help me with a new film/developer combo

[rx7speed]

just getting started into film photography as a throw back to the good ol' times and being able to try something different. plus it seems no matter how hard you try with digital film will always have a look and character of it's own that just can't be replicated.

so more or less I'm looking for a 400 iso film for now that will work as a good general purpose combo. Preferably needs to be able to be bought in bulk rolls.

The combo I’m looking for hopefully will not be huge on grain. Don’t mind a bit but if possible would like to keep it to a very reasonable amount. I prefer a bit of contrast to it though if need be can be tamed down through the printing process. Also wouldn’t mind a film that would be able to take a decent push/pull.

So far I’ve used tri-x though only pushed to 1600-3200 never at stock speed and so far my opinion of it is it looks muddy and lacking a lot of contrast in the mid range (have prints that I can scan if you want when I get home as I’m at work right now) though the negatives came out quite thin also so I’m not sure what was up with that or how much of an effect that mixed with the pushing had on the film. So far though I didn’t care for it.

Also tried some tmax 400 at box speed and same thing with them coming out what seems to be a bit thin but overall I like the prints with them a bit more. Little more contrast and a lot better range of tones to my inexperienced eye mixed with some thin negatives.

Haven’t tried anything else though as that is all that is available locally and I know that I also need to get some developing experience going as well there to get the most from these. Would you all have any recommendations as what a noob like me can try though. Any help would be welcome and thank you.

 

[Colin Corneau]

TMY is a good starting point if you're grain-phobic. Like most T-grain emulsions you have to pay attention to developing (ie. be consistent) but it's good to be disciplined. Ilford's Delta 400 is OK but I haven't used it.

You didn't say where you are and what "local" is for you.

I wouldn't write off Tri-X either -- I mean, you know pushing that film as much as you did is why it looked "muddy" and "lacked contrast in midtones", right?

Long as you're going classic, might as well start with D-76 -- an easy developer that keeps a long time in powder form. You can figure out if stock or 1:1 works best for you (I like it 1:1 when I use it)

 

[rx7speed]

locally for me is in the boise idaho area. only thing available for us is d76 and tmax developer with film available of either tmax 100/400 and tri-x.

figured as much with the tri-x looking a little muddy was due to the push and my developing "skill" though I was figuring it would be more contrasty then what it was even then. the film at either 1600 or 3200 just seemed to either be pure black or mud. nothing in between and no highlihts at all to speak of. still might buy a roll or two here and there of trix though but for now would rather try looking into something else for now at least.

 

[moouers]

Hope you're not using a scan to determine if you like a certain film/dev combination...every scan and scanner are different and is usually not a good representation of how a certain combination is performing. I bet any of the major 400 speed films can get you the look you want, you just have to learn the film in your developer...may take a fair number of rolls to do so. You may also consider getting a cheap used enlarger to make your own prints as well, so you can truly see if your film and developer are giving you what you want. That being said, I've found the contrast of Delta 400 in D76 to be wonderful. I haven't tried TMY-2 yet, but others seem to love it. HP5 with a red filter in XTOL 1:1 is just simply gorgeous.

Also, if you pushed your film and it came out far too thin - sounds like it simply wasn't developed long enough.

 

[Leighgion]

Given the information you've provided... it's rather impossible for me to give recommendations since I can't really form much picture of what you're looking for. Your description of Tri-X at 1600 doesn't at all jive with my experiences, so I have no reference.

Some examples would go a long way in clearing things up.

 

[mikebarger]

Did you test for your film speed with either the tri-x or tmax?

Mike

 

[wclark5179]

The Freestyle Legacy Pro is something to consider.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c402-Black-and-White-Film-35mm

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Shoot Tri-X or Tmax 400 at an EI of 200 until you get your metering technique down pat - most photographers find they get better photographs at a slower speed, especially so when they are starting out with film or are using Zone System techniques. The freestyle stuff mentioned above is, as near as anyone can find out, rebadged Tri-X or something very close to it (such as re-perfed/slit movie or aero film).

Stay away from playing around with pushing until you get things working well when exposing at normal speeds.

 

[fschifano]

Legacy Pro 100 and Legacy Pro 400 are rumored to be rebadged Fuji Acros and Neopan 400 respectively. Arista Premium 400 and Arista Premium 100 are, as far as I can tell, rebadged Tri-X and Plus-X with different rebate markings. Both are substantially less expensive than the Kodak branded stuff. I've shot and developed both side by side with the equivalent Kodak branded products and they look exactly the same. I'm a big fan of Plus-X and Tri-X, so to find the same films at a substantial discount makes me a very happy guy. I only wish it was available in medium format.

That said, if you don't like grain and want to minimize it as much as possible while retaining the flexibility of a faster film, you have a couple of choices. Ilford's Delta 400 is one. It's a good film and if that's all I could get, I'd use it happily and without hesitation. The other is Kodak's TMY, and this stuff is just the bomb. Yes, you do need to be a bit more careful with your processing to get consistent results, but the results are well worth the extra effort. Grain is as fine as Plus-X which is almost two stops slower, and the tonal gradation is very smooth even when making 8x to 10x enlargements. Works great at box speed in nothing more fancy than D-76, and will handle 1 stop under exposure with only a slight loss of shadow detail and without the need for push processing with its attendant drawbacks.

 

[Lee L]

The Freestyle Legacy Pros are believed to be Fuji Acros and Neopan 400 or very close equivalents. The Arista Premium 100 and 400 films are very good matches for Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X. I've used the Legacy Pro 100, and the Arista Premium 100 and 400, and haven't seen any practical difference between those and the films they are supposed to match.

Here's a post comparing the newest Kodak Tri-X to Arista Premium 400, with same development method, different development runs, and the target was a FotoWand 12 step reflective wedge. The wedge steps aren't evenly spaced, but the results indicate that you won't see a difference in the film curves.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

BTW, the typefaces, fonts, etc used along the edges of the supposed equivalent Kodak and Fuji films and on the bar codes and ID marks on the film boxes and metal cartridges are identical as far as I can tell on the three films I've tried. I haven't used the Legacy Pro / Fuji Neopan 400 films.

Lee

 

[tkamiya]

I use Tmax400 with XTOL 1:1 for 35mm and TriX400 with D-76 1:1 for Medium Format. While the latter combination is quite forgiving in terms of variations in development, the former combination is quite UN-forgiving. Until I nailed my process down with exacting temperature control and timing, I constantly got too high of contrast.

Later, I did some exacting test while keeping temperature variations to +/- 0.5F during the development phase, I managed to get predictable good results. What I resorted to doing was to prepare everything including extra water, water bath, and chemicals, about an hour ahead and let them stabilize to the room temperature. Then, pre-wash the film in tank using the above water to let the tank temperature come to the fluid temperature, then process with chemicals using exact agitation schedule and timing. I made a chart of development time in 1F increments based on published figures.

I must say, the result is quite pleasing.

Just to give you an idea, I did some test using my own development tank and plain water. During 8 minutes or so shake and standing, what used to be 70F water raised to about 72F. I'm sure with chemical reactions, actual developer will rise more. This is the reason I decided to be extra careful and use water bath for development cycle.

Contrast to this (no pun intended), I can develop TriX without water bath or pre-wash and results are always quite acceptable.

Speaking of setting of ISO, I initially used ISO 200 for above films. Today, I use box speed. My metering skills are not where it needs to be, so looking at my results I decided to stick with box speed for now. I have some more work to do in terms of perfecting my development skills. I didn't want to complicate the process any more than necessary for the moment.

Good luck with your experiment!

 

[moouers]

I use Tmax400 with XTOL 1:1 for 35mm and TriX400 with D-76 1:1 for Medium Format. While the latter combination is quite forgiving in terms of variations in development, the former combination is quite UN-forgiving. Until I nailed my process down with exacting temperature control and timing, I constantly got too high of contrast.

Later, I did some exacting test while keeping temperature variations to +/- 0.5F during the development phase, I managed to get predictable good results. What I resorted to doing was to prepare everything including extra water, water bath, and chemicals, about an hour ahead and let them stabilize to the room temperature. Then, pre-wash the film in tank using the above water to let the tank temperature come to the fluid temperature, then process with chemicals using exact agitation schedule and timing. I made a chart of development time in 1F increments based on published figures.

I must say, the result is quite pleasing.

Just to give you an idea, I did some test using my own development tank and plain water. During 8 minutes or so shake and standing, what used to be 70F water raised to about 72F. I'm sure with chemical reactions, actual developer will rise more. This is the reason I decided to be extra careful and use water bath for development cycle.

Contrast to this (no pun intended), I can develop TriX without water bath or pre-wash and results are always quite acceptable.

Speaking of setting of ISO, I initially used ISO 200 for above films. Today, I use box speed. My metering skills are not where it needs to be, so looking at my results I decided to stick with box speed for now. I have some more work to do in terms of perfecting my development skills. I didn't want to complicate the process any more than necessary for the moment.

Good luck with your experiment!

Do you have a steel tank? With my plastic tank I actually lost a degree halfway through. Started at 69F and half way through it hit 68F and stabilized there through to the end.

 

[tkamiya]

Yes, I do have a stainless steel tank. Also, I live in Central Florida. When the test I described was conducted, the initial water temperature was 70F and ambient temperature was 82F. It makes sense that it went up. If you live in colder climate, I'm sure your result will be the opposite. The point I wanted to make was, to keep the development temperature constant for the duration of development cycle. It certainly surprised me to see the result - although it really shouldn't' have.