what can I expect from FP4, Neopan, Delta

[jimper]

I've just bought a roll each of Neopan 100, Delta 100, and FP4plus125 to try out in my recently bought Microcord TLR. These were more or less all they had in the shop.
What should I expect?

My intention is to send them away for developing and scan to digital (I'm not going to process them as well. One thing at a time!)

Jim

 

[DutchShooter]

Why don't you simply shoot, have them developed and look whether you like the results

Whether you like the look of a certain film is quite personal. It will also depend on the chems & timings of the lab you send you rolls to (when developing yourself. you can choose the chems & development conditions yourself to suit the particular film you shoot). I switched to home development after 3 rolls which were not only commercially processed but also severely scratched by the lab.

 

[WolfTales]

The FP4 and the Neopan 100 are traditional emulsions. They should give you a full range of tonalities with a classic look and are 'forgiving' films.

The Delta 100 is a cubic core technology film emulsion. Basically, they use a machine to grow the crystals in line so it is arranged more closely for a sharper image. The crystals also have layers, depending on development, some layers get exposed more or less. So all in all this is supposed to help give a sharper more defined image if developed properly with a good range of tonality.

But in order to get that, supposedly you have to be more precise with exposure, development chemicals, development times, agitation, and tempertures. If not, your image can end up looking rather black/white/punchy/flat or lack tonality.

These are just qualities of the recording capabilities of these films. They all record information very well.

Alot of the 'look' you're after is done in the dark room in printing, or through histograms inside the scanner software.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I understand if the only film they had is what you bought. But it's better to use one type of film instead of several different ones.

I don't know how they will perform as scanned negatives for DO (I print in a darkroom), all I know is that, literally, any film out there made by Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji is capable of results that are fantastic. It's more a matter of how you use the films than what film you use. True, most ISO 400 films will have larger grain than most ISO 100 films. But you get the idea.

If you know that the lab that processes your film is consistent with how they run your film, you can soon adjust your exposure and perhaps even instruct the lab to adjust their processing for your film, to get the best results. But no lab can replace the results and flexibility you will have if you learn how to process film and do that part yourself.
You are at the mercy of their quality and process control, something you cannot affect much. If you then, on top of that, throw another variable into the picture by using different films, it could potentially be confusing to get good results.
So either of those films will do just fine. Can they order more of one kind for you? Or can you buy online? It's just better that way.

- Thomas

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Jim, FP4 is a very nice film to learn with

Its reasonably forgiving of under/over exposure, has nice tonality and does most things well

I would recommend starting with FP4, learn to master that film and then try a few others.

Delta requires more careful handling - but once you have mastered it gives great results.

Never tried Neopan.

Ilford do a good B&W Dev only/Dev & Scan/Dev & Print service for both 35mm & 120 film sizes - http://www.ilfordlab.com/page/57/Black-and-White-Prints-from-Film.htm

Unfortunately, as you progress you will find that films that scan well don’t always print well in the darkroom and visa versa – as they say you cannot have it all

Good luck

Martin

 

[jimper]

I'm treating this as an initial trial of B&W films. I'll choose one to use in future.
So I need to be fairly precise when using Delta, but the results may be worth the trouble, if I'm capable.
My work location is moving next week to near a good supplier (Silverprint), so I won't have a problem with getting film in future.
And I've been discussing setting up a darkroom with my wife, so that may be the way of the future.

Thanks for your help
Jim

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Jim,

I understand. But I highly doubt you can actually learn anything by testing one roll of each. I am of the opinion that it takes dozens of rolls with one film before you start to learn the inns and outs in all kinds of lighting situations.
But since you have the film you might as well use it. I'm glad that you will settle for one film after your test. Between the three, I maintain that you will get excellent results with either, so it doesn't really matter which you choose.

And, you don't need a darkroom just to process film. You need a changing bag, a tank, some reels, beakers, storage containers, a thermometer, a timer, and a sink (I process film in the laundry room).

- Thomas

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Silverprint will be able to supply you with everything you need - with plenty of good advice thrown in for free.

Thomas is right - you don't need a darkroom to Dev films, just a changing bag, Dev Tank and a few other bits and bobs - again Silverprint can advise & supply.

When you feel confident have a go at Film Dev - its hugely rewarding and terrific fun

Martin

 

[dasBlute]

Put the time in, pick one, go through a lot of rolls,
work lots of different light situations, hone your
development regimes for those lighting situations,
establish a working relationship with that film.
Ultimately, it's a canvas, it's up to you to fill it.

FP4, the one I am familiar with, is by far a good enough film
to provide *years* of satisfaction.

If you master FP4 -or any film- you'll get the results you need.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stormiticus/tags/fp4/

 

[Robert Budding]

I'd stick with one developer/film combination to get started because it does take time to really learn how a film behaves. I'd suggest HP5+ and either D76 or XTOL as a good general purpose combination.

 

[Ken N]

Delta does tend to scan a little better than the others because of the slightly fogged base. But all are good films regardless.

For quite some time I standardized on Deltas 100 and 400. I love 400 for the way I can get it to mimick just about anything and it has a slightly extended red sensitivity which lightens skintones a little. I regularily push Delta 400 to 800 and 1600.

But at the moment, I'm mostly shooting PanF and Neopan 100 SS.

 

[john_s]

There are two Neopan 100 speed films: Neopan 100 SS is an old style film (comparable to FP4+), and Acros is the new sort (comparable to Delta100). Our local film supplier has trouble telling the difference, but it's on the label.

One roll of each film is not going to be a definitive test. Unless each film is developed to a very similar contrast level, which is not likely to happen on one test, they can't be fairly compared.

For this digital business, my guess, based on some scans I've done in a 35mm Nikon scanner, that the new style films will give smoother results, but when you're in the digital realm, it seems that there are many adjustments. Overdevelopment is likely to make scans difficult.

Which leads me to the issue of a lab developing black and white films. Unlike colour film, there is not a standard, and even fairly good labs are notorious for random results. You will be going to some expense and effort in this project, you might as well bite the bullet and get a developing tank. There is a learning curve, but you will become empowered to get it right, and consistent.

 

[trexx]

One thing I have seen in this thread and others is the advise to pick one film and doggedly stay with it until you have mastered that film. Worst advise I can imagine. That is like saying only eat mocha ice cream until you understand all of it's nuisances. Maybe you would never like mocha ice cream. Say you pick a film that is just one you would never appreciate. While you cannot get Technical Pan any more if it was your first and only film you would never grow to understand it's full potential. There are so many examples that you never know what you are looking for and when you limit to one you don't experience the full range of what is available.

Try a lot of different films, at first. Keep track of the film and conditions and exposure and development. Play the field, as it were, there will be time to settle on one film after you have sewed some wild oats. There will come that time , and you will know when, that you will pick one film. Once you have found the film that works the way you want, then stick with that film. Explore all the it can reveal. Like a good lover you will learn how to make it respond to you so that it rewards you in return. Only because you waited to find the one that worked with you in the first place.

When you branch out you can try some of the ones that did not work out before. You now have experience to work with other films, that you learned for that first love.

 

[keithwms]

What can you expect? Well you can expect some negs and you can expect some disappointingly exaggerated grain if you develop the negs normally and scan them directly (rather than scanning a traditional print). The delta may be the least problematic in this regard, but if you truly plan to scan your negs rather than first print them traditionally, you might go for a chromogenic film such as ilford xp2, or you might consider staining developers, or you might try tmax.

For traditional printing, my favourite of this lot you mention, by far, is fp4+. But if I were scanning small format then I think I'd look into xp2 or tmax.

 

[DutchShooter]

I agree with trexx. I recently started my own B&W development. I bought 3 rolls each of 7 different types of film (panf/fp4/across/apx-100/foma200/neopan400/trix-400/delta3200). I used recommendations on APUG/MDC as starting point for development. After 3 rolls I had some reproducible results with which I could compare between film and see which film's grain/tonality I liked best.

After all this testing I've settled on APX-100 as my main film (just bought 40 rolls for a nice price), with tri-x and delta3200 as (very) low light alternatives. With rodinal for apx-100, hc-110 for trix and microphen for push-processing.

 

[jimper]

thanks everyone for your help.
I'd better go and take some pictures then.

Jim

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

So while you test two or three rolls of every film out there, what are you actually going to learn? I say not much. You will get a first flavor. Nothing more.

Until you spend a long time with one single film, you will not realize its full potential. Far from it. So how are you going to know if you like it or not?

I maintain that it is MUCH more important to learn HOW to use the materials than WHAT materials to use. (Sorry for the emphasis, but this is a very important part of it).

If you pick any film from Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji, you have an excellent film no matter what. None of them are bad. Most of them can be tweaked by altering exposure and development to look almost any way you want them to.

By using just one film you will learn it intimately. Switching back and forth is going to be confusing, because how do you know what to look for?

I'm very serious when I say that it takes a long time to tune in a process, and looking at the whole chain, it all starts in your head, right? You have an idea. If you don't know what to expect from your materials it will become much harder to realize your vision.
Then there's the paper. You want to pick that first, and then your film is treated and processed such that you can make great prints on your paper of choice. You learn how to tweak all of your processes, because you know your materials INTIMATELY. You will be able to get the results that you want. This isn't much different from scanning negs for digital output either.

Switching films is going to alter the whole chain of your process and you introduce a bunch of variables that get in the way of seeing.

Basically, you shouldn't have to wonder about your materials. All you need to worry about is seeing, and putting your vision into fruition. That is the most important thing, so that we can go make pictures. I see talking about lovers - you should be in love with what's in front of the lens and what's in your head. That's all you need to be in love with.

My own example is that I did try every film and developer under the moon. I did this for four years. What did I learn? Not a whole lot. Then I met a couple of photographers, two teachers and one very experienced portrait photographer with a little over 100 years of experience between them.
It took some 'conditioning' but now I feel like I truly understand my process and how to apply it. I use one film, one developer, one paper, one print developer, and on the side a bunch of toners and some lith printing materials. The consistency within my materials has helped me make, by far, the best prints I've ever made in my life. And it is due to consistency and learning my materials and how they respond to varying treatment.
For example, you have to learn how the film responds to filtration, night time photography, long exposures, bright sunlight, overcast - I'm sure I'm missing a slew of conditions, and then you also have to learn how to process your film so that under each of these conditions you get cohesive and usable results.

I'm sorry this post is so long, but I really believe that it's HIGHLY important to get to a point where your materials are non-factors. It should be intuitive what you have to do at the moment of exposure. You should be able to feel what you should do, like second nature. If you have to wonder too much about the results, you are in fact distracted.

This is my perspective, and it may not work for everybody.

 

[olleorama]

So while you test two or three rolls of every film out there, what are you actually going to learn? I say not much. You will get a first flavor. Nothing more.
...
<snip>
...
This is my perspective, and it may not work for everybody.

Very wise words, I have just started realising this too, after a few years of meandering between different film/dev-combos.

 

[DutchShooter]

I agree up to a certain point. I think some initial "playing around" in the first months when starting to do my own B&W developing has been very useful to understand the process and its variables. Now, after this initial period, I chose a film&developer which I liked a lot up till now, and I will use this combo of one film and one developer for more than 90% of my shots for the coming time (years?).

 

[keithwms]

On the one hand I certainly agree with you, Thomas, that it is very important to take the time to optimize results from one film/dev combo.

On the other hand, I think someone (like the original poster) who is scanning should definitely compare traditionally developed b&w to the chromogenics and pyro.

The other thing is that some people like myself learn faster, overall, by comparing different results side by side. When I settled into med format, the major reason why I went for a system with interchangeable backs was that I could shoot the exact same thing on many different films (or develop the rolls differently). That was a very valuable learning experience, from which many opinions were formed. And I think I learned what I needed to learn very quickly. Now I am pretty much settled on fp4+ for most things... but I cannot honestly say that this is where I would have settled if I hadn't done the comparisons.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

On the other hand, I think someone (like the original poster) who is scanning should definitely compare traditionally developed b&w to the chromogenics and pyro.

Hopefully one at a time, Keith.

 

[keithwms]

Hopefully one at a time, Keith.

Haha, yeah, you probably wouldn't want to get your pyrogallol mixed in with your blix and stuff

But seriously, yes I agree... one at a time, and take the time to find out how to get the best possible results with each rather than chasing a magic bullet.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Yes, I agree. No magic bullets...

Haha, yeah, you probably wouldn't want to get your pyrogallol mixed in with your blix and stuff

But seriously, yes I agree... one at a time, and take the time to find out how to get the best possible results with each rather than chasing a magic bullet.

 

[keithwms]

Yes, I agree. No magic bullets...

Welllll... then again, there is cold-stored 1956 panatomic x semistand in rodinal 1+399.2 with a drop of cat piss and its je nais c'est quoi in the midtone/highlight boundaries....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Riiiight. I forgot about that one. Cat urine, Keith, is the preferred nomenclature. "Je nais cat quoi"? (this must be where Sandy got his idea for Pyro-Cat)

[Edit: Actually, I almost regret that comment, for Sandy is a fine individual, and his developer really is a fine product. I hope my poor taste in humor doesn't detract from that fact].