because I overlooked the thread.

If you look at the date of the post, it is over a year ago that I asked this question. At that time I had almost or just finished my 7x17 and had only a single 25 sheet box of film at my hands, for having exact dimensions and testing for light leaks.
Any experience in larger than 4x5" film was unknown to me and I developed for enlarging.
I was inquering because I was not sure if I would continue to use the Forte film I had then and was interested in joining the next Ilford ULF make.

Over a year later, my freezer is for 1/4 stocked with 250 sheets of the same Fortepan 200 (Europan, if you remember Frankies offerings). That will keep me busy for a year or 5, if I continue shooting 50 sheets a year like I did in the last year.

So, I can now contribute to this thread with a little bit of experience, since I also stocked the same film in 8x10, with the double amount of sheets burned in 6 months.

I develop in Tanol, a product of Moersch Photochemie (Germany), which is a tanning developer. My aim is contact printing (duh!) and I like the results I get with this combination, for output on modern VC fibre paper.
Development is done in a large tray (single tray method), 2 sheets at a time. I have a 60x40 cm tray, both sheets are held apart by suction cups. I have never had a scratched negative.

My efforts in gum printing and other alt processes have been locked in the closet for some time now.

It's a shame that Forte stopped production because none of the sheets showed any flaws and I am quite happy with the quality.


Greetings,
G

 

[John Kasaian]

Efke pl100. Cheap, well, inexpensive anyway. Freestyle carries it in most ulf sizes.
it has excellent tonality and is very forgiving in the dark room (important since I'm rather cavalier in my technique) It is available in every format I shoot and many I don't, so I can standardize on one emulsion which is always a nice thing. I've never heard of a quality issue with the 100 speed Efke from anybody real or in cyberspace.
That said, TMY is great stuff to have in you arsenal of emulsions,but if I don't need the speed or reciprocity characteristics Efke is my choice. FP-4+ when it is available in ULF is also a good choice.

I soup the stuff in a UNicolor processor using the 16x20 print drum. Figure the surface area and extrapolate the date given on the Unicolor article on the Large Format Homepage. Cheap, efficient, nice!

 

[jp80874]

Thank you Geert. You are right. I had not noticed the date of your original question and considered the time passed and the experience gained in that passing.

Thank you TheFlyingCamera. That makes perfect sense to me.

The reason I asked is that though the question itself may be very interesting and instructive, often the reason the question was asked is even more so. In some cases there was a disconnect between the reason and the question. There might also be a disconnect between the person asking and the person listening. In either case the listener goes down the wrong path traveling farther from the questioner’s thoughts. I have tried to apply these life lessons as I start all over learning LF and ULF.

John Powers

 

[Alex Hawley]

I've never heard of a quality issue with the 100 speed Efke from anybody real or in cyberspace.

Its real John and there have been several threads about it here and on the LFF. The box of 8x10 I currently have has the problem. Uneven coating which causes noticeable streaking on the print. Its nearly impossible to see the defects on the negative. I suppose densitometer reading may reveal the difference in density.

The 7x17 PL100 that I recently got has not shown the problem yet.

 

[Jim Chinn]

There has also been instances of the film being cut incorrectly and not fitting film holders (although I think this was limited to 4x5). About the only thing one can do is pull a sheet from the box and do a test exposure to check for imperfections. Of couse having to waste a sheet of 11x14 or larger this way and the added cost of chemistry to process takes a bite out of the less expensive argument.

I guess everything has its advantages and disadvantages. So while I am going to order some of the PL100 I will keep some Ilford on hand just in case I run into a bad batch and have to return it.

 

[John Kasaian]

Its real John and there have been several threads about it here and on the LFF. The box of 8x10 I currently have has the problem. Uneven coating which causes noticeable streaking on the print. Its nearly impossible to see the defects on the negative. I suppose densitometer reading may reveal the difference in density.

The 7x17 PL100 that I recently got has not shown the problem yet.

Alex,
I don't follow film threads that closely then, but I've yet to have any problems with the stuff. I'll keep my fingers crossed. I have been working my way through 10 rolls of the roll film version in 127 format and I'm very happy with it so far.