Picking out film for a couple of applications

[Sully75]

Hi there,

First of all, thanks. I've gotten a lot of help with some questions I've already asked, much appreciated.

I'm just getting back into film. I'm interested in picking one or possibly two films and really getting to know them. I'm planning on a couple of applications, so not sure if it would be better to stay with one film or go with two. Suggestions would be appreciated.

#1 shooting indoors, extremely low light, a fair amount of action. So I would ideally like to shoot >1600 but could probably work with 800 and some blur. Mostly I want a rich negative. I'm not so concerned about grain, and in fact, I think I want some grain to fill in the highlights. One thing I've so far disliked about shooting digitally in really low light is that there isn't enough 'schmutz' to fill in where there is not much information. So I'm cool with a schmutzy film.

This picture, which I actually shot with a little Canon digicam, is kind of what I'm looking for, but I would like to do this with 35mm film:
http://paulmcevoy.viewbook.com/irish_music?p=1&s=UA-5309626-1#1

This is with 35mm, most likely. Maybe a MF rangefinder if I ever get one, and possibly with a Polaroid 110b rangefinder with a

 

[2F/2F]

Ilford Delta 3200. Available in 35mm and 120. One of the best films ever made.

Kodak makes a similar film as well: T-Max 3200.

They are both ISO 1000 speed films.

The Ilford is available in 120, while the Kodak is not.

I personally prefer the Ilford in every way.

 

[Sully75]

whoops. Acidentally posted this before I finished. Continuing on:

This is with 35mm, most likely. Maybe a MF rangefinder if I ever get one, and possibly with a Polaroid 110b rangefinder with a 4x5 back if I can borrow my friends. However this would get expensive, the percentage of misses with this kind of photography is pretty high.

My inspirations here would be John Cohen, Cartier-Bresson, Capa. I'd also be shooting in daylight sometimes and would like this film to respond well, but I think that's less of an issue.

#2 5x7 - portraits, landscapes, possibly some studio lighting, mostly modified sunlight and windowlight. Goal being really nice lit portraits, smooth, well controlled but expressive light. Thinking about Penn, Avedon, Albert Watson (particularly his book Marocc). Would also like this film to be generally useful for doing landscapes, less controlled portraits, still life, etc.\

This is a picture that ideally I'd be doing with the 5x7. Not totally happy with how it came out but this is the basic idea:
http://paulmcevoy.viewbook.com/irish_music?p=1&s=UA-5309626-1#5


So mostly I'm thinking I could do either with HP5 or Tri-X. My concerns are that I'd like to develop a relationship with whatever I end up using. I'm assuming we're thinking both of those will be around for quite a while, particularly in sheet form?

My concern with Tri-X is that HP5 might be the better sheet film. My concern with HP5 is that Tri-X might be the better shmutzy low light film. And then, perhaps, they are so close I couldn't really tell the difference?

Oh one other thing: with the 5x7 a side goal is to do contact prints, silver prints and possible some alternative process. As well as scanning.

So suggestions, aneqdotes, whatever you have to say, would be helpful.

AND!!! Your suggestions on chemicals would be helpful too. I've only used D76 in the past, but I think I'd benefit from using a developer that would push these films for low light? Would I use that same developer for regular processing or stick with D76?

Thanks!
Paul

 

[Sully75]

2f/2f I should have added: I've been thinking about avoiding the 3200 speed films if I can because I'd like to be able to use one 35mm film and really have control of it. I'm open to not doing that, but that would be ideal. So pushing Tri-x or HP5 would be preferable if possible.

 

[Athiril]

FP4 and Tri-X.

FP4 has a latitude of 6 stops overexposed and 2 stops under its box speed of 125 (allegedly) without processing adjustment, I havent used it that extreme, but I've shot at EI50 and processed without adjustment, ie: dev for 125.

It pushes allegedly very well to 1000.

People push Tri-X 400 to 6400. So 1600 is no problem.

 

[Sully75]

FP4 and Tri-X.

FP4 has a latitude of 6 stops overexposed and 2 stops under its box speed of 125 (allegedly) without processing adjustment, I havent used it that extreme, but I've shot at EI50 and processed without adjustment, ie: dev for 125.

It pushes allegedly very well to 1000.

People push Tri-X 400 to 6400. So 1600 is no problem.

Huh...I hadn't thought of FP4, I didn't think it was available in 5x7 but apparently it is. Thanks for the suggestion...I'll have to think about that.

 

[Sully75]

Is FP4 preferable to HP5 for scanning?

 

[Tim Gray]

Here's my take:

Tri-X for normal 35mm stuff. Or T-MAX 400. T-MAX 3200 (TMZ) or Delta 3200 at 1600 for the lowlight stuff. While the pushed look is called for sometimes, I find it can be distracting a lot of the time. You *can* push Tri-X to 1600, or higher, but you start to lose quite a bit of shadow detail. TMZ and Delta are great films - if you need the speed, just use them. You say you want a rich negative - not sure what you mean, but know this: pushing increases contrast. That's all it really does. You might pick up a 1/3 of a stop of real speed pushing Tri-X to 1600, but the real effect of pushing two stops is to push the highlights and midtones (underexposed by two stops) to the right place on the curve so you can print them at a normal grade. It DOES NOT give you two stops higher speed, allowing you to capture more in the shadows. This is a simplistic explanation, but if you want well exposed shadows, don't push. Use higher speed film. In fact, some might argue that if you are scanning and not printing in a darkroom, don't even push underexposed film. Just shoot it at EI 1600, scan, and adjust the curves in Photoshop. You can't do that in a darkroom because papers only have a limited number of contrast grades. Again, this is not to say that pushing doesn't have it's place.

In 5x7, HP5+ or T-MAX 400 (which it sounds like people are really loving). I would think large format is sufficiently different from 35mm that using a different film would not be that big of a deal. Development techniques and times are all ready different, as is grain in the final print due to the different enlargement ratios.

If you *really* just want to use one film, it's HP5+ or T-MAX 400. Those are the only 400 speed films that are available in 35mm and 5x7 as far as I know, and I hear they both push reasonably well. Sounds like some people are getting great results pushing the T-MAX to 1600. Tri-X in 35mm is a different emulsion than in large format.

Just for reference, I just do this for a hobby, and primarily use 3 films. Plus-X, Tri-X, and TMZ, which gives me ISO 100, 400, and 1600-3200. As long as you are consistent in your development technique, you should have no problems moving between a small group of films in different situations. Most of my negatives scan just fine and print on grade 2-2.5.

 

[Sully75]

Hi Tim,

Thanks...that was really helpful. I hear what you are saying about the higher speed films. I guess the look I want is like this:
http://www.johncohenworks.com/photo/photo_4.html
John Cohen's pictures from the 1950s. I'm assuming they are pushed because I think the high speed films weren't available then?

 

[Tim Gray]

I don't know. That or long shutter speeds

That doesn't look that pushed to me. Jack Kerouac looks like he has a dark shirt on and dark hair. If that was pushed two stops they would be completely black, in my experience. Unless of course you took some nonstandard meter reading and gave a ton of extra exposure. But who knows I've found that a one stop push usually looks pretty decent, but two stops starts getting into the area where anything dark is just a featureless black blob.

The best bet is to grab 2 rolls of Tri-X and one of TMZ, and shoot the same scene on all 3 rolls. Do one roll of Tri-X at 400, one at 1600, and the TMZ at 1600. Develop all 3 in your dev according to the tech pubs in your developer (XTOL is a good one). See which ones you like the best.

 

[2F/2F]

Well, if you don't want to use the 1000 speed films that I mentioned, your next step down is 400, of which there are many to choose. I suggest T-Max 400 for low-contrast low light shooting, and...nothing 400 for high contrast low light shooting. For that, I would always use Delta 3200, due to its inherently low contrast.