Film choices for box cameras, older folders, pseudo TLRs?

[jay moussy]

I need to restock, and will have more time to test the above mentioned cameras.

Given the fixed or limited exposure range most of these cameras offer (and I develop Rodinal and Caffenol), what would be sensible film choices, for when testing when there may be leaks, or for later, when a given camera is fully functional?

For example, it may be a bit overkill to use the nice HP5+..?

 

[Auer]

Fomapan 100

 

[Donald Qualls]

I often use Fomapan 400 -- it easily handles two stops of extra exposure in bright sun (many here would claim that's closer to its proper film speed anyway), and allows for better results when conditions aren't quite "bright sun" -- like "open shade" or "cloudy bright".

It works well in Rodinal and Caffenol, as well, and the large negatives of box cameras and other medium format make the grain less important.

Also worth noting that it's usually a little cheaper as rebranded by Freestyle, as .EDU Ultra 400.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I'd pick an ASA 400 film with good overexposure latitude and an honest speed. My druthers would go with TMZ400. When you add in all the effort involved in taking the photos, developing them, printing them, filing the negatives, putting the photos up on APUG, er photrio, and all that then the cost of the film is the least of it.

Of course, if you like the industrial distressed look there is Fomapan/Arista EDU. If you want to chose your particular distress try https://shop.revolog.net/ Only available in 35mm it seems.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use both Foma 400 and 200, the 200 is pretty flexible, but, most of the older box and folders had faily low top shutters speeds of 125tth or maybe 1/250th at the time most used used Verichrome pan, ASA 125, so Foma 100 would be a good choice as well,

 

[Tel]

I often use Fomapan 400 -- it easily handles two stops of extra exposure in bright sun (many here would claim that's closer to its proper film speed anyway), and allows for better results when conditions aren't quite "bright sun" -- like "open shade" or "cloudy bright".

It works well in Rodinal and Caffenol, as well, and the large negatives of box cameras and other medium format make the grain less important.

Also worth noting that it's usually a little cheaper as rebranded by Freestyle, as .EDU Ultra 400.

+1: I keep a supply of Arista/Foma 100 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 just for testing cameras. It keeps forever in the fridge--my sheet film stock expired in 2014 but it still works fine.

 

[Alan9940]

Since I tend to use my folders on a tripod, I've found that the slower, higher contrast films like Ilford PanF and GP3 work well for me.

 

[Dali]

Like Auer, I mainly use Fomapan 100 film for my rustic cameras (Lubitel / FPP Debonair). When exposed @64-80 ISO, I develop in home-made D76. when exposed @ 125-160 ISO, I soak it in Microphen.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

My ISO 400 recommendation was for the box cameras mentioned in the OP's post. For folders and other cameras with adjustments the ISO 50/100 films would indeed be a better choice.

For testing for leaks and shutter operation and such then the cheapest fast film would be best. A perfect use for outdated film.

 

[BobD]

I like FP4+

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use Tri-X all the time. Others: HP5+, FP4+
For box cameras I would stay in the ISO 100 to 150

 

[Jonno85uk]

Although I don't like it, hard to not get an image with HP5+, it's barely more expensive than Foma 400

 

[MattKing]

Verichrome Pan used to be the perfect choice.
I use T-Max 100, but FP4+ would probably be a better choice.

 

[Auer]

Although I don't like it, hard to not get an image with HP5+, it's barely more expensive than Foma 400

$1 diff basically from B&H here in the U.S..
Not a huge deal but it's there for those who like to go as cheap as possible. save $10 on 10 rolls etc.

 

[Paul Howell]

Another decent for the price is Ultrafine 100, shoots pretty well at 100. With an older uncoated or single coated lens it will flare, just like the good old days.

 

[Auer]

Another decent for the price is Ultrafine 100, shoots pretty well at 100. With an older uncoated or single coated lens it will flare, just like the good old days.

Been out of stock for quite a while now, unfortunately.

 

[Agulliver]

I tend to use Fomapan 400. I often look for deals on bricks in 120 format, and it's a versatile film anyway. For box cameras, vintage folders and suchlike (which are sometimes my thing for sure) I agree it might be overkill to use Ilford, Kodak or Fuji....though I do sometimes use those films in such cameras. For test films you really want a cheap, reliable film and Fomapan 400 does the job. Once I've shot a roll to establish how well a camera is working and what it's capable of, sometimes I stick with Foma (possibly using 100 in bright light) and sometimes I try other films. Sometimes a lens which delivers rather soft, low contrast images is helped by FP4+ and over-developing. Sometimes images from a camera are better than expected and I want to use colour film in it. And sometimes I just want to do something mad like putting Ektar in a 19th century folding camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've shot color in cardboard box cameras on several occasions, as well as Portra (400NC) and Ektachrome (the old E100) in an Ansco Viking, The "coated lenses only for color" thing is a myth. A lens with a lot of chromatic aberration will be soft in B&W, too.

 

[albireo]

Do not waste poor Foma film for testing.

Foma 100 and 400 will actually need very careful exposure to shine, and are *extremely* fussy about development. Foma 400 looks terrible in Rodinal and Caffenol. If you throw a roll of Foma 400 in a folder with unknown shutter speed tracking, leaky bellows and potentially other issues you will not exploit the film to the fullest and the negatives will look bad, like 99% of "Foma+Holga" or "Foma+Old folding camera" look, say, on flickr.

The result will be that you'll be disappointed by the film, by the camera, or by both, will be put off and might end up abandoning a potentially beautiful machine.

Also, Fomapan 400 and 100 look terrible when overexposed (massive grain increase) which is something you'll likely experience with an old non CLA'd Compur shutter or similar.

Use whatever film+developer combination you are most familiar with, in order to reduce the variables to the minimum and understand whether you like the camera or would rather pass it on.

I need to restock, and will have more time to test the above mentioned cameras.

Given the fixed or limited exposure range most of these cameras offer (and I develop Rodinal and Caffenol), what would be sensible film choices, for when testing when there may be leaks, or for later, when a given camera is fully functional?

For example, it may be a bit overkill to use the nice HP5+..?

 

[Agulliver]

I disagree, Fomapan 400 doesn't need especially careful exposure control. It's got plenty of latitude. However I would agree that from what I've heard it doesn't like caffenol - though I've never tried. FOma 100 and 400 are certainly quite fussy over developer, I always use ID-11 and stick to the times given that I know work, which in fact are Foma's suggestions. I've had lovely results with box cameras that probably have shutter speeds significantly under 1/60 in bright conditons using Fomapan 400.

I do agree regarding uncoated lenses....they're often perfectly capable of shooting colour photos and one can even use a film like Ektar to add a bit of extra punch....or print/scan taking account of the lower contrast or softness. I've shot some lovely photos on pre-WW2 cameras and colour film.

 

[Donald Qualls]

FOma 100 and 400 are certainly quite fussy over developer, I always use ID-11 and stick to the times given that I know work, which in fact are Foma's suggestions.

I've been processing .EDU Ultra for several months in Xtol stock, and liking the results a lot. As is the case in most other situations, Xtol does what D-76 does, only a tiny bit better. And ID-11 is Harman/Ilford's version of D-76.

 

[radiant]

For example, it may be a bit overkill to use the nice HP5+..?

The lower the quality of camera, the better film you should use.

I've started to fall in love with HP5 because of the versatility of pushing. Makes handheld shooting much better, you can use smaller aperture etc. which are all good bonus when using older cameras..

For example Foma 400 vs HP5 pushed 1600 there are 3 stops of difference. That is quite advantage.

 

[albireo]

I disagree, Fomapan 400 doesn't need especially careful exposure control.

I find Foma 400 in 120 (that's the only one I know - 35mm and sheet film might be different) requires EXCEPTIONAL exposure decisions to shine. Careful incident metering followed by careful placement of the shadows to get them out of the toe is, for my taste, essential. But most people agree with you, and that's one of the reasons why it's a criminally underrated film used, it would appear, mostly by pinhole and holga photographers who don't particularly care about exposure.

 

[Agulliver]

I use fomapan 100 and 400, and am experimenting with 200 currently, in all my MF cameras. I don't own anything like a Hasselblad but I do have a very nice Kiev. I only go for HP5 or Delta 3200 when I am shooting in very low light. What I'm trying to say is that Fomapan is so versatile that it's good for everything. And it certainly is good for vintage cameras with limited exposure options.

Yesterday I was out walking with a 1920s Kodak Pocket 1 loaded with Fomapan 400 and I think I got some nice shots despite the camera only having 1/25 and 1/50 shutter speeds and a limited number of aperture options.

 

[jay moussy]

OP here, many interesting contributions. Where were forums when I was growing up....??!!

It sounds like some Foma, Ilford in two speed choices, my Rodinal and Caffenol variations, use of tripod (made a L-shape cradle for boxes!) would just do.
The fun, here, is to take the old boxes out, and use them, while using the better materials we have, the latitude they offer.