Film Choice

Susie Frith · Jul 26, 2011

Hi all,

A few years ago I made a trip through Egypt. I took my Leica and four lenses and shot on FP4. The initial D and P was done by Ilford in Cheshire as I didn't want to risk messing it up myself! While pleased with the results, I have always thought the prints are a little too textured (grainy?) for my liking.

This year my partner and I are doing a battlefield tour in South Africa visiting the sites of the Zulu War of 1879. Now, what is the general concensus: do I take my Rolleiflex 3.5f and FP4 (as I did to India 20 years ago) or the Leica and shoot PanF rather than FP4? Of course someone will say the Rollei and PanF!

Thanks in advance,

Susie

Jeff Kubach · Jul 26, 2011

I would go with the Rollei.

Jeff

mrred · Jul 26, 2011

Well, I would just bring the Leica. It's smaller and easier to get those grab shots. If you are worried about grain, try XTol.

Here is something I took with my Kiev4a with some cheap Lucky 100 SHD, souped in XTol.

Therefore PanF or FP4 should be quite sufficient when souped in an appropriate developer.

polyglot · Jul 26, 2011

I agree that FP4 is too grainy in 35mm, but Pan-F is nice out to about 12x16" when shot at EI25. However, that's getting on for pretty slow so for smooth, sharp results, I am a fan of TMY2 in 120 since you have the Rollei. 6x7 TMY2 is at least as good as 35mm Pan-F, and you get about four more stops of speed to make up for the 2 stops you lose to the larger format and smaller relative apertures to get the same DOF.

IMHO the compositions you achieve and the emotions expressed are far, far more important than any particular technical feature, so you could quite rightly decide that the Leica is a better approach for how you shoot.

PS try some Acros in the Leica and see how that goes. I find that it is about as fine as Pan-F, has no reciprocity failure and it's about 1-1.5 stops faster when shot at reasonable contrast. Bonus: stupidly cheap.

bsdunek · Jul 26, 2011

I can get good 11 X 14 prints from FP4 with no problem. I use Ilfosol 3 and am very pleased with the results. Do your own processing. Be careful and all will be fine.

waynecrider · Jul 26, 2011

Welcome to the forum Susie.

If it was my trip decision I'd take the Leica but shoot Portra 160 and convert for B&W if need be. The Portra has a pretty wide exposure range and you could shoot un-metered and get great results. I would take a wide, medium and long lens kit, and I would expect S.Africa to be daylight contrasty with perhaps people in vibrant colored clothes. While a 6x6 format shows better enlargements, most people nowadays don't enlarge beyond 8x10 except on occasion.

Colin Corneau · Jul 26, 2011

bsdunek said:
I can get good 11 X 14 prints from FP4 with no problem. I use Ilfosol 3 and am very pleased with the results. Do your own processing. Be careful and all will be fine.

+1

K-G · Jul 27, 2011

I agree with polyglot . Leica and Neopan Acros is an outstanding combination. I have made 16 X 20 inch prints from 35 mm Acros negatives and I even got good pay for them !
If you want to stay with Ilford, I think Delta 100 is a better choice than Pan F+ as an all-round film.
If you take the Rolleiflex along, choose a 400 ISO film. HP5+ , Delta 400 , TMY-2 and Tri-X are all good films.
Good luck with whatever you choose.

Karl-Gustaf

Simon R Galley · Jul 27, 2011

Dear Susan,

Firstly, thank you for using and valuing our products, including our process and print services...

I like 'grain' always have, or texture....and to me it always depends what size you end up printing to. My rule of thumb has always been up to 10 x 8 35mm, above roll or sheet, but thats just me.

I use mostly FP4+, HP5+ and DELTA 3200 : to my mind FP4+ hand held on a Leica in SA should be fine, eventhough its 'winter'.

If you prefer 'grain free' I would use DELTA 100.

Finally a second historic post for me, I did not know the ZULU wars were in 1879, I thought they were a little later but as you are correct ILFORD was actually founded in the same year...

Enjoy your trip.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

brucemuir · Jul 27, 2011

I never thought FP4+ was grainy in 135? ? ?
Maybe not as clean as a newer T grain type but a bit of grain is why I prefer silver over digits.

Could this be a scanning issue (sorry don't know how Ilford makes prints now or when you had the prints made)?

jeffreyg · Jul 27, 2011

IMO take the larger format. If you find that some compositions need to be cropped you still have a larger negative to work with. I also favor the faster film. Personally I use medium format and Ilford Delta 400 and have not found grain to be a problem including 16x20 prints. The faster film accommodates more exposure situations for me. Are you using a tripod? How about filters? That could also present an issue with slow film.

Since everyone has their own personal preference decisions can be tough to make so my best advice would be to take the equipment you are most comfortable using and if necessary take both slow and fast film.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com

markbarendt · Jul 27, 2011

Given that your subject matter doesn't wiggle and your grain preference I'd go for the larger neg and Delta 100 or FP4.

I'd also say do a bit of testing before you leave on similar subjects close to home with both cameras and see which gives you the look you prefer.

polyglot · Jul 27, 2011

If you can take a tripod, I highly recommend Pan-F in 120, EI25, developed in Rodinal. A most excellent combination, exceedingly fine though with a very nice texture at large enlargements and fantastic acutance. It will exercise your optics though!

steven_e007 · Jul 27, 2011

Hi Susie

Just a thought:

I noticed you said that your trip to India was 20 years ago - so maybe that could have been FP4, as opposed to FP4 plus?

FP4 plus was released in 1990 - although I expect it was a year or more before all the stocks of the earlier film were all off the shelves.

You say your visit to Egypt was 'a few years ago' so that certainly should have been FP4 plus, but, I got married just a few years ago... only, now I come to think of it, it was actually 1992!

Maybe check the negatives to see whether you used FP4 plus or FP4?
FP4 plus is quite a bit finer grained.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jul 27, 2011

Delta 100. Run some tests with the Leica before you go. There is nothing that will improve your prints as much as knowing your equipment.

And, just to throw it out there, in the words of our late forum participant 'Flotsam' - "That is called grain. It's supposed to be there".

FP4+ can be enlarged quite a bit from the 35mm format to yield a virtually grain free print. I have made 12x16" prints from it where I have a hard time seeing the grain at a 3ft viewing distance. Pan-F+ would give you a grain advantage, but also almost two stops less speed. Delta 100 is almost as fine grained as Pan-F+ and yields a beautiful print. It would be less of a compromise for you.

Good luck, and have fun on your trip!

- Thomas

Paul Howell · Jul 27, 2011

I would take the Leica and 4 lens with a varity of film, color, and B&W, slow and high speed. After spending all the effort to get to South Africa it would be same to miss a shot because you dont have any high speed film. In addtion I would buy a good used point and shoot for as a back up. It is better to have more film than you need rather than not to have enough.

pentaxuser · Jul 27, 2011

Depending on when you go the outdoor shots at say Rorke's Drift will be fine with Pan F but any indoor shots in the remaining building from the battle might be problematical.

If you have seen the scenery in the film ZULU then don't expect it to look anything like that. Most of the backdrop was shot far from Rorke's Drift which is much more prosaic. There's a school nearby and when I was there the native Zulus were a bit busy getting on with life to be bothered with what is essentially "our history".

I never saw anybody dressed colourfully either -just very normally. The Zulu lady in the small cafe served very nice tea and cakes however.

pentaxuser

George Collier · Jul 27, 2011

We all have different feelings about what grain looks good and what looks excessive. I process FP4+ 35 in Rodinal semi stand and 120 in HC110 with great results both ways. So much of the technique of processing can affect the grain structure (also, you probably don't know what was used to process those old rolls), like temperature consistency throughout the process, wet time, etc.
I would decide between cameras based on how you want to travel, shoot, etc., not on grain issues. But no matter what you do, as Thomas suggests, test whatever combination you decide well ahead of the trip. You don't want to take chances with the investment. From my own experience, Delta 100 is much less forgiving of development variables than FP4+.

CSULB_Student · Jul 27, 2011

Take your Leica and Pan-F. Have you tried Adox CMS 20 film? I always get the finest grain and contrast in 35mm. I purchase the film online at freestylephoto.biz

Film Choice

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency