Picking a 5x7 film

[Sully75]

Hi there,

I'm working out the kinks of the 5x7 camera and LF developing. About halfway through my first box of HP5. Love the camera and the process. Developing is still coming along, really screwed up the last batch but I think I figured out what I did wrong.

Here's my last 2 pictures, a lot of photochopping to get them useable, sadly.

I'm currently shooting with a Leica and a Mamiya C330. Ideally I'd be using one film for everything, but I'm thinking I'm going to stick with Tri-X 400 for the Leica, not sure about the Mamiya. I'm using HP5 for the 5x7, only because an old photography teacher swore by it, calling it "the best film ever made". He was a big zoner, and a great printer, so I haven't messed with it.

That said, I'm definitely open to suggestions. Price is a factor too, so I would be totally happy trying FOMA film.

Looks like the choices for 5x7 are
Arista-II Ortho Litho Film
Ilford HP5+ 400
Efke PL 25 ORT Orthochromatic
Ilford FP4+ 125 iso 5x7
Foma Fomapan 200
Kodak Tri-X Pro 320 iso 5x7
Foma Fomapan 100 iso 5x7
Fotokemika Efke PL 100 M iso 100
Adox CHS 25 Art 5x7
Fotokemika Efke PL 25 M iso 25
Arista EDU Ultra B&W 100 iso 5x7
Adox ORT25 Orthochromatic 5x7

At least that's what I see at Freestyle.

What I want to do is basically what I've been trying to do with the above pictures. LF portraits, rich tonality, sharp but warm. Maybe some landscapes too. I'd like to start working indoors, too, with available light, so 400 would be good, but then again, I like the challenge of working with a subject inside and needing them to sit still for a while.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your thoughts on if I should try something else or stick with HP5. I don't have anything bad to say about it, it's just that I'd like to decide what I'm using and stick with it at this point. So I wanted to do a quick exploration of what else is available.

 

[Sully75]

oh and for the record I'll be scanning, with the slight possibility of wanting to do contact printing down the line.

 

[mike c]

One more 5x7 film to add is Tmax 100,Freestyle does not sell it but some large photo stores do.Have used the Arista 100,and 200 and liked them, a little more contraster than TXP 320.The Efke 25 ortho is pretty contrasty,have not tamed it yet,at least the development part.Have used TXP for landscape and did ok but think tmax 100 would work better.I don't scan so can't help you there.The Adox 25 I had tried had trouble,think it was to old or some thing so could not comment on it.

 

[Jim Noel]

One more 5x7 film to add is Tmax 100,Freestyle does not sell it but some large photo stores do.Have used the Arista 100,and 200 and liked them, a little more contraster than TXP 320.The Efke 25 ortho is pretty contrasty,have not tamed it yet,at least the development part.Have used TXP for landscape and did ok but think tmax 100 would work better.I don't scan so can't help you there.The Adox 25 I had tried had trouble,think it was to old or some thing so could not comment on it.

Remember: Slow films are always more contrast than their fast film cousins.

 

[keithwms]

For scanning, I'd strongly suggest trying a pyro developer, and something like wd2d+ gives you a lot of output flexibility including alt printing, silver printing, and scanning. The only drawback is the environmental toxicity of the developer, which I don't know how to neutralize. But on the other hand you use it in small quantities.

I do believe that fp4+, hp5+ and panatomic x are my favourites for 5x7. The panatomic can still be bought in aerial, 5" roll form, and you can easily cut it to 5x7.

If you like hp5+ then why not stick with it and master it. It is a very versatile film. And for 5x7 contact printing, hey, you could push it two stops and still get a smooth print. If somehow all other films vanished form the earth and all I had was hp5+, I'd be quite content. (and others feel this way about tri x)

 

[Sully75]

Hi Keith,

Got it, thanks for the advice. I was interested in pyro, but I develop in a bathroom shared by roomates, and I don't think exposing them to it is really fair. I'm freaked out enough by D76 on the bathroom sink.

Is there another alternative to pyro that would be good for scanning? I've been thinking about using Diafine for the Tri-x.

Thanks
Paul

 

[removed account4]

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

 

[2F/2F]

Remember: Slow films are always more contrast than their fast film cousins.

That is the rule of thumb, though there are exceptions (e.g. Efke/Adox 50 being more contrasty than Efke/Adox 25).

 

[keithwms]

Yep, John is right, tmax is a very good option. As far as I know, all of the pyros are very toxic, so... getting into one of the tabular/epitaxial-grained films like tmax might be a way to go. I don't mean to blow the issue of scan grain out of proportion though; with 5x7 negs, it isn't really much of a concern. You could stick with fp/hp and a developer more friendly to your shared environment.

 

[2F/2F]

Some of those films are the same emulsions. Arista EDU is the same as Foma and Efke 25/50/100 are the same as Adox CHS 25/50/100.

Interesting that there is no T-Max 100, Efke/Adox 50, or Adox 100. I wonder why they bother to sell Adox and Efke in the 25 ISO version, but no ISO 50 version of either, and only the Efke version of the 100. I'd check some of the specialty view camera stores, and B&H too. I don't see why Efke 50 shouldn't be available in 5x7 format. Perhaps the greatest thing about the Efke films is the huge variety of formats in which they are offered.

There are also some Fujichrome emulsions in 5x7, and Portra 160NC (minimum qty. 30 boxes). Boy, do I wish I could afford a case of the 160NC to stockpile, because it is the only color neg film made in the format, and it sure as shit ain't going to be around for much longer.

Arista Ortho Litho will be the cheapest, but also the slowest. Shooting people may be challenging with it. Also, since it is designed as a halftone film, you must ick it into having continuous tone. For the best continuous tone results, you'll need to mix up a developer called David Soemarko's LC-1. It is easy and cheap, and gives gorgeous results. I am sure you know that because it is not sensitive to red light, you can develop it by inspection.

 

[ntenny]

That is the rule of thumb, though there are exceptions (e.g. Efke/Adox 50 being more contrasty than Efke/Adox 25).

Is this true objectively? I've always had the opposite impression. Both are lovely films though.

Personally, I really like Fomapan 100 at EI 50, and it seems to me like a good match for the sort of work you're describing, as long as there's enough light for a slowish film to make sense. Both it and the Efke films are cheap enough to use for the learning curve, too, but of course they're about as far away from HP5+ in character as it's possible to get.

HP5+ and TXP seem to be about the only options for a fast film in 5x7. I've never managed to get TXP under control, but some people get lovely results with it.

-NT

 

[Jeff Searust]

Shoot on paper....

I shoot 5x7 on Ilford multigrade glossy RC. It's somewhere about ISO 2-3. What is neat is that it's orthochromatic like old school film. It ends up being like 20 cents a shot after chemistry and everything. And for developer you are just using dektol so you have less chemistry to deal with.

 

[cdholden]

Everyone has their favorite, but if you're still learning, I'd recommend you stick with one film and one developer. Learn its traits and learn how to control it. Once you get all warm and fuzzy inside, then try a few other combinations... or not. If you're happy with what you're doing, why fix it if it isn't broke?

 

[jmcd]

I love HP5+ and find it extremely versatile. I shoot it from 35mm to 8x10. It works great in many developers. Other films are great, too, but HP5+ is my pick.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Shoot on paper....

I shoot 5x7 on Ilford multigrade glossy RC. It's somewhere about ISO 2-3. What is neat is that it's orthochromatic like old school film. It ends up being like 20 cents a shot after chemistry and everything. And for developer you are just using dektol so you have less chemistry to deal with.

Are you using this to make paper negatives or one off prints? Interesting idea I never thought of.

 

[2F/2F]

I love HP5+ and find it extremely versatile. I shoot it from 35mm to 8x10. It works great in many developers. Other films are great, too, but HP5+ is my pick.

Ditto (though I don't shoot 8x10, only 5x7).

 

[Jeff Searust]

Are you using this to make paper negatives or one off prints? Interesting idea I never thought of.

The paper makes a negative that then can be used to make a positive. The Ilford RC can either be left as is, or the paper can be peeled away and the thin plastic holds the emulsion. Alternativephotography.com has an article on peeling this paper layer off.

One interesting thing is that 5x7 ilford paper is about 1/16th of an inch too big to fit into 5x7 film holders, since you can load them in safelight it is really no problem to use a paper cutter to slice off a bit when loading film holders.

 

[removed account4]

for a developer that is easy to numeric the film,
you might consider a glycin based developer like ansco 130
or something like dilute dektol, or even a coffee based developer like caffenol C.
all three of them work very well and the films are easy to scan
as long as you don't go overboard with the agitation.
i use caffenol C and ansco 130 as my primary film developers.
pretty much everything i have processed
in the last 8 years has been one or the other or both mixed together.

The paper makes a negative that then can be used to make a positive. The Ilford RC can either be left as is, or the paper can be peeled away and the thin plastic holds the emulsion. Alternativephotography.com has an article on peeling this paper layer off.

One interesting thing is that 5x7 ilford paper is about 1/16th of an inch too big to fit into 5x7 film holders, since you can load them in safelight it is really no problem to use a paper cutter to slice off a bit when loading film holders.

i agree paper negatives can be a lot of fun.
but the whole blue light and high contrast thing
might be an issue to some. i have grown accustom to shooting
paper ( not ilford rc but old potentially fogged kodak and agfa fb )
but in flat light or controlled lighting ... putting a yellow filter on the lens
can be helpful too, but you have to compensate your exposure time ...
and learn how to process paper in spent developer...

(there are both a coffee developer group and paper negative group here on apug )

 

[ronlamarsh]

Foma/arista edu

I have been using arista edu ultra for 2 yrs now but it is no longer available. In other threads here folks have cautioned that the foma films are more contrasty and require much less developement. from my experience this is true. just recently I have used HP5+ in 4x5 and it is fantastic, the price is double that of arista edu ultra but I have found I can use HP5+ at 320asa in D-23 1:1 13min which is a great boon to having to use foma at half the box speed.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You will see some differences among the films you listed in terms of color rendition, grain, resolution, and film speed. Grain and resolution is likely not an issue for you, so color rendition and film speed remains. Price is probably an issue too.

When I picked my main film I had a few criteria:
1. Availability
2. Consistency
3. Quality
4. Malleable, meaning I can change how it behaves by exposing and processing it differently.

I found my holy grail with Eastman Kodak after many years of farting around with different films, and I focus on using mainly one film, which seems to be the case with you too. Lately I have decided to embrace one more, mainly to have an alternative if the other one decides to disappear.
But what I find is that since I know one film so intimately, how it behaves in long exposure, over-exposure, under-exposure, and how it reacts to variations in processing (agitation intervals, processing time, etc) - and most importantly, how it prints in all those circumstances - I am free of thinking about the process when I shoot. It's intuitive! And in my world that makes for better pictures.
I can get creative at the printing stage too, but the beauty here is that since I get the negs right just about every time, a proof is almost always certain to print well on Grade 2 paper = no filtration = speed.

What I'm saying is, if you can afford HP5+, you have very little reason to look at the other films. Make it simple for yourself and just continue using it. Look at our fellow member Ilya Anaskazi (ilya). I don't think he posts here anymore, but made ALL of his pictures using an 8x10 camera and FP4 film. Process pyro and print on Lodima.
Bill Schwab uses Tri-X and prints on Ilford MGIV. Same process for years and years, with VERY versatile results.
Both those guys are very successful photographers with stunning pictures as a result.

Long winded way to urge you to keep it simple.

- Thomas

Hi there,

I'm working out the kinks of the 5x7 camera and LF developing. About halfway through my first box of HP5. Love the camera and the process. Developing is still coming along, really screwed up the last batch but I think I figured out what I did wrong.

Here's my last 2 pictures, a lot of photochopping to get them useable, sadly.

I'm currently shooting with a Leica and a Mamiya C330. Ideally I'd be using one film for everything, but I'm thinking I'm going to stick with Tri-X 400 for the Leica, not sure about the Mamiya. I'm using HP5 for the 5x7, only because an old photography teacher swore by it, calling it "the best film ever made". He was a big zoner, and a great printer, so I haven't messed with it.

That said, I'm definitely open to suggestions. Price is a factor too, so I would be totally happy trying FOMA film.

Looks like the choices for 5x7 are
Arista-II Ortho Litho Film
Ilford HP5+ 400
Efke PL 25 ORT Orthochromatic
Ilford FP4+ 125 iso 5x7
Foma Fomapan 200
Kodak Tri-X Pro 320 iso 5x7
Foma Fomapan 100 iso 5x7
Fotokemika Efke PL 100 M iso 100
Adox CHS 25 Art 5x7
Fotokemika Efke PL 25 M iso 25
Arista EDU Ultra B&W 100 iso 5x7
Adox ORT25 Orthochromatic 5x7

At least that's what I see at Freestyle.

What I want to do is basically what I've been trying to do with the above pictures. LF portraits, rich tonality, sharp but warm. Maybe some landscapes too. I'd like to start working indoors, too, with available light, so 400 would be good, but then again, I like the challenge of working with a subject inside and needing them to sit still for a while.

Anyway, I'd appreciate your thoughts on if I should try something else or stick with HP5. I don't have anything bad to say about it, it's just that I'd like to decide what I'm using and stick with it at this point. So I wanted to do a quick exploration of what else is available.

 

[ntenny]

I have been using arista edu ultra for 2 yrs now but it is no longer available.

It's not? I just looked at Freestyle's web site and it shows as available, albeit "low stock" in 5x7. (Of course there's always the Foma-branded version, too, from a variety of sources.)

-NT

 

[John Kasaian]

It's "horses for courses" if you ask me.
For price Arista.edu wins the panchro race (and I shoot a lot of .edu in 8x10)but it has it's limitations. If reciprocity raises it's ugly head I won't shoot .edu---HP-5+ and FP-4+ are superior when it comes to that(and they suck the doors off my old favorite TXP!) Contrasty static subjects is where Ortho really shines IMHO. TMY otoh is the uberemulsion in my book, but prohibitively expensive in 8x10---when I need a fast 5x7 I'll go with HP-5+ every time.
Ideally you could pick one film and stick with it for at least a year (and I heartily recommend that) but in actuality LF emulsions come and go with disturbing regularity---even classic brands like TXP change over time so if you get wedded to a particular film it can be a regal pain if it gets pulled off the market and you have to start over testing for a new emulsion to replace it. Hedge your bets and learn what at least two of three different emulsions will bring to your party. Arista.edu is a good one from a price point--of FP-4+ works for an "everyday" film. HP-5+ or TMY when you've got the need for speed and Ortho for when the subject demands it.

 

[Sully75]

Thanks for all the help.

Probably going to stick with HP5, might experiment a little bit though.

For the record, what are Ortho films good for, exactly?

John, are you saying that Arista is similar to FP4? Just wondering.

Thanks
Paul

 

[whlogan]

TriX (any of them) and Diafine is a winning combination.... ISo of 800 works fine. Develop for 4+4 rather than 3+3..... better contrast.... been doing it for years now with good results.
Logan

 

[keithwms]

I use ortho for duping, mostly; ortho films (and paper) can be retouched quite easily. But if a scene has significant red in it (and most of mine do), ortho can give disappointing tonality. Sometimes it works well, sometimes it doesn't, you just have to develop an eye for when it will or won't work.

Frankly, there are a lot of people trying to do large format on the cheap with it. That's not intended to be a generally disparaging statement, and some LFers do have artistic reasons for using it, but... well just try it yourself.

The usual defense of ortho is, well, look at the Greats and how much they did with non-pan films. Hurrell made movie stars look glamorous with it, you see. Anyone who feels they should or could emulate the Greats can go ahead and do so. But give me my fp4+ and hp5+, and I'll let my artistic vision decide whether and how I filter it.