Two-film strategy

[Ivo Stunga]

Have tried going the Color Slide + BW film approach (processing: reversal), but that didn't stick, ended up fiddling more than shooting.

I like to travel lightly. And here's a curiosity: the less gear you have to fiddle around with, the more time you have for taking better pictures. Better, because you'll see more and one lens is certainly a limitation. But limitations drive creativity. That's why I sometimes bring only one lens with me. To shoot more. Adding another body to this mix - I'll pass.

I'd certainly try this with interchangeable backs if I'd we're a medium shooter. Then again - fiddling. You cannot think and see BW properly when color obscures your vision and vise versa - two different mindsets fighting each other - that's how I ended up seeing/feeling about this.

Or can you?

 

[Jonno85uk]

I hadn't thought about this before but I'd say I do do this in medium format.

I have a Rollei clone which I would consider putting expensive film through it a waste of money due to its lens. I've done it in the past (Velvia/provia) but nowadays I tend to stick with Foma 100/400 and Lomo 100/400. For my Bronica I put the expensive film in it though: acros, delta400, ektar, portra.

For 35mm I don't really bother although stick with bulk load foma 200 for throwaway experiments.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I'm not sold on the apparent premise of suggested scheme. How are you going to evaluate when to use "cheap" vs. "expansive" film? This alone I cannot see helping at all. Key is to focus on the scene/image/opportunity (and the right film, if you happened to have a choice in the bag) as it presents itself without adding another layer of decision making cheap or expensive?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have tried going the Color Slide + BW film approach (processing: reversal), but that didn't stick, ended up fiddling more than shooting.

I like to travel lightly. And here's a curiosity: the less gear you have to fiddle around with, the more time you have for taking better pictures. Better, because you'll see more and one lens is certainly a limitation. But limitations drive creativity. That's why I sometimes bring only one lens with me. To shoot more. Adding another body to this mix - I'll pass.

I'd certainly try this with interchangeable backs if I'd we're a medium shooter. Then again - fiddling. You cannot think and see BW properly when color obscures your vision and vise versa - two different mindsets fighting each other - that's how I ended up seeing/feeling about this.

Or can you?

Black & white negatives and color negative work better, partially because the exposure measurements and settings are the same. Slide film requires reading the highlight while print film works better on measuring the shadows.

 

[MattKing]

You cannot think and see BW properly when color obscures your vision and vise versa - two different mindsets fighting each other - that's how I ended up seeing/feeling about this.

Or can you?

Personally, I can.
But I understand people who struggle with it.
I tend to let the photographic opportunity guide me. And that guidance can include my inner voice suggesting a switch to colour, or to black and white.
Sometimes, of course, the inner voice suggests I try both.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I use both 320Tri-X and TMY, usually loaded back-to-back in film holders. In most cases, I just use the film interchangeably, but every now and then I need the special characteristics of one or the other, so I'll use that film. I carry six holders or so with me in the field, so I've got six sheets of each handy.

As for cheap film... Every exposure I make has the potential of being something outstanding, otherwise I wouldn't make the exposure in the first place. No room for sub-standard materials for me. That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with many conventional, older-style films. Yes, they are grainier and have different reciprocity characteristics, but that isn't always a disadvantage. Use the film you think will give you the results you want. If cost is really an issue, use the cheaper film and master using it. The only thing that would really put me off a particular film is poor quality control from the manufacturer that resulted in defects ruining exposures (one reason to go with more expensive film too...).

Best,

Doremus

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

A two film strategy?
You can test everything in everything, and if you use them well, TMX and TMY blow away everything.
In general, TMX for tripod and for focusing. TMY for handheld photography / zone focusing.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I don't have a problem switching between colour and black & white photography these days, but it is a skill that I've developed over time. I do however have to perform a "switch" in my approach and thinking so that I'm in the correct mode to consider the photograph. Certainly on more local outings I try and bring only the equipment I think I'll need, an everything but the sink approach can be exhausting in my experience.

 

[faberryman]

A two film strategy?
You can test everything in everything, and if you use them well, TMX and TMY blow away everything.
In general, TMX for tripod and for focusing. TMY for handheld photography / zone focusing.

It depends entirely on the look you want to achieve.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use both 320Tri-X and TMY, usually loaded back-to-back in film holders. In most cases, I just use the film interchangeably, but every now and then I need the special characteristics of one or the other, so I'll use that film. I carry six holders or so with me in the field, so I've got six sheets of each handy.

As for cheap film... Every exposure I make has the potential of being something outstanding, otherwise I wouldn't make the exposure in the first place. No room for sub-standard materials for me. That said, there's absolutely nothing wrong with many conventional, older-style films. Yes, they are grainier and have different reciprocity characteristics, but that isn't always a disadvantage. Use the film you think will give you the results you want. If cost is really an issue, use the cheaper film and master using it. The only thing that would really put me off a particular film is poor quality control from the manufacturer that resulted in defects ruining exposures (one reason to go with more expensive film too...).

Best,

Doremus

I feel that the next photograph has the potential of being the one that I will enlarge and print many times. I agree with you that there is no reason to use cheap film or short dated film. I believe in owning and using the best cameras, lenses and film that one can afford. That way one can find the cause for a composition being anything less than perfection can be found in any bathroom mirror.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It depends entirely on the look you want to achieve.

Sure! That's why use all the other films I use too...
What I so unsuccessfully tried to say is Kodak really nailed it with TMax films: that's what once and again I found when I've tried the most academic/perfectionist routes... Technically both TMX and TMY reign in their fields, of course just my opinion.
Even if I buy more Tri-X and more HP5+.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working PJ I usually had Trix and roll or two of PlusX for environmental portraits. Later when the papers wanted color carried 2 bodies TriX and Ektapress 400, crappy film, but did not need refrigeration. Over the years I shot with all sorts of film, in the Air Force most often we had Kodak, then every once in a while got GAF, or some no name low bid film. If the field if I ran out of Kodak bought what I could find, Ilford, Agfa, Forte, one time had to buy a Russian film, it was terrible, when getting paid just had to make it work. If I come across a news worthy picture and all I have is my carry around film, I would get a printable image. I could shoot less, but what's the fun it that?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

If I did color I'd carry a film camera with slow film and a digital camera.

 

[alanrockwood]

In my last outing with a camera (Death Valley, returned yesterday) I had a digital camera body and another camera body loaded with black and white film. Not exactly the two-film strategy I mentioned at the beginning, but at least a cousin to it.

The two camera bodies were an XTi digital and a T2 film. Both are small SLR bodies and it wasn't hard carrying them around together.

 

[miha]

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.

Would that mean you have films with ISO 25/50 and up to 3200 loaded in your cameras at all times (presuming you are talking BW and not colour, that would mean 3 or 4 different films)?

 

[BrianShaw]

In my last outing with a camera (Death Valley, returned yesterday) I had a digital camera body and another camera body loaded with black and white film. Not exactly the two-film strategy I mentioned at the beginning, but at least a cousin to it.

The two camera bodies were an XTi digital and a T2 film. Both are small SLR bodies and it wasn't hard carrying them around together.

How did you use the two cameras differently to emulate your two-film strategy? Did it work; was it worth the effort?

 

[alanrockwood]

How did you use the two cameras differently to emulate your two-film strategy? Did it work; was it worth the effort?

In this case not so much to use a cheap/expensive strategy. However, I used a red filter on the camera loaded with black and white film... my first time experimenting with filters in black and white photography. Skies were mostly fair, so I anticipate darker skies in the black and white photos because of the red filter.

The similarity to the originally proposed scheme is only moderate, but the idea here is that the two systems were used for somewhat different purposes.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sounds good. Where in DV did you photograph? My most successful has been Zabrinake Point and the sand dunes.

 

[AgX]

Unless I know fort certain in advance what I the lighting/exposing situation or use of the photograph will be, I take in 35mm four different b&w films with me, from ISO 20 to 1600/3200.

 

[miha]

Unless I know fort certain in advance what I the lighting/exposing situation or use of the photograph will be, I take in 35mm four different b&w films with me, from ISO 20 to 1600/3200.

You must be into some serious enlargements to even consider an ISO 20 film and not be fine with modern ISO 100 film offerings.

 

[AgX]

I all dpends on personal requirements: I am also into low resolution.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I tend to keep one camera loaded with FP4+ and another loaded with HP5+ or Tri-X (often pushed a stop or two). Sometimes also keep one loaded with color (usually C200 or Superia 400) when I can find it for a decent price. I'm down to my last roll of C41 so have been using my DSLR for color for the past several months.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In this case not so much to use a cheap/expensive strategy. However, I used a red filter on the camera loaded with black and white film... my first time experimenting with filters in black and white photography. Skies were mostly fair, so I anticipate darker skies in the black and white photos because of the red filter.

The similarity to the originally proposed scheme is only moderate, but the idea here is that the two systems were used for somewhat different purposes.

I find that Orange or Red23 give darker skies without them going to black as it can with Red25. I use Red25, Red29 and 720 for Infrared film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The orange B+W filter for infrared is also great for common B&W films. Not as weak as the yellow ones and not as unreal as the red ones either.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The orange B+W filter for infrared is also great for common B&W films. Not as weak as the yellow ones and not as unreal as the red ones either.

I agree but I perfer R23, R25, R29 and 720 for Infrared films.