How did you choose your film?

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Doesn't apply. A commonly parroted myth in photography is that there is a lot involved in "mastering" a film/developer. It's ridiculous.

For every awesome photographer who has used only [ ] for 200 years, there is an awesome photographer who uses several films depending on what is available. There simply is not all that much involved in mastering a film. In addition, film/development really isn't where most of the control is. The control is under the enlarger (or in whatever digital editor). That is where most of the craft is.

Michael Kenna once said that he buys whatever roll film is easily available wherever he happens to be working. He shoots a ton of film.

He also said something about processing everything in D76 for 11 minutes. Hard to argue with the results.

I think with most photographers you could pile up their prints and you really wouldn't be able to tell one film from another. I've shot tons of different brands (with at least 6 different developers) over the past 20 years and you'd be hard pressed to tell what was what. Even FP4 and HP5 are so close that you really have to know what you're looking for to see the difference.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I am starting to experiment with Double-X as a replacement for TMY2 in 35mm

Adrian Bacon might not like it for the acetate base. It wasn’t engineered to be wound tightly so I expect it will curl.

But I do expect picturesque grain

Well, how it handles ranks pretty high, but that can be overtaken by other aspects. For casual every day type stuff where you're going to have a lot of images and rolls though, how it handles is pretty high ranking.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

My AA Sponsor and all the text says the same thing. That still doesn't make it easy to do!

To be fair, it is a learned skill. My perspective is this: Am I still alive? Is the earth still spinning? Is this going to really matter a week from now? Can I do anything to change the situation? OK, then get on with it, if not, then... get on with it.

 

[MattKing]

My AA Sponsor and all the text says the same thing. That still doesn't make it easy to do!

I once had a client who was charged with and eventually pled guilty to a serious criminal conspiracy offence. He was standing and facing the BC Supreme Court Justice who had his fate in her hands, knowing that the case law suggested that the normal sentence for his offence, even for a first time offender, would involve substantial jail time.
He was an alcoholic and his addiction was a critical factor in his becoming involved in the conspiracy in the first time.
He had been spiraling down as the court proceedings wound through in an unusually slow manner. His friends rescued him, convinced him to start with AA and it made such a difference that over the months that we appeared from time to time before that Supreme Court Justice even she noticed the improvement in him.
After both I and the Crown Counsel made our submissions on sentence, my client was given the standard opportunity to address the Court.
His address to the Court consisted of a recitation of the Alcoholics Anonymous Serenity prayer.
It was a large and crowded courtroom, the Justice and all Counsel were there and formally robed, there were many accused and supporters, and you could have heard a pin drop.
The Justice proceeded to review the submissions on sentence, including my client's words, and then proceeded to pronounce sentence: a lengthy period of restrictive probation. No jail time.
As far as I am aware, up to that time no person charged in Canada with a similar offense, with similar personal involvement, had ever received a non-custodial sentence.
The moral of this story is that in life, and in photography, it is worthwhile to:
"Accept the things (you) cannot change; (Have) courage to change the things (you) can; And wisdom to know the difference."

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The whole point of the "shoot one film with one developer until you 'master' it" is not some mindless exercise, but rather for a newcomer who is wont to go rushing from film to film and developer to developer, chasing some magic bullet. Pick a film, doesn't really matter which, and one developer, and stick to it until you understand the mechanics of how they interact and what effect changing exposure or development parameters has. And for god's sake don't go running out to start learning on expired film because it's an unknown quantity! The whole point is to keep the number of parameters that vary to a minimum, so you understand what changing those parameters does. Once you have a hang of that, THEN by all means try a different film with the same developer, or a different developer with the same film. Just approach the change of parameters with some degree of scientific rigor so you can in fact tell that the effect you got was because of the developer, the film, or your exposure technique.

 

[Don_ih]

I wish he had a few books I could buy

Stephen Dirado released a book last year (maybe the year before, now - I can't keep track) that chronicles the end of his father's life. His father had Alzheimer's. I think the book is found through his website - called With Dad. There's also been a documentary filmed about him - but I'm not sure of the details.

 

[Light Capture]

Probably matters much less than what would information on internet would make you believe.

After reading all of the information and hearsay on internet, I decided to do test on number of films developed in D76, DD-X, TMAX, Ilfosol and Rodinal.
Exposed in controlled environment with maximum dynamic range for comparison.

When done properly and developed in same conditions, differences were extremely small. Even Rodinal's grain didn't differ much from the rest.
Rodinal and Ilfosol gave fraction of a grade more contrast. Ilfosol was overall slightly better.
Everything was developed in Jobo Autolab processor controlling temperature and timing for all baths, including washing.
Negatives printed optically slightly above 10x magnification and compared.
In the end, I decided on films that were easily available and to use DD-X and TMAX for everything.
Ilfosol short developing times would make it tough to use predictably with my processor. Rodinal would be good but slightly better grain and more even contrast/tonality of DD-X and TMAX looked bit more appropriate for my use.

With tiny bit of tweaking any of the films I used worked for my use and could be made to look virtually the same. Delta 100, Delta 400, FP4, HP5, TMAX 100, TMAX 400, Rollei 80, Foma 100 are the ones I remember.

It does make things much easier if you use one film and than changing development or exposure makes meaningful difference.

 

[grain elevator]

Probably matters much less than what would information on internet would make you believe.

After reading all of the information and hearsay on internet, I decided to do test on number of films developed in D76, DD-X, TMAX, Ilfosol and Rodinal.
Exposed in controlled environment with maximum dynamic range for comparison.

When done properly and developed in same conditions, differences were extremely small. Even Rodinal's grain didn't differ much from the rest.
Rodinal and Ilfosol gave fraction of a grade more contrast. Ilfosol was overall slightly better.
Everything was developed in Jobo Autolab processor controlling temperature and timing for all baths, including washing.
Negatives printed optically slightly above 10x magnification and compared.
In the end, I decided on films that were easily available and to use DD-X and TMAX for everything.
Ilfosol short developing times would make it tough to use predictably with my processor. Rodinal would be good but slightly better grain and more even contrast/tonality of DD-X and TMAX looked bit more appropriate for my use.

With tiny bit of tweaking any of the films I used worked for my use and could be made to look virtually the same. Delta 100, Delta 400, FP4, HP5, TMAX 100, TMAX 400, Rollei 80, Foma 100 are the ones I remember.

It does make things much easier if you use one film and than changing development or exposure makes meaningful difference.

I mean... yes, in the grand scheme of things, the differences are small. All monochrome, all have grain. Yes, developers generally make less difference than films. However your premise is flawed if you attribute differences in contrast to different developers - contrast is a function of developing time/temperature, and developers may take different times to reach the same contrast, so your comparison just didn't happen under ideal conditions. And your vision or printing technique must be flawed if you don't see a big difference between HP5+ and TMX at 10x magnification. It does get more obvious at higher enlargement of course

 

[Sirius Glass]

The whole point of the "shoot one film with one developer until you 'master' it" is not some mindless exercise, but rather for a newcomer who is wont to go rushing from film to film and developer to developer, chasing some magic bullet. Pick a film, doesn't really matter which, and one developer, and stick to it until you understand the mechanics of how they interact and what effect changing exposure or development parameters has. And for god's sake don't go running out to start learning on expired film because it's an unknown quantity! The whole point is to keep the number of parameters that vary to a minimum, so you understand what changing those parameters does. Once you have a hang of that, THEN by all means try a different film with the same developer, or a different developer with the same film. Just approach the change of parameters with some degree of scientific rigor so you can in fact tell that the effect you got was because of the developer, the film, or your exposure technique.

I also suggest one camera and one lens if it is a new camera to the photographer.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I also suggest one camera and one lens if it is a new camera to the photographer.

And we all know what camera that would be.

 

[Light Capture]

I mean... yes, in the grand scheme of things, the differences are small. All monochrome, all have grain. Yes, developers generally make less difference than films. However your premise is flawed if you attribute differences in contrast to different developers - contrast is a function of developing time/temperature, and developers may take different times to reach the same contrast, so your comparison just didn't happen under ideal conditions. And your vision or printing technique must be flawed if you don't see a big difference between HP5+ and TMX at 10x magnification. It does get more obvious at higher enlargement of course

That wasn't intent of my post or my testing. Intent was to show that all of these films can be adjusted slightly to reach basically the same contrast.
Contrast curves might be slightly different and tonality might suit some scenes better but this suitability can't be really predicted unless you do only one type of photography.
I.e. only doing portraits or street. There are countless other variations but there isn't enough space to cover all of it.

Who wants more detail there are excellent books with all needed reference. Recommend Ralph W. Lambrecht's - Way Beyond Monochrome. He is a member on this forum.

I still have all prints somewhere. They are labeled and stand by my findings. All were examined with naked eye and 4x and 8x loupe.
Grain was bit different between 100 and 400 ISO films. Still not a big difference. Grain structure was obviously different.
Honestly, if they weren't labeled, I would have issues seeing meaningful differences.
Intent of this post is that beginner or someone looking to find one film that is significantly different..
When I use all recommendations from Kodak and Ilford technical manuals and control temperatures and agitation closely these are the result.
These manuals are a great resource.

On the other hand, if I use Rodinal in different way, grain can be huge. That's if grain is desired for the purpose.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Probably matters much less than what would information on internet would make you believe.

After reading all of the information and hearsay on internet, I decided to do test on number of films developed in D76, DD-X, TMAX, Ilfosol and Rodinal.
Exposed in controlled environment with maximum dynamic range for comparison.

When done properly and developed in same conditions, differences were extremely small. Even Rodinal's grain didn't differ much from the rest.
Rodinal and Ilfosol gave fraction of a grade more contrast. Ilfosol was overall slightly better.
Everything was developed in Jobo Autolab processor controlling temperature and timing for all baths, including washing.
Negatives printed optically slightly above 10x magnification and compared.
In the end, I decided on films that were easily available and to use DD-X and TMAX for everything.
Ilfosol short developing times would make it tough to use predictably with my processor. Rodinal would be good but slightly better grain and more even contrast/tonality of DD-X and TMAX looked bit more appropriate for my use.

With tiny bit of tweaking any of the films I used worked for my use and could be made to look virtually the same. Delta 100, Delta 400, FP4, HP5, TMAX 100, TMAX 400, Rollei 80, Foma 100 are the ones I remember.

It does make things much easier if you use one film and than changing development or exposure makes meaningful difference.

About a year ago, I ran controlled tests with a few films (lit by a professional strobe) and developers and came to much the same conclusion. As I mentioned previously, the difference between FP4 and HP5 was surprisingly small, which led to me shooting nothing but HP5. The extra speed always comes in handy.

Also discovered that Pyrocat-HD wasn't the best choice for my portraits. It's frankly kind of ugly with skin tones.

 

[cjbecker]

Over the last 10ish years of trying different films, learning there ins and outs, sticking with a few long term, and testing a few short term, Ive come full circle back to hp5. No matter the film, after a few test rolls to get good prints on grade 2 paper. They all looked good.

 

[Vaughn]

If one sticks to one film and one developer...don't forget to print! And playing with other films along the way is part of the fun....it is not a sacred vow. The road to 'mastering' is littered with mistakes. It helps to keep notes so that when one accidentally does something right it can be repeated.

My fridge is a mish-mash of film brands, types and formats. One can get just about anything to work and these days one needs to...many use x-ray film...

 

[markjwyatt]

I suspect photographers can get bigger differences in results by choosing subjects, compositions, lighting, etc. than B&W film, but it is fun to try different films and see subtle differences.

 

[Bill Burk]

Light Capture,

I agree that any film can be developed to the same contrast and scenes exposed appropriately for the speed can give a consistent look.

And you may be right that there really isn't much difference between black and white 35mm films between 400 and 80.

I was going to argue that I can tell the difference between films. But then I looked for examples in my gallery and see there's not much difference.

For example TMAX-100 I can see spider webs on the print in this https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/hook-and-cables-in-live-oak.40933/
And APX-25 I can see veins on the leaves of the aspen in this https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/aspen-view.43570/
And TMY-2 I can't ask for more fine detail on the cracks in the paint https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/garage-door-lakewood-california.57808/

I have a Tri-X shot which I only ever printed to 8x10 because I thought it wouldn't hold up above that.

And I have a roll of 3200 with some of my favorite pictures that I only ever printed on postcards for the same reason.

I might print those up on 11x14 to see if my old criticism is fair or overblown. I think I will still feel the same, but maybe the prints will make me happy anyway.

Of course when I step up to 6x9 and 4x5 there's a difference worth checking out.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

And I have a roll of 3200 with some of my favorite pictures that I only ever printed on postcards for the same reason.

oh come now, I love 3200 in 35mm. Print it big.

 

[Agulliver]

When I started B&W photography in the early 80s, I'd already done some colour photography using Kodacolor and "Prinz Color" (likely Ferrania) because they were by far the most easily available.

With B&W Ilford films were easily available at the camera shop locally so I used FP4 and HP5. Then I got involved in photography at school where the teacher who ran the school dark room would buy Tri-X in bulk, and offer to roll it into cassettes and sell at cost price to pupils. So I discovered that Tri-X is every bit as good as HP5. I still generally settled on HP5 because I had a reliable supply. For a developer, the school darkroom used Ilford ID-11 so I tried that. It was permitted to take one's own chemicals to the darkroom but I found I liked ID-11 and have pretty much stuck with it to this day.

Later in life I was able to try many more B&W (and colour) films and have discovered that some suit my tastes or certain situations better than others. But I've mostly stuck with a small number of "go to" films which I keep a stash of plus a few rolls of more specialised film.

Eg....in 35mm Ilford HP5+ is one I keep my bulk loaders full of because under normal circumstances I'd be shooting lots of it in a variety of situations from sunshine to a dim jazz club. In 135 I've also settled on Fomapan 100 where I know I'm going to be shooting in bright conditions. For 120 I mostly keep stashes of Fomapan 100 and Fomapan 400 because I like the way they look and they're cheap.Price certainly is a factor, plus I like to have the ability to shoot in various lighting conditions and situations. It's also important to have some cheap film around for when I fancy loading up a lower quality vintage camera for fun.

I've tried some other developers, notably Ilford Microphen, Ilfotec LC29, a couple of Kodak offerings...I keep going back to ID-11 as it works well in all situations. Again in part because they're easily available. I can still toddle off on my feet to the local camera shop and pick up Ilford developers, papers and fixers...though I tend to buy online.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

If one sticks to one film and one developer...don't forget to print!

This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?

 

[Bill Burk]

When I started B&W photography in the early 80s, I'd already done some colour photography using Kodacolor and "Prinz Color" (likely Ferrania).

Cool history, thanks for telling the story

 

[Vaughn]

This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?

Or scanning, or whatever the end result the photographer wants. But if you are going to run a race, it is kinda nice to know at least which direction is the finishing line.

One does not need to print. I just developed two 11x14 negatives last night that I am more than happy to put on the light table and look at them for a few hours. I also have a fairly good idea of what the print will look like from looking at the negative -- that comes with time and proper practice.

 

[MattKing]

This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?

I just developed two 11x14 negatives last night that I am more than happy to put on the light table and look at them for a few hours.

My negatives are much smaller than Vaughn's, but I can identify with this. I think we have to agree though that we are a bit unusual about this.
There is an incredibly important feedback loop built into film photography.
You take pictures. You develop the film and create negatives. You use the negatives to create positives (in whatever means you choose). You evaluate the positives and make decisions about how you need to change the exposure or development. You try those changes and, if they result in better positives, you incorporate them for future use.
Once you are getting the positives you like, then you can start closely examining the negatives in order to build a mental (and/or digital) image of the type of negative that gives you the positive result you want. You can build that into your feedback loop, to aid in making decisions about things like which negative to print, when you have multiples.
There is a great documentary about Dorothea Lange that has been featured on American Masters on PBS. In one scene, she is shown and heard as she holds up a 4x5 (I think) negative and proclaims something like: "Now this is a beautiful negative" as she held it up to look at it. I really identify with that. You can too.

 

[removedacct3]

A few years ago I decided to settle on Fomapan 200 as I got great, great results exposing that film at 125 ASA and developed in either 510-pyro or Hypercat. Studio portraits looked amazing until I noticed tramline-like scratches on my 120 films. Checked and double checked my MF camera's and my dark room film handling. At the end I had no other option than to agree with the broadly accepted consensus that Foma's QA was to blame. A real pity as I liked the results I got and I never had a problem with Fomapan 200 in 35mm.

After my decision to look around for an alternative I tried different combo's and quickly learned that Ilford Delta, 100 or 400, are not suited for my kind of work. Way too sharp! It showed every blemish on the model's skin. No problem when photographing maie models, but female models hated it. The new Adox CHS 100 II could be a strong contender if available in 35mm and 120. I like to shoot 25mm and 120 side by side.

Than by chance I saw some images online taken with Bergger Pancro 400. Ordered a couple of rolls and started to experiment with dummy studio portrait images and developing in either 510-pyro and Hypercat. Horrible, absolutely horrible. Did some googling and found out that Bergger Pancro 400 is very picky with regards to staining developers. Decided to develop my fourth, and last roll available to me, using replenished stock D-23. Not too bad, not too bad at all. Lovely skin tones, plenty of shadow details, pleasing sharp and a very, very attractive grain structure.

Ordered some more to do some more testing. The D-23 negs look very nice and the prints of those negs look very nice as well. During last year's christmas break and just for the fun of experimenting I tried Bergger Pancro 400 in Hubl's paste.

I think I have found my new favorite film-developer combo! Wonderful, just wonderful!

 

[markjwyatt]

This is something that I've thought about asking, but couldn't figure out how to ask it. How much does printing influence a film choice, and how necessary is it? Can you determine what kind of film you like without printing?

You can determine what film you like for scanning and displaying electronically, but you might be surprised when you make prints.

 

[Light Capture]

Light Capture,

I agree that any film can be developed to the same contrast and scenes exposed appropriately for the speed can give a consistent look.

And you may be right that there really isn't much difference between black and white 35mm films between 400 and 80.

I was going to argue that I can tell the difference between films. But then I looked for examples in my gallery and see there's not much difference.

For example TMAX-100 I can see spider webs on the print in this https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/hook-and-cables-in-live-oak.40933/
And APX-25 I can see veins on the leaves of the aspen in this https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/aspen-view.43570/
And TMY-2 I can't ask for more fine detail on the cracks in the paint https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/garage-door-lakewood-california.57808/

I have a Tri-X shot which I only ever printed to 8x10 because I thought it wouldn't hold up above that.

And I have a roll of 3200 with some of my favorite pictures that I only ever printed on postcards for the same reason.

I might print those up on 11x14 to see if my old criticism is fair or overblown. I think I will still feel the same, but maybe the prints will make me happy anyway.

Of course when I step up to 6x9 and 4x5 there's a difference worth checking out.

I agree with what you're saying. Differences are there. I can see them but for my personal use, they are not important. Most comparisons fell apart if images were looked each on it's own.
Had to have them side by side and look through loupe to see them.

Before doing testing, I expected golf ball sized grain on some of these films and even worse when used with Rodinal.

One of my test images had chain link fence in it and differences were very small between the films. In the end, I couldn't decide if it was due to film or miniscule focusing error. It was so small that it wasn't worth repeating any of the tests.
Just like other member stated choosing HP5, I come out with the same conclusion. For me HP5 is shot exclusively at ISO 800 and developed as per instruction -15% of compensation. Small contrast increase and DR compression that comes with it, works for lower light use.
In ample light, I will use any of my favorite 100 ISO films - Delta 100, FP4 or TMAX 100 and develop bit differently for these conditions. To pull everything off these films, I need to be on very stable tripod and using mirror lockup.

At 11x14 printed from 35mm there will be difference between 400 ISO film and 100 ISO film.

I have few rolls of old TMAX 3200 where grain is almost visible by naked eye directly on film. Can only blame development and exposure for that one.
Never tested Tri-X. When my test was done old version was discontinued and couldn't easily get the new one.