Suggest a 400 film

[ntenny]

Quality control and consistency are important. If you stick with Ilford, Kodak and Fuji, anything that goes wrong is your fault. If you use other names, all bets are off. They are all resurrected brand names and who knows what you're really getting, who makes it, or if it's just repackaged old stock.

I don't think Foma is resurrected; to my understanding they're the modern direct descendant of the old Fotochema works. Certainly their films are of their own make, not rebranded or repackaged old stock. (Ditto Efke/Fotokemika, while they lived, though I don't think they ever made a 400 film.) And of course Kentmere is an Ilford brand, but Simon Galley has been quite explicit that the Kentmere films are a different emulsion from anything sold under the Ilford name.

As far as I can think, the only company to which your caveat really applies is Rollei/Maco. Which may explain why no one has had much to say about their films in this thread.

-NT

 

[StoneNYC]

First let me say that the following is NOT a political statement. But I challange the logical fallacy that Kodak is in some way responsible for the problems of the world and boycotting them will solve the west's problems. To be very polite your argument is simplistic in the extreme.

If someone has a problem with the British government should they stop buying Ilford film? You are equating an economic entity with a political one. Like comparing apples and oranges.

I would liken his comment to china as that fits better as a communist country who's regime is cruel to its own people, they should be boycotted before the USA. I'd like to see how photographers would react if you told them to stop using all the gear and film made in china... There wouldn't be much shooting going on...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steelneck]

Looks like the OP is going ilford HP5+ so let's see what he thinks after his test :

I will try to remember this thread when i have done some tests, but it will probably take some weeks. I will try Hp5+.

The key is not to jump to quick conclusions when trying a new film. Spend some time with it and the developer (Rodinal in this case) to figure out how best to expose and develop (different times, dilutions, agitation etc) for one's purposes and taste. And make prints to evaluate. You can't shoot two rolls of film and decide it's good or no good.

Yes, that is very true.

BTW. I do print in darkroom using Foma papers in MC-Dev (yet another old Agfa product coming to life again), it is quite rare that i scan my films today. For iso100 i have come to like Foma 100, i like the results that i get from that film souped in Rodinal at 7½min. Rodinal has become my favourite developer since i got my hands on a 15 year old bottle of true Rodinal made by Agfa (though i have made some home brewing PC-glycol experiments). The contents of the old bottle was dark as CocaCola, but it still worked just fine. Later i bought a new bottle of R09 made by Compard AG that is supposed to be made on the same recipe. I could use the same dev-times for both! This was 3 years ago, i still have that old bottle of original Rodinal and it did still work two months ago. This extreme shelf life is perfect for me since my BW work is quite sporadic, with Rodinal i never have to worry about the freshness of the developer. Earlier i used Xtol, but i have had to pour out liters of that when it got old and i did not dare to use it. Also i happen to like the tonality i get from Rodinal and i do not mind grain.

This thing about grain is something that i feel have changed lately. Back in the analog days people wanted fine grain-developers, especially for small format film. The analog days had its kind of "pixel-peeping" too. Today most people shoot digital when they want clean images, if not the kind of digital shooters that even add artificial grain.. Today the reason to use BW film is more often based other reasons. Grain is even wanted sometimes, grain has become some sort of a statement in printed BW pictures.

 

[steelneck]

Just tried my first Hp5+ in Rodinal and i am happy.

While i waited for delivery i searched for examples and dev. times. I have so far mostly used a dilution of 1:50 for my films, but neither Agfa or Ilford recommend that dilution for some reason, some say it wont build contrast enough. Their recommendations for EI 400 in 1:25 dilution also differ, Ilford says 6 min and Agfa 8 min. I tend to like a bit contrast, so i developed this first film for 8 min in 1:25 dilution. 30 sec initial agitation and then two turns every minute.

The film came out OK, initially the neg looked a bit dense, but that was only me fooling my self since i developed my last roll of Foma 400 just earlier in 1:50 for 12 min (EI 320). I did take some shots of the same scene, just for comparison. Hp5+ is a faster film than Foma 400, no question about it, more than a stop faster, maybe even closing in on two. Grain? Yes, ohh yes. The grain is about the same for those two films, pronounced but in a pleasing way. Hp5+ is quite a bit sharper and i also liked the tonality of Hp5+ better than the Foma. It seem like Hp5+ has a more defined and so to speak compressed toe in the density curve, there is more in both the deep shadows and even more so in the highlights compared to Foma.

I also did under and over expose a scene by one stop. The Hp5+ do not seem to like over-exposure, that +1 shot lost a lot of contrast and did not look good. I got quite surprised of the under-exposed shot, it hardly even looked under-exposed, midtones where just about the same, just a tad darker on the contact sheet over all. At a quick glance it looked about the same as the correct exposure, at second look it had a bit contrast to it. Initially i even liked the one stop under-exposed shot better. It seem like Hp5+ is quite forgiving regarding under-exposure. To me this says it will respond well to pushing.

I tried to print a couple of frames on grade 2, 9x6" paper. The prints came out very good, maybe a tad low in contrast. Actually much better than i had expected for a first test-roll. I think Hp5+ will become my 400 film of choice, this first roll was very promising.

 

[StoneNYC]

Just tried my first Hp5+ in Rodinal and i am happy.

While i waited for delivery i searched for examples and dev. times. I have so far mostly used a dilution of 1:50 for my films, but neither Agfa or Ilford recommend that dilution for some reason, some say it wont build contrast enough. Their recommendations for EI 400 in 1:25 dilution also differ, Ilford says 6 min and Agfa 8 min. I tend to like a bit contrast, so i developed this first film for 8 min in 1:25 dilution. 30 sec initial agitation and then two turns every minute.

The film came out OK, initially the neg looked a bit dense, but that was only me fooling my self since i developed my last roll of Foma 400 just earlier in 1:50 for 12 min (EI 320). I did take some shots of the same scene, just for comparison. Hp5+ is a faster film than Foma 400, no question about it, more than a stop faster, maybe even closing in on two. Grain? Yes, ohh yes. The grain is about the same for those two films, pronounced but in a pleasing way. Hp5+ is quite a bit sharper and i also liked the tonality of Hp5+ better than the Foma. It seem like Hp5+ has a more defined and so to speak compressed toe in the density curve, there is more in both the deep shadows and even more so in the highlights compared to Foma.

I also did under and over expose a scene by one stop. The Hp5+ do not seem to like over-exposure, that +1 shot lost a lot of contrast and did not look good. I got quite surprised of the under-exposed shot, it hardly even looked under-exposed, midtones where just about the same, just a tad darker on the contact sheet over all. At a quick glance it looked about the same as the correct exposure, at second look it had a bit contrast to it. Initially i even liked the one stop under-exposed shot better. It seem like Hp5+ is quite forgiving regarding under-exposure. To me this says it will respond well to pushing.

I tried to print a couple of frames on grade 2, 9x6" paper. The prints came out very good, maybe a tad low in contrast. Actually much better than i had expected for a first test-roll. I think Hp5+ will become my 400 film of choice, this first roll was very promising.

YAY!!

I tend to use Rodinal 1:50 for all my Rodinal development, seems fine for HP5+ but then I've never tried 1:25 maybe I'll try that to compare


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steelneck]

I tend to use Rodinal 1:50 for all my Rodinal development, seems fine for HP5+ but then I've never tried 1:25 maybe I'll try that to compare

If you beat me to it, i would like a comment on the defference. I suspect that 1:50 produces a bit smoother grain for the price of a flatter tonality and/or less contrast. Those who are pushing Hp5+ in Rodinal seem to use higher dilutions and way longer times, probably to not get too much contrast, that seem logical from the overexposed shots i did on my test roll. In my contrasty taste the 800 shot was quite alright with the same dev. as 400, but i can imagine what happens with yet another stop less exposure.

 

[TheToadMen]

Just tried my first Hp5+ in Rodinal and i am happy.

While i waited for delivery i searched for examples and dev. times. I have so far mostly used a dilution of 1:50 for my films, but neither Agfa or Ilford recommend that dilution for some reason, some say it wont build contrast enough. Their recommendations for EI 400 in 1:25 dilution also differ, Ilford says 6 min and Agfa 8 min. I tend to like a bit contrast, so i developed this first film for 8 min in 1:25 dilution. 30 sec initial agitation and then two turns every minute.

The site of www.digitaltruth.com can help you with getting started experimenting with dilutions & developing times.
You can find several developer combinations for HP5+ here:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=HP5&Developer=&mdc=Search
And here are all the combinations for Rodinal with several types of film:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=&Developer=Rodinal&mdc=Search
They also have a nice app with all the information:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/apps/

And don't forget to have fun in the process ;-)

 

[viridari]

HP5+ is a wonderful film, highly versatile (I've pushed to EI 6400, pulled to EI 200 and have been happy enough with results). If you're skeptical about the future availability of different film products, Ilford seems on the surface to be doing the best job of adjusting to the changing marketplace and setting themselves up for the long haul. If I were a betting man, I'd say that HP5+ will outlast Tri-X and the lot.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Very good, thorough way of testing your first roll. Many folks dislike HP5+ in Rodinal, but I found that for my own purposes that at EI 800 in Rodinal 1+25 works really well. It's as though the film comes alive in normal contrast like that. At higher contrast I have exposed at box speed, and lower contrast gone to 1600, in order to get a normal grade 2.5 print negative contrast. Of course developing time has to be adjusted.
Looks like you're well on your way! Have fun, and enjoy the trip.

Just tried my first Hp5+ in Rodinal and i am happy.

While i waited for delivery i searched for examples and dev. times. I have so far mostly used a dilution of 1:50 for my films, but neither Agfa or Ilford recommend that dilution for some reason, some say it wont build contrast enough. Their recommendations for EI 400 in 1:25 dilution also differ, Ilford says 6 min and Agfa 8 min. I tend to like a bit contrast, so i developed this first film for 8 min in 1:25 dilution. 30 sec initial agitation and then two turns every minute.

The film came out OK, initially the neg looked a bit dense, but that was only me fooling my self since i developed my last roll of Foma 400 just earlier in 1:50 for 12 min (EI 320). I did take some shots of the same scene, just for comparison. Hp5+ is a faster film than Foma 400, no question about it, more than a stop faster, maybe even closing in on two. Grain? Yes, ohh yes. The grain is about the same for those two films, pronounced but in a pleasing way. Hp5+ is quite a bit sharper and i also liked the tonality of Hp5+ better than the Foma. It seem like Hp5+ has a more defined and so to speak compressed toe in the density curve, there is more in both the deep shadows and even more so in the highlights compared to Foma.

I also did under and over expose a scene by one stop. The Hp5+ do not seem to like over-exposure, that +1 shot lost a lot of contrast and did not look good. I got quite surprised of the under-exposed shot, it hardly even looked under-exposed, midtones where just about the same, just a tad darker on the contact sheet over all. At a quick glance it looked about the same as the correct exposure, at second look it had a bit contrast to it. Initially i even liked the one stop under-exposed shot better. It seem like Hp5+ is quite forgiving regarding under-exposure. To me this says it will respond well to pushing.

I tried to print a couple of frames on grade 2, 9x6" paper. The prints came out very good, maybe a tad low in contrast. Actually much better than i had expected for a first test-roll. I think Hp5+ will become my 400 film of choice, this first roll was very promising.

 

[baachitraka]

Fomapan 400(@200) and Rodinal 1+50 for 25mins with three inversions at every fifth minute.

 

[StoneNYC]

Fomapan 400(@200) and Rodinal 1+50 for 25mins with three inversions at every fifth minute.

You need to read the other posts before posting... He's already made his choice for now.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[viridari]

You need to read the other posts before posting...

Not necessarily; continuing to build the domain knowledge in this thread will have value for future reference for others, and also for the OP should he ever decide to try a different combination than what he's using presently.

 

[steelneck]

Many folks dislike HP5+ in Rodinal, but I found that for my own purposes that at EI 800 in Rodinal 1+25 works really well. It's as though the film comes alive in normal contrast like that.

Yes, my first film indicates to me too that it looks good at EI800. I even think that 400 or 800 does not really matter, it just get a bit more contrast at 800. It looks like i can get away with the same dev-time for both.

I have just shot a second roll that is drying as i write. This time i went for 1:50 dilution and 12 minutes. When i hang it for drying it looked just about the same as the previous one. This time i took four shots of the same scene that i did on the previous roll, from +1 to -2 stop. The 1 stop over exposed shot was clearly more dense, on the normal and -1 stop i could not see any difference when looking at the wet negative, the -2 stop was a bit more clear. These shots are taken in my garage (my snowmobile) with a studio flash to get consistent lighting.

I get back again when i have made a contact sheet and a test print. That will tell me something about grain and tonality. I expect to see a bit flatter tonality and a bit less pronounced grain, maybe at the expense of sharpness but i wont bet on it.

Not necessarily; continuing to build the domain knowledge in this thread will have value for future reference for others, and also for the OP should he ever decide to try a different combination than what he's using presently.

I have used Foma 400 with Rodinal quite a bit, done a lot of testing but i never come to like it. Tonality-wise it is OK but at one stop slower speed, possibly even two, as my tests with Hp5+ indicates so far, and this with better sharpness and about the same grain as Foma.

 

[steelneck]

Now i have made a contact and a print from the film shot at EI 400 and developed for 12 min in 1:50 Rodinal*, the same agitation as in earlier post.

(*R09 made by Compard, the modern west Germany Agfa recepie, not the 100 year old one published post war made by Calbe today)

The difference from the dev. in 1:25 for 8 min is small, very small. Seen on the contact i lost a tiny bit of contrast, and i really mean tiny, hard to see at all. The film did seem get a little more forgiving to over exposure in this 1:50 dilution, but still handle underexposure just as good. Though it look like i lost less than 1/3 of speed, the contact sheet became a little darker, but the diff. is so small that it is hard to see even with the two contacts side by side.

I also made a print and a tiny bit of "punch" was lost there too, very little difference though. So far i think i like the tonality better in the 1:25 version, but the difference is small. When i peak at the grain with a loupe on the 9x6" print, the 1:50 version seem to have a tiny bit smaller grain, but the diff is so small that it is hard to tell.

 

[viridari]

I have used Foma 400 with Rodinal quite a bit, done a lot of testing but i never come to like it. Tonality-wise it is OK but at one stop slower speed, possibly even two, as my tests with Hp5+ indicates so far, and this with better sharpness and about the same grain as Foma.

Everyone will have their own tastes, of course, but Fomapan 400 in Rodinal 1+25 has worked well for my own tastes.

 

[steelneck]

.. on the normal and -1 stop i could not see any difference when looking at the wet negative, the -2 stop was a bit more clear. These shots are taken in my garage (my snowmobile) with a studio flash to get consistent lighting.

Reply to self.

I cannot trust these results yet. There was to little difference on the four stop series, i could not believe it, no film is that forgiving. I used a studio flash and took shots from f5.6 to f16 where f8 was EI 400 confirmed on my digital camera. Today i put the old Chinon 28mm lens i used on my digital camera and yes i have a bit sticky aperture blades. It works OK with flash up to f8 but over that the blades are not fast enough to stop down fully until the flash comes on, there are probably a little oil on them and the camera was a bit cold from being in my garage at 8C. That explain the very small diff. i saw on the two darkest shots. But of course this only apply to the shots with that lens using flash, without flash the aperture blades are fast enough.

All other shots i made was with another lens. So far.. 1:25 Rodinal and 8 min seem to be quite spot on. 1:50 and 12 min came out a bit darker, less than ½ stop, with less contrast. More testing is needed, 12 min for 1:50 was not enough for my taste, or i may just settle on using 1:25 for Hp5+ at box speed. The diff. in grain was negligible while i liked the tonality of 1:25 better.

 

[StoneNYC]

I agree, I tend to add a minute or so to 1+50 times for Rodinal to pump up the highlights, glad you're enjoying the new 400 so far


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk