Getting back into B&W with a new project - need a film and developer

[thevoice]

HI all,

I'm going to be getting into a new project shortly which will be the first time I've shot B&W for a few years, I've shot mostly transparencies and the odd bit of C41.

I still have all my old developing gear in boxes and I'm mostly set to go.

I'll be shooting 6x6, still life (lots of old tools and machinery, mostly), with fairly high contrast lighting, using an old Bronica S2A.

I'm after a film and developer combination that is moderately foolproof, can cope with the aforementioned lighting and is sharp. I'm not worried too much about grain and low speed is fine as I'll be using a tripod.

Sharpness and good dynamic range are my main criteria.

One thing to note is that I may not get to proofing any of this until after it is all shot, so I don't want to screw it all up before I know it. I'll be able to look at the negs but not prints.

I'm aware I'm being pretty broad in an area that is basically personal preference, but we'll see where we get to.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ilford FP4+ for film, for developer, I'd go with your choice of Rodinal or Pyrocat HD. In either case, since you'll be needing highlight control, I'd do semi-stand development. If you're not familiar with the technique, look around here on APUG - there's lots of threads on how to do it.

 

[Ian Grant]

Delta 100 in Pyrocat HD is another superb combination. So is Tmax100.

Ian

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know about Delta 100, having never used it, but TMAX 100 is notorious for being difficult to manage contrast, particularly in the high values. That's one reason I shied away from it.

 

[Casey Kidwell]

I would suggest a faster film. You're shooting a fairly big negative so grain isn't a huge issue. Maybe boring old Tri-X? And maybe Rodinal 1:100?

 

[Ian Grant]

I don't know about Delta 100, having never used it, but TMAX 100 is notorious for being difficult to manage contrast, particularly in the high values. That's one reason I shied away from it.

The mistke with Tmax 100 is assuming it's a true 100 ISO emulsion, treat it as a 50 ISO emulsion and it behaves beautifully, but then that's also what John Sexton was advising when it was released as well

I switched from Tmax because of trouble getting hold of it, in contrast Ilford films are far easier to find (outside UK/EU/US) and I find I'm now enjoying the images made with Delta 100 (& 400 120) and HP5 all superb films.

Ian

 

[David William White]

...I may not get to proofing any of this until after it is all shot, so I don't want to screw it all up before I know it...

That's the worry bit.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

T M 100 & 400 + D76 1:1. Print and scan well. Fine grain & sharp.

Ilfords Delta 100 & 400 offerings are also nice, but the 400 looks terrible in anything but Xtol & DDX neither of which I like. In DDx it looks stunning.

If you do not have good control, Tri X at EI 200 and cut development 20%. Superb shadows and well controled highlights and super fine grain. It does not have the sharpness of the T Max and Deltas, but is more than adequate.

 

[Neal]

Dear thevoice,

Not having experience with the film/developer/printing combination is a bad idea. Whatever you use, try it out in similar conditions first.

Neal Wydra

 

[Aurum]

XP2 has qute a good tonal range, and is fairly forgiving.

Pros: Forgiving, good tonal range. No need to worry about which developer to use. C41 is C41 is C41

Cons: Can be a bit soft (I prefer Delta 400 in Ilfosol 3 as I like a harder look). You can't mess with developer combo's to add to the effect

As a thought try looking around the film section of the lomography website. They have some example pictures of what to expect from the film stock they sell.
I certainly bought a few rolls of Portra 400 NC off the back of that, as I wanted something super restrained. If I want a print film to pop like a hotdog stand I'll use Ektar

For instance: Dead Link Removed

or

Dead Link Removed

 

[thevoice]

Sorry it's taken so long to reply to this, and thank you for everyone's suggestions.

FP4+ and Rodinal is a combination I have used in the past, perhaps around 4 years ago, and I was fairly happy with the results then. Although this application is quite different to what I have shot in B&W before I might as well stick with it, the consensus seems to be it will work well.

Cheers.

 

[sandholm]

FP4+ or HP5+ in either ID11 or D76, perfect negatives every single time. FP4+ cover 50-200 and HP5+ 400 to 1600 without problem, do you need any other film?

NO

 

[Willie Jan]

Fuji across with pyrocat-hd is my combo.
Film is very sharp/detailed and has no reciprocity factor.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For the lighting conditions you mention I would suggest Tri-X and HC-110. They really were made for each other.

 

[whlogan]

TriX 400 @ 800 and develop it in Rodinal @ 1:75 for 45 min stand ... be the best stuff you ever saw....stand means one rotation of the tank for starters and another at 22.5 min.... then dump it... no more..... no inter wash..... straight to fix for 5 min and then wash for 5 min. This will make exceptional negatives. Got this little trick off APUG right here and have been using it for quite a while now.
Logan

 

[johnnywalker]

I've been using PanF+ in my RB67, developed mostly in perceptol 1+2, and been pretty happy with the results, but want to try Delta 100 and FP4+ developed in HC110 (only because I like the convenience of the concentrated liquid, and it seems to work well with Foma 100 and 200 for my 4x5 - Dil. H). Any suggestions as to using the full box speeds vs. pulling the films? I've used both in 35mm at their box speeds, but not with HC110.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have tried T-Max 400 with T-Max developer which works with me!

Jeff

 

[hpulley]

I've been using PanF+ in my RB67, developed mostly in perceptol 1+2, and been pretty happy with the results, but want to try Delta 100 and FP4+ developed in HC110 (only because I like the convenience of the concentrated liquid, and it seems to work well with Foma 100 and 200 for my 4x5 - Dil. H). Any suggestions as to using the full box speeds vs. pulling the films? I've used both in 35mm at their box speeds, but not with HC110.

I love Delta 100 in HC110 at box speed 100, dilution B at box time for 6 minutes at 20C or 7 minutes at 19C when my basement is a bit cool. Wonderfully sharp, big enlargements look great.

I'm just starting to experiment with FP4+ in HC110, will let you know but from the box speed it seems like it is more like 50 ISO since 50 is 6 minutes in HC-110 dilution B while 125 is 9 minutes which feels like a bit of a push considering that Pan F is 4 minutes at 50.

 

[BetterSense]

As far as I'm concerned the answer to any "What film for X" question, regardless of format, is Tmax 400.

The mistke with Tmax 100 is assuming it's a true 100 ISO emulsion, treat it as a 50 ISO emulsion and it behaves beautifully,

Even Kodak's datasheet suggests exposing the film at 50 for 'improved tonality' or some such wording

 

[fschifano]

No question about it. TMY-2, or TMax 400, is the way to go man. Develop it in XTOL or D-76 and you'll have shadow detail and highlight detail that you wouldn't believe that you could capture. No joke. I've been shooting this film under some of the most horribly contrast lighting conditions and it still continues to amaze me. And to think that it does this with the grain of something like Plus-X or FP4+, it just blows you away. No special processing tricks, just follow the directions on the package and you are set.

 

[Athiril]

FP4+ and Tri-X
Rodinal
Enjoy.

Will cover you for EI 25 to 6400.

 

[2F/2F]

Since you are using high contrast lighting, I assume that high contrast prints are exactly what you want. If you wanted otherwise, you wouldn't be using high-contrast lighting, right? These are still lifes. You have absolute control over your lighting, so you shouldn't worry all too much about the inherent contrast of the film you are using. IMO, what you should worry about is knowing what results your film/developer give in a given "situation." In other words, you should know what the contrast of your film is like, but you shouldn't bother worrying too much about how to significantly alter it, because you really do not need to. As I said, since this is still life work, you control this "situation" 100%. If something is too contrasty, the first thing to do is to just light it to be less so, then you can use exposure and development to make more subtle changes, instead of using them, the inferior tools to lighting, to make major changes. The way I see it, manipulation via nonstandard exposure and development should always take second fiddle to lighting if the situation allows it (i.e. artificially lit, highly controlled situations).

So, in short, I'd pick a developer that has the sharpness and reciprocity characteristics that you want, and not worry as much about its contrast. T-Max 100, as Ian sez, at EI 50. If not that, then Acros. I suggest both of these because of the reciprocity concerns encountered in much still life photography, aside from them being very sharp. Personally, I would use T-Max film in T-Max developer at 75 F, and light so that things land roughly where I want them to land tonally, and then do the fine fiddling with exposure, development, and printing.