• 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

Finding a favorite B&W film...

JRoosa

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
112
Location
Colorado, US
Format
35mm
I'm struggling a bit to find a B&W film I like in 35mm. At least I'm trying to find a 100ish speed film I like. I've settled on Tri-X for a 400 speed film.

I used to like Plus-X, but in reality, I rarely tried anything else back then, so I was just blissfully shooting it and making do. I always worried about grain then, and had vague misguided thoughts about how my photos would be so much more awesome if they were razor sharp and grainless.

I've gotten over that silliness more or less during the last few decades of shooting digital instead of film and having all the grainless sharpness I could want.

Getting back into things I've shot some of my old Plus-X, and it prints OK, but that well is almost dry.

I tried some T-Max 100 developed in D76 full strength. It's easy to print, I don't have any problems with highlights in the shots that I've printed.

Here's a Deere resting in a mountain meadow, for an easy example. It's printed on Ilford RC multigrade. It got a little contrast adjustment in Aperture after I scanned it, but otherwise looks reasonable. It's almost all mid-tones, and they seem fine.



This was shot in splotchy sunlight through some trees, and the highlights on the face and shirt aren't blown out and didn't require any burning. This is on Polymax DW FB paper (the well is almost dry there too... I'm hoping the Ilford FB paper is as good).



This one has good shadows, midtones are fine, the sun reflection on the white truck is still visible, and the white shirt doesn't look too bad either. This is on the Ilford RC paper too.



All of these were easy to print, but they have the feel of a digital image with the black and white effect, which I can get with my pocket digital camera and a click or two in Aperture. The dynamic range on the TMax100 blows digital out of the water, so I'm not thinking of giving up or anything.

I got excited about FP4+ with a more traditional look, but after an hour of messing around with different grade filters and thinking of an extensive burning/dodging plan for a simple landscape shot, I'm getting turned off of that film a little, even though I like the grain and look of FP4+. The subjects were very different (perfectly clear day with stuff close up for the TMax vs. long views through some atmospheric haze with the FP4+), and I probably could have saved myself some trouble with stronger filtration on the FP4+ shots, but I'm still feeling frustrated. I don't have anything worth scanning from those rolls yet.

I don't quite understand what I'm bumping into here. The critique of Tmax with hard to use highlights seems to be no problem for me, but I have more of an aesthetic issue with it (which I can probably get over). I expected FP4+ to print easily, but I'm finding that it's more of a challenge than expected.

I don't know if there are any good suggestions other than to keep trying. Other than this forum, I am working in a vacuum with a home darkroom, so it's good to just discuss this stuff on here with all of you.

Thanks for your thoughts!

-J.
 
For me TRI-X on 35mm just has a specail look. i like it so much i only shoot it now.
 
I have not liked Tmax 100 for the same reasons, just does have the look I want. Although PF4 is a good film , I found that like Foma 200, in most developers it is rated at 100 or 125. I use MCM 100 about 22 m at 70 degrees at EI of 125 or the Foma version of Excel at EI of 100. Some like Foma 100 with an EI around 50. Foma 200 has perhaps a little more grain than Plux X.
 
You should be able to make good prints from any available film. They are all pretty similar. The easiest to print negatives have enough exposure to give some density to the shadows, and are process for a gamma between 0.6 and 0.8.
 
You should be able to make good prints from any available film. They are all pretty similar.
Click to expand...

That's what I was expecting, but I was surprised at how much I was struggling with the FP4. It might just be an issue with the scene.

I bought another handful of both from B&H to keep playing with. I'll probably camp out in the darkroom tonight and work on the FP4 for a while.

If I keep having issues with the FP4, I'll give the Foma 200 a shot.

Thanks!

-Jason.
 
For me TRI-X on 35mm just has a specail look. i like it so much i only shoot it now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's working great for me in the shade. I might resort to just using it all the time if I can't settle into a good slower film.

 
mary ellen mark only shoots tri-x because it's good stuff, but more importantly she only shoots tri-x because she's always only shot tri-x and she knows how to get the best out of it.

that's the secret. They're all tools, you must use them to best effect. And I've gotten some pretty darn good results, blown up to 11 by 14, with tri-x.
 
For my case, it depends with the scene that I'm shooting. Most of the time I use tri-x. To my eyes it has a that special look, deep and rich black. I develop it with x-tol, and it never disappoint me. But once in a while for woman/girl portrait, I use delta100. In my opinion it's more "polite" and "calm".
 
My answer will be a Kodak-skewed one because I work there.

I'm starting to use more TMAX 100 where I used to use Panatomic-X though I still don't have to because I still have some in stock. I am having fun with TMAX 100.

I like IC-Racer's view that almost any film will work, developed to a contrast of 0.6 to 0.8. Old books I'm reading through sometimes recommend developing to 1.0! If these numbers don't mean anything to you, then I'd be happy to entertain questions and answers. I think learning to develop to specific contrast is an important part of learning black and white. I think it takes you a great leap past following development charts. I don't mean anything against the charts, because I admit developing by the charts is good. But when you can learn to feed back results into your development, you can have better control.
 
Acros 100 is my favorite b & w film for 135. I only shoot 400 speed film if I truly have to but the results are substantially less than what I get with Acros.
 
I'm struggling a bit to find a B&W film I like in 35mm. At least I'm trying to find a 100ish speed film I like.
Click to expand...

Have you tried:
Ilford PAN 100
Ilford Delta 100
Kentmere 100
Adox Silvermax
Adox CHS II 100
Fomapan 100
Fuji Acros
Agfaphoto APX 100
Lucky SHD 100
Rollei RPX 100
Rollei Retro 90S?
 
Pick one. Buy ten rolls minimum. Play with the EI and the developing time. Keep using it until it becomes clear that it won't work for what you want, not that you don't know how to make it do what you want.

My constant worry with ACROS is that Fuji will stop making it. So I have 150 rolls in the freezer to have time to move to another film. Ilford seems to be in the B&W game for the long haul and be a stable company, so think about picking one of their films.
 
somesay the tmax films are tricky others suggest ilford films are a bit contrasty
and still others, say tri x is too grainy
the trick is to use whatever you want to use and process enough so you can get the films to do what you want
instead of letting the film dictate what the negatives will look like.
since the 1980s i was told tmax films had very little grain but i have shot them enough to know exactly
what to do to get grain if i want ... sometimes finding the right film is more about the work you want to do to make it
your favorite film or just a film you use ..

have fun
john
 
So I locked myself in the darkroom with the FP4+ for a few hours last night. It turns out the problem was that I picked a tricky negative to print the first time. With other shots on the roll, I was able to get satisfactory prints.



It definitely gives me a similar feel to Plus-X, so I'm happy. I see a use for both TMax100 and FP4+ now that I'm not worrying about finding a film that I will like. They have different strengths and weaknesses. Thanks for the suggestions!

-J.
 
Jack, that very big dog in the bottom left of the second print has been so annoyed at having his picture taken that he has swivelled his head 180 degrees and that look in his eyes suggests that you should not get any closer to him.

Mind you he might just have a complex about having no tail. Insecurity tends to breed aggression

pentaxuser
 

For what it's worth, I, too, have found that Ilford FP4+ is a dead ringer for Kodak Plus-X. It's the film I use.
 
I think you have issues with lens , bad lens can ruin your images. Buy a good french , german , british or american lens. Whatever your film and developer , you cant tame a bad lens.
 
FP4+ developed in D76 at 1:1. Stick with it and you won’t be disappointed.
 
Well I can't see anything wrong with Jack's lenses based on his two pictures in post 15

pentaxuser
 

He's a slow mover though. I wouldn't worry about him. Maybe even slower than my pug.

Well I can't see anything wrong with Jack's lenses based on his two pictures in post 15
Click to expand...

28mm f/2.8 series E. It's no 28mm AI-S, but it's worked fine for years so long as I keep the sun off the front element. I'm happy with it, especially since it only cost about $75 when I was a student.

The others are with a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor, and that thing is almost a laboratory instrument.

-Jason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FP4+ developed in D76 at 1:1. Stick with it and you won’t be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I want to hear more about the differences you see between full strength and 1:1 with FP4. I bought a 4 reel tank so I can do 2 reels at at time with 1:1, but D76 is so cheap that I just have been using it full strength so I use it up in a reasonable time frame before it deteriorates.

I'd have to check my notes, but I think my standard developer was D76 1:1 with Plus-X, both because of economy and getting the temperature right in my relatively cold dark room. My current dark room holds 68 degrees F perfectly, but winter is coming.

-Jason.
 
JRoosa, I do not think that there will be any difference with that modest dilution, unless the grain is a bit more intrusive and the resolution a bit better. But that is in theory only and, again, compensating development time in order to achieve identical gamma (contrast), the results will be the same (and the economy will be better with the '1+1')

Most would hesitate to adopt this 'fact', but D-76 can also be used 1+3. Kodak never said to do this but Ilford (the more pragmatic and 'down to earth' of the two) says it is OK with their ID-11, which has the identical formula that D-76 has. You would be amazed with how fast that 1+3 can be if you add a tiny bit of sodium carbonate. (Make a 5% solution of the carbonate and experiment with how much to add to the dilution as 'water'.)

And, no, there is no development 'shortfall' due to 'inadequacy' of the developer component. Yes, there is sufficient developer for even a 240ml SS single 35mm roll tank. Those full strenght developer formulae were geared to be able to withstand much development abuse. They are STRONG in their native state. - David Lyga
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the info.

I could actually stand a little more grain in the FP4+. I'll give it a try.

-J.
 
I love my TMax and am not interested in trying to work without it.

However, as others have said, I came to that decision by working with it, and others for awhile. But not at the same time.

Eventually I settled on TMX100 because it did what I wanted. Delta 100 was close, but not the same. However I can probably learn to work with it if Kodak ever does discontinue TMX.

The only other film I like as much is Delta 3200, but for different reasons of course.

There are so many TriX lovers out there I should probably put mine up for sale. It or HP5+ will likely be the last film standing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register