Two-film strategy

[alanrockwood]

What about the idea of using a two-film strategy?

For example, one film could be something like Kentmere 100 or Fomapan 100 (or 200), and the other might be something like a T-grain film such as Fuji Acros, Kodak Tmax 100, or Ilford Delta 100. The idea would be to use the inexpensive film for most photos, saving the expensive stuff when it serves a special purpose, such as low reciprocity failure, finest grain, higher resolution, or whatever. This would work best if loaded into two camera bodies, so either film would be available at a moment's notice.

This strategy assumes that the cheap film would work fine for most shots but sometimes one would want the special capabilities of the more expensive film. And the idea behind this is to save money while still keeping the option of "highest quality" when it serve a particular purpose that the cheap film can't fulfill very well.

There could be other variations on a two-film strategy, such as slow/fast, traditional grain/t-grain (which isn't so different from the first scheme I listed, except that the goal might not be economizing on film cost), etc. And that's worth discussing, but my main rationale/purpose is presented in the first two paragraphs.

 

[John Bragg]

Equally, there are some films that behave totally differently in various developers. One that springs to mind is HP5+. It can be incredibly smooth, or gritty and punchy depending on how it is souped. Bulk buy and home roll for cheapness and there you have it. Optimum flexibility and economies of scale.

 

[JensH]

Hi,

slow/fast!
I often have two Rolleiflexes in the bag:
One with PanF+, the other one with TriX.

Jens

 

[AgX]

Actually I employ a multi-film approach, with films spread over the whole sensitivity spectrum.
But that idea of a cheaper in addition to a more costly film is new to me. But as not all of the films I use cost the same per final frame, I got an inherit outcome if costs are a matter.

 

[BrianShaw]

Slow & fast or color and B&W. Cheap and expensive might be more effort than the cost savings benefit gained is worth.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you're trying to be consistent with "look", a two-film approach probably won't work.

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Foma and now Ultrafine Finess 100 and 400 as my walk around film, when traveling I shoot Tmax 100 and 400 except 4X5, as I dont want to buy 50 sheets of Tmax I use Foma and HP5. The reason I use Tmax for travel is that Tmax pushes well, easy to buy on the road, and overall the quality control is excellent and I dont like to take chances when on a long trip. My walk around film for daily shooting, Zoo, Botanical Garden, Old Town, a few day trips that I've been to many times and can go back at any time.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I use Foma and now Ultrafine Finess 100 and 400 as my walk around film, when traveling I shoot Tmax 100 and 400 except 4X5, as I dont want to buy 50 sheets of Tmax I use Foma and HP5. The reason I use Tmax for travel is that Tmax pushes well, easy to buy on the road, and overall the quality control is excellent and I dont like to take chances when on a long trip. My walk around film for daily shooting, Zoo, Botanical Garden, Old Town, a few day trips that I've been to many times and can go back at any time.

Tmax is also available in ten sheets 4x5.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/sear...ct_films_3128:kodak-t-max-100|kodak-t-max-400

 

[Donald Qualls]

Tmax is also available in ten sheets 4x5.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?q=tmax&filters=fct_category:sheet_film_335,fct_films_3128:kodak-t-max-100|kodak-t-max-400

That doesn't improve the per-sheet price at all, though. Twenty-five sheets of .EDU Ultra 100 is the same price (of course, if you want that "finest grain" or something with a better reciprocity factor...).

 

[Paul Howell]

Oh, last I looked at my local samara store only the 50 sheet boxes. Will order a couple of 10 sheet boxes for my next trip.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I never know where my next great photograph will come from so I don't use the cheap stuff for some photos and the good stuff for other photos. If I did so, undoubtedly my great photographs would be on the cheap stuff and not as great as they could have been. I will use a cheap film if the cheap film has the characteristics I want for the photos I am making. In that case, the cost of the film is irrelevant. So I don't have a two-film strategy based on cost. I have a multi-film strategy based on film characteristics.

I agree. The difference in film costs is a small part of the overall cost. Just getting into your car and driving costs on depreciation of the car, gasoline, time; then you have development and printing costs. Scanning time or chemicals, etc. Why kick yourself in the butt for not using the "right" film?

 

[warden]

What about the idea of using a two-film strategy?

For example, one film could be something like Kentmere 100 or Fomapan 100 (or 200), and the other might be something like a T-grain film such as Fuji Acros, Kodak Tmax 100, or Ilford Delta 100. The idea would be to use the inexpensive film for most photos, saving the expensive stuff when it serves a special purpose, such as low reciprocity failure, finest grain, higher resolution, or whatever. This would work best if loaded into two camera bodies, so either film would be available at a moment's notice.

This strategy assumes that the cheap film would work fine for most shots but sometimes one would want the special capabilities of the more expensive film. And the idea behind this is to save money while still keeping the option of "highest quality" when it serve a particular purpose that the cheap film can't fulfill very well.

There could be other variations on a two-film strategy, such as slow/fast, traditional grain/t-grain (which isn't so different from the first scheme I listed, except that the goal might not be economizing on film cost), etc. And that's worth discussing, but my main rationale/purpose is presented in the first two paragraphs.

If economy is the issue I'd be tempted to either shoot less and use the good stuff, or just commit to using exclusively the less expensive film and try to master it. One less thing to think about.

I like using two speeds rather than a two film strategy, and sometimes I can do that with the same film. If you have two film backs for instance you can load Tmax 400 in each but reserve one back for iso200 and the other for iso800, and both can make excellent quality negatives in most lighting conditions without the need for a tripod.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If economy is the issue I'd be tempted to either shoot less and use the good stuff, or just commit to using exclusively the less expensive film and try to master it. One less thing to think about.

I like using two speeds rather than a two film strategy, and sometimes I can do that with the same film. If you have two film backs for instance you can load Tmax 400 in each but reserve one back for iso200 and the other for iso800, and both can make excellent quality negatives in most lighting conditions without the need for a tripod.

I;ve tried Tmax 100 and 400. But the 400 does have more grain, especially in the sky. You can see the difference even with 4x5 sheet film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Slow & facst or color and B&W. Cheap and expensive might be more effort than the cost savings benefit gained is worth.

I have used the Color and Black a& White regime for decades. I rarely use the slow & fast pair.

 

[warden]

I;ve tried Tmax 100 and 400. But the 400 does have more grain, especially in the sky. You can see the difference even with 4x5 sheet film.

OT: Wow Alan, visibly more grain even with 4x5? How big must one print for that to be a noticeable issue? I don't print very large but the skies I'm seeing with TMax 400 are smooth. Perhaps not as smooth as TMax100, but I've never tried that film.

 

[MattKing]

I used to use Plus-X and T-Max 400 for this purpose.
I'm in the midst of getting used to T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 for the same purpose.
And I expect that Alan is seeing scanning artifacts rather than grain in medium format T-Max 400. Under the (diffusion) enlarger, I often struggle to focus medium format T-Max 400 because the grain is so fine. The T-Max 100 is even more challenging.

 

[warden]

I used to use Plus-X and T-Max 400 for this purpose.
I'm in the midst of getting used to T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 for the same purpose.
And I expect that Alan is seeing scanning artifacts rather than grain in medium format T-Max 400. Under the (diffusion) enlarger, I often struggle to focus medium format T-Max 400 because the grain is so fine. The T-Max 100 is even more challenging.

I do miss Plus-X, Matt. Last week I bought some Delta 400 after seeing a characteristic curve that looks similar to Plus-X. It'll be fun to experiment with it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used to use Plus-X and T-Max 400 for this purpose.
I'm in the midst of getting used to T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 for the same purpose.
And I expect that Alan is seeing scanning artifacts rather than grain in medium format T-Max 400. Under the (diffusion) enlarger, I often struggle to focus medium format T-Max 400 because the grain is so fine. The T-Max 100 is even more challenging.

If your enlarger has a brighter setting, use it and the full open aperture, but I am sure you are already doing that. I too have had that problem with some tabular grain films.

 

[gone]

Great idea, won't work. I've tried it. There is no other way to know what the film will do other than shooting it for a while and seeing what you get. Most of us a fair amount of different films, it usually takes a few rolls to see what each will do, and each developer will change how those films look. That's why they make films like Tri-X. It's sort of a Swiss army knife, and can be used in many different ways for different situations.

Besides, the way this world works is that when you have the cheap film in the camera, great shots will magically appear. When you have the pricey stuff in the camera, then it will rain or get cloudy or there will be nothing to shoot.

You can try this philosophy out when you walk on the sidewalk in crowds. The pretty gal who catches your eye and looks the best going as well as coming will be your base, that's where you start. Then, the number of people that will get in the way of your view will be in direct proportion to the attractiveness of the gal. I've never seen this fail.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you're trying to be consistent with "look", a two-film approach probably won't work.

That depends on your skills, and techniques, I have images shot on 10x8, 5x4 and 120 - 6x6 and 6x17. and on various film stock and the prints look consistent. in the case of 3 images and prints made over a ten plus year period (same location} I used 3 different films and also changed developer. they match as if taken the same day

Control your craft and it's easy.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't limit myself to just two types of film. There are certain characteristics that I appreciate in all the films that I use, especially, HP5, Acros, TMY-2, FP4, Pan F, and Rollei IR. I keep most of the films that I use in 120 and LF...except Acros, and Pan F ,which aren't available in LF (sadly), and TMY-2 (ridiculously expensive in LF).

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't limit myself to just two types of film. There are certain characteristics that I appreciate in all the films that I use, especially, HP5, Acros, TMY-2, FP4, Pan F, and Rollei IR. I keep most of the films that I use in 120 and LF...except Acros, and Pan F ,which aren't available in LF (sadly), and TMY-2 (ridiculously expensive in LF).

And that is why interchangeable film backs for Medium Format cameras can be so much fun.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

And that is why interchangeable film backs for Medium Format cameras can be so much fun.

I agree! I have three for my RB.... and many, many LF holders.

 

[Wallendo]

I always keep at least two different films available in bulk loaders, usually more.

I always have one ISO 100 and one ISO 400 film loaded. I also tend to have one reliable value film for testing new lenses. I usually have a roll of Foma 100 because I understand the film, and like the retro look it produces.

currently my loaders are full of Tmax 100, TX400, and UltraFine Finesse 400. At my vacation condo, I have Foma 100 and Finesse 400 loaded.

I generally shoot fairly short rolls so I can always have the film available for whatever purpose I have in mind.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here are two films Tmax 100 and 400. You can see the difference, especially in the sky. It could be grain or artifacts, not sure. Now I did have both done in a lab(s). Right now I don't know if they were in the same or separate labs. If the latter, that could account for any differences as developers could have been different. Note that you can zoom in to enlarge each.
Tmax 400 in 4x5 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/50009699402/in/album-72157714124881023/
Tmax 100 in 4x5 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/49843392888/in/album-72157714124881023/