What 4x5 400 ISO film for newbie landscape photographer?

[Alex Hawley]

First, that's not bad for a beginner. Second, don't be embarassed. We've all screwed up one time or another.

Yeah, welcome to Large Format where the flubs are always bigger and there are more chances to excel! :rolleyes:

Frank brings up an excellent point. With a forgiving film, you have lot's better chance of still having a usable negative even with a high degree of under/over exposure.

That's another reason I recommended TMY-2. Its even more forgiving than Tri-X. When I first started using it this year, I was overexposing by a good 3 stops just to be on the safe side (and being too impatient for proper film testing before I began). I got negs so dense that they printed with grade 0 filter on Ilford MG. The best solution was to print with split grade filtering, 00 and 5.0. Still, had it been tri-x or something else, I doubt I could have made a print. TMY-2 will produce Grade 2 negs easily rating it at 400. And also, if you get into a low-light situation, TMY-2 has the least reciprocity correction of any film on the market.

 

[fschifano]

The rangefinder apparently is inoperative, something that was not disclosed when I bought it. I might have used it because the glass on this thing seems very dim. I hope the Shen Hao will be brighter.

Yeah, the groundglass on the crown can be kind of dim and it gets worse if you don't open the lens fully to focus. My practice when focusing on the ground glass is to focus with the lens wide open, then stop it down to the shooting aperture. I use an old 50 mm SLR lens off an old Petri FT as a magnifier to check the groundglass for critical focus. The lens is worthless as a taking lens. The aperture mechanism and focusing helix both gave up the ghost long, long ago.

About the rangefinder, my Crown has the top mounted rangefinder and it didn't work when I got it. The glass bits inside were shot, but the mechanism was fine. I replaced the mirrors and used a small piece of orange cinegel over one window to add contrast. There is no prism so it was easy, and bingo, one working rangefinder coming up. Adjusting the infinity stops was pretty easy too. If I knew better when I bought the camera I would have held out for one with a good side mounted Kalart rangefinder. Those are more easily adjustable for different lenses without the need for replacing cams that are hard to find and a pain to set up.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I might have used it because the glass on this thing seems very dim. I hope the Shen Hao will be brighter.

The old ground glasses were all dim. That's pretty typical for a camera of that era. Not sure if the stock glass on the Shen will be any brighter. A new glass with a "bright" grind or a Fresnel is certainly worth the investment.

 

[seawolf66]

Can A dummy ask why you folks reach for ISO 400 for landscape why not ISO 100 or ISO 50 for landscape , why reach so high when you can control you developing to get your shadows and highlights ?

 

[Alex Hawley]

Can A dummy ask why you folks reach for ISO 400 for landscape why not ISO 100 or ISO 50 for landscape , why reach so high when you can control you developing to get your shadows and highlights ?

Here's my major reasons.

1. Shutter speeds - with LF, apertures of f/22 and smaller are necessary. That puts the shutter speed down slow. Wind is a major factor on my neck of the prairie. With low light, exposures in the seconds, not fractions of seconds. The extra two or three stops of shutter speed is worth it.

2. I like being able to use just one, or at the most, two films to cover everything. That's why I'm grateful for TMY-2. It can cover everything.

I've used plenty of slow and medium speed film for landscapes. Still use FP4+ for the 7x17 because TMY-2 wasn't available when I bought 7x17 film. I still have a few boxes of Polaroid Type 55 to finish off. It shoots at asa 20 or 25 for the negative. Works great for landscapes in my area, but shutter speeds are long, and I typically need a filter of some sort.

I have yet to realize any advantage of using a slow film versus a fast film. If I need a long exposure for its visual effect, I can easily get it by stopping down and perhaps over exposing a stop or two. As I said, I've shot a lot of slow and a lot of fast film out beyond the town, and I can't tell any difference in the results. Either one will do.

 

[Venchka]

I'm down to my last 10 sheets out of 100 of HP5+. Love it. I'll buy a box of the new improved Tmax 400 just to be fair. Then I'll pick the winner. So far, HP5+, rolls and sheets, looks very good. I develop in Xtol 1:3, 68F, 9 minutes, Jobo tank on Uniroller or Beseler motor base. Perfect combination. Tmax 400 will have to be double perfect or I'm going back to HP5+.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Can A dummy ask why you folks reach for ISO 400 for landscape why not ISO 100 or ISO 50 for landscape , why reach so high when you can control you developing to get your shadows and highlights ?

On the surface of it does seem silly to go to all the expense of the larger negative and then give up some of the advantage with a faster film.

However, with small apertures (think f22 and smaller) plus a contrast filter plus sometimes a Centre Filter and unless it is bright sunshine you are looking at exposure times of seconds - and then you have reciprocity failures to contend with.

While LF shutters can go faster then 1/60th I have never managed anything faster than 1/15 - even with 400 ASA film in bright sunshine.

However unless you are going real big with printing (20 x24 & larger) grain is not an issue

But, if I want really fine detail recording I do switch from my standard of HP5 to FP4

One of the problems I found when I first switched to 5x4 was focusing the enlargers. In 35mm & 6x6 I would focus on the grain in the negative. With my 5x4 - there was no grain to focus on - so had to learn to focus on getting details/features sharp on the print.
It is these sorts of details which makes the jump from MF to LF such a major task – but also great fun

Martin

 

[Ian Grant]

Can A dummy ask why you folks reach for ISO 400 for landscape why not ISO 100 or ISO 50 for landscape , why reach so high when you can control you developing to get your shadows and highlights ?

For 20+ years I always used 100 ISO film APX100 or 50 EI Tmax 100, and now Delta 100 @ 50EI for my 5x4 landscapes, I prefer the slower film because of the quality but also the longer shutter speeds when using a tripod, the traces of movement in grasses trees etc give life to an image.

I guesss like Martin my fastest shutter speeds in the UK with 50 EI are around 1/15th, but more usually in the 4 seconds to 1/2 second range though at f32 or f45, while here in Turkey speeds of 1/8th to 1/30th are more common at similar apertures.

However now I also work with a hand held 5x4 camera and then I use HP5 @ 200 EI and shoot around 1/125th f22, I do the same with a 6x17 camera @ Delta 400.

Ian

 

[Kirk Keyes]

It looks like you need to work on getting more even development before you shoot a bunch of film on a big trip. Check your lower left neg from the contact sheet and look at the streaks coming from the top corners. It looks like uneven development. I never had the time or patience for developing in trays and I jumped straight to a Jobo tank after a failed attemp with a Yankee tank.

 

[GraemeMitchell]

I've always shot TXP in 4x5 but I just picked up a 100 sheet box of HP-5. I'm maybe 50 sheets through the HP-5 and have been really really pleased. Running it in HC-110. It is a totally different animal than TXP though. I'd suggest picking up a box of each, shooting them side by side, and seeing which you prefer in your workflow.

 

[mikebarger]

I've not tried tmax in the new version, but after trying the orginal I bought a freezer full of HP5 and run it through 510 pyro.

If/when I run out of the HP5 I'll give the new Tmax a run.

Mike

 

[Venchka]

Some deep background

Can A dummy ask why you folks reach for ISO 400 for landscape why not ISO 100 or ISO 50 for landscape , why reach so high when you can control you developing to get your shadows and highlights ?

How I came to HP5+ and Xtol 1:3.

Way back in the Dark Ages I learned with D-76 1:1 and Tri-x and Plus-X. I spent some time in Germany and learned to love Rodinal and Agfa film. My last film devloping was in the mid 1970s.

Fast forward to 2007. I bought a Speed Graphic and needed some film. I was offered a box of outdated Hp5+ cheap. I was then offered 10 bags of D-76 cheap. I was in business. D-76 1:1 was fine. I began to wonder if maybe I shouldn't give the new kid, Xtol, a try. I bought a 5 L bag. Many sheets and several rolls of 120 HP5+ later, I like the combination. I also added a bottle of Rodinal to my cupboard. MF and 4x5 HPr+ like Rodinal. I like Xtol + Rodinal too.

Why ISO 400 film?

So far, I like the comfort of faster shutter speeds. Working with the Speed Graphic, focal plane shutter (slowest speed: 1/30) and a barrel lens, I have been forced to underexpose as much as 2 stops. Xtol 1:3 saved the day.

If Sandy King can be believed, and I think he can be, he states that the new Tmax 400-2 in D-76 1:1 is the equal of Tmax 100 up to 30x40 prints in 4x5 size. That's good enough for me and why I want to give the Tmax 400 a try.

 

[Ian Grant]

If Sandy King can be believed, and I think he can be, he states that the new Tmax 400-2 in D-76 1:1 is the equal of Tmax 100 up to 30x40 prints in 4x5 size. That's good enough for me and why I want to give the Tmax 400 a try.

When I first tested the original Tmax100 & 400 shortly after their release in the UK I was surprised how close behind Tmax100 the 400 was in terms of quality - grain, sharpness, tonality, far closer than the differences between HP5 & FP4 or Plus-X & Tri-X.

But HP5+ Tri-X have also improved dramatically and current HP5+ is significantly better than the original HP5, and it's predecessors HP4 & HP3 both of which I used while at school.

In practice it's harder now to see a significant difference between any of the Ilford & Kodak 400 ISO films, but it's important to know your films capabilities under all lighting conditions.

Ian

 

[msdemanche]

Steve, the sun is very bright down in Texas. I find here in Maryland I need the 400 to allow for some low light situations. If you take a look at my gallery you can see what I am talking about. Your shots look good for a beginner, just getting the corners in focus is not easy, and my students struggle to do that. I do have them use polaroid to force them to work for getting consistant meter readings and exposures. I am a solid fan of the horse I learned with, Tri-X 320. I use HP5 now and find it gives good results, but beyond that I stick with what I know. The Foma is cheap, but with Largeformat I find very little to be cheap.
Slow photography, but lots of it is what I tell my babies.

 

[Bennett Brown]

Forum contributors:

There have been a couple of inferences about the undesirability (relative) of Ilford's Delta 400. Can anyone be a little more specific please (other than "look") and are these concerns confined to it's applicationto landscape work?

Bennett Brown

 

[Ian Grant]

Bennett, that maybe because Delta 400 isn't available in 5x4 anymore it was discontinued sometime ago. I use Delta 400 in my 6x17 camera and it's a superb film.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You don't have many choices in 4x5 for ISO 400:

Ilford HP5+
Kodak TMax 400
Rollei Infrared 400
Kodak Tri-X 320 (almost 400 anyway)

It's a shame Foma doesn't make their 400 speed film in sheets.

With so few choices you can test them all.
- Expect Tri-X to have brilliant highlights and less separation in the shadow tones than most other films, unless you use the film at a different exposure index than 320.
- Expect HP5+ to give you extremely pleasing midtones, with lots of separation.
- Expect TMax 400 to have a very linear response to light, meaning that color and brightness wise it's very neutral in its response.
- I have no idea of what to expect of Rollei. Their technical data sheet is here: Click this link

The top three are fantastic films, no idea about Rollei. Only you can decide what you like.

- Thomas

 

[Bennett Brown]

Thanks Ian. I must have bought the last one! So much for testing.

Bennett

 

[Bennett Brown]

Thanks Thomas:

I'll start with the HP5+ I think.

Bennett

 

[EASmithV]

TXP is fantastic.