• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Film Recomendation wanted :)

Jack Xavier

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
27
Location
London
Format
35mm
I've recently bought an Autocord. And as a gift for someone i'm planning on photographing a Cathedral from their home city and having a print made and framed.
I'm basically new to 120 so i'm not too sure on what I need. The print will probably be about 30cm x 30cm. Maybe bigger. That depends on the person. But I will need to photograph the cathedral between the 3rd and 5th of september so I only have a small window when i'll be in the country. So I guess more than anything i'm looking for sharpness and low grain. I have a good tripod and head which I will be using. I'll take 6 shots during the day and 6 shots at night at various exposures.

The films that come to mind are Neopan Across 100, Pan F Plus 50 and Tmax 100
I know some people mention fp4. I don't have access to a darkroom/chemicles so I won't be able to develop myself, so any particularly custom developing techniques are not available to me. Which film would you guys recommend of those listed or others I haven't considered.

Thanks for any help
 
30 cm is small. Any of the films you mentions will do fine (as is reflected by the answers you already did get). You can easily go twice that size, and still not have 'exhausted' what you will capture on any of those films.

My choice would be T-Max 100, by the way. Just because it's what i use.
 
Acros is the easiest in these conditions, Pan F needs a higher degree of skill & control to tame the contrast so you need experience with the film. Tmax 100 is OK and will perform well as would Delta 100 not on your list but much easier to find, and cheaper, in the UK.

Ian
 
Really, there aren't many 120 films out there that won't handle 30x30 enlarging if the focus is spot on.
 
If you aren't going to be doing your own development, I'd suggest that you determine which lab you will be using, and then ask them.

If I was in the UK, I would consider Ilford's Lab Direct service, or one of the labs recommended on Ilford's site.

If it were me, I would use Plus-X, but that's because I use Plus-X.

Another good choice would be Ilford's C41 processed black and white film, XP2 Super.
 
If you can't develop film yourself, I would consider Ilford XP-2 Super. It's a black and white 400 speed film that is developed in C-41 (color negative film) chemistry, at any minilab that can develop color 120 film.
You will find that it both scans and prints well, and exhibits grain similar to normal ISO 100 films.
 

Now that would be a film i wouldn't recommend.
Real B&W film is sharper, and has better grain texture (not hard, since XP2 has a wooly dye cloud structure).

To each his own, i guess.
 
I'm not considering either of the C41 films to be honest. They're not my cup of tea. The print will be a traditional print not a digital one even though I do a lot of scanning, the scanning aspect isn't too big a deal for me especially as I only have dedicated 35mm scanners
I'll most likely be using Monoprint as i've been much happier with their service than most of the labs i've tried. I had heard of the contrastiness of Pan F. I do have a spot meter and i'll be going for as accurate an exposure as possible aswell as bracketing either side.
30cm x 30cm is the minimum size i'll be doing. Going bigger is limited by cost and how big a print that person would like. Sharpness is a factor though.

MattKing I use Plus-x aswell in 35mm along with a couple of others. But I hadn't seen it in 120.
 
Yeah, it's always going to be a thing of compromise. For me, if I couldn't process film myself, XP-2 Super is capable of amazing prints, AND it's convenient.
I shot some 35mm of XP2 a few years back, and prints from those negs look like they are from TMax 100 film grain wise.
It's not as sharp, that's true, but the difference in my prints is not large by any means. I'm talking 12"x16" prints. Both XP2-Super and APX 100 (that I used at the time) gave me crisp prints with lots of detail, and (best of all) wonderful tonality.

- Thomas

Q.G. said:
Now that would be a film i wouldn't recommend.
Real B&W film is sharper, and has better grain texture (not hard, since XP2 has a wooly dye cloud structure).

To each his own, i guess.
Click to expand...
 
I reckon almost anything could do the job - 30cm X 30cm from 120 isn't so big.

XP2 would be my recommendation for a lab processed job, too. It would be extremely fine grain and would appear very sharp at that enlargement. I think it is a great film, I'm always impressed when I use it - but I don't do so often because I prefer to process my own. The really big plus is that it is so forgiving it's almost impossible not to get a printable result - not that I'm criticising your technique, but if it is an unknown camera, unknown lighting conditions on the day and a you have a time limit... it would be a very wise choice of film to rely on ;-)
 
I've used XP2 and the kodak equivalent. I wasn't too keen on it to be honest.
In fact I spent a fair bit of time messing with curves and other digital manipulations to get images I liked. With B&W films I generally get results I like straight out of the film onto contact prints. I trust monoprint as they've handled a few of my films. They hand process and print. Other labs i've used like Peak Imaging and so on have come back with curling, scratches and the occasional hole in the odd negative. So I'm not too keen on labs with a large amount of work. So convinience on developing isn't really an issue as i'd never again use a high street lab for anything of any importance after issues I had with high street labs.
 

These threads always produce each person's favorite, without a whole lot of reason behind it. Almost any good low or medium speed film will work well for exteriors, if properly handled. Interiors take more speed. The tripod is probably much more important than the film for good shots. My initial thought was Pan-F+ or TMX. But tonight I was reprinting some of my old XP-2 negatives. Unlike Mr. Xavier, I have had extremely good luck with XP-2. It is a high speed film (ISO 400, which you can use at 320 or 400) which allows well lighted interiors and makes exteriors less subject to camera movement. It is quite forgiving, particularly to overexposure. It has much finer grain than most other ISO 400 films. It holds both shadows and highlights extremely well. I like the look of it. I print it by traditional darkroom methods. I've used it pretty extensively for a great many different kinds of subjects. It has always given excellent results. The negatives are the easiest to print of any I've ever worked with, generally allowing a straight print on grade 2 paper. For traditional darkroom printing, it works very well indeed. Your experiences seem to be quite different. It may be the lab. I notice you have had some problems with labs, and you may just be in a bad area for them. Any good color lab should be able to handle XP-2 processing without trouble, but be sure to warn them that it is a black and white film that needs color processing. Even then they may have problems if they try to print it, because XP-2 is designed for traditional silver-gelatin black and white papers, not color papers like the Kodak product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register