What film do you recommend to try it?
but it's the baker who knows how to process it into something delicious, in full awareness of the properties/strengths and weaknesses of the flour.
To use another analogy, better to cook one recipe a hundred times than to cook one hundred recipes once.
IMO it'd be better to use one kind of film for a long time ...until you're happy with results....variety of films has not helped the vanishing market for film.
Pan F in combination with Rodinal is a pretty contrasty combination that resolves very fine detail. Over-expose slightly to give enough shadow detail. Pan F doesn't keep the latent image very well and needs to be developed shortly after exposure.
But also: contrast is a function of development time and when you want more contrasty negatives increasing the time by 25% will do a good job in most cases.
If you want high contrast film with lots of detail, try Ilford Pan F. I quite like it in D-23 1+3. But if you want a really high contrast film with the most detail, check out Adox CMS 20 II. I've been using it in 4x5 developing with Adotech IV, although I've been hunting for a made at home alternative.
Double-X 5222 is worth an experiment. I consider it to have “beautiful” grain. Not all film has that. I have had a little trouble “dialing it in” so “look at results and adjust time and exposure”.
HP5+ also has nice grain, tolerates overexposure and hit the expected contrast for me on the first try. So I would say it’s a really good choice.
HP5 has been my main film for years. Pretty hard to beat!
- Reshoot those films and develop in XTOL for finer grain and better tonality.
- Rollei IR 400 with a R25, R29 or R72 [720] filter and develop in XTOL for some great IR photographs.
Tmax 100 resolves at 200LPMM, highest resolution of any general purpose black and white film, and the finest grain. You can adjust the contrast by increasing the development time, I've used it with good results in Rodinal, D76, HC110, MCM 100 to name just a few.
Your scans looks like severe over sharpening or something.
It looks ruined, sorry.
Also, if you scan it is easy to get any amount of contrast in PP.
All the real difference is fast or slow film. Summer time - go crazy and try ISO 25, winter time - push 400 @1600.
But you really need to sort out quality loss first.
This is crapiest film I have tried "new" TMAX3200 @6400. Plustek 8200i scan:
For example now a roll of Pan F its 5.8 dollars, Fomapan 100 3 dollars, Adox CHS 20 II 5 dollars.
I hope that after this explanations you can understand why i want to try a new film before it is too late.
I understand the difficult situation you are in regarding availability.
That's a lot cheaper than here in Western Europe, indeed. I can see the sense in stocking up because those prices look very close to or even lower than wholesale/import prices. Unsustainably low, in any case.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that I see why you want to stock up on film while you still can. No, I don't understand the very open question what film to try next, if the actual problem is one of uncertain supply. In the latter case, it would make more sense to first determine which films are available and affordable to you, and then choose from that. This will probably narrow down the selection considerably and result in a more direct comparison of maybe a handful of film types.
And of course, in general, if you're practicing a hobby and you cannot afford to spend all you have on it, you sometimes just have to work with what you can get your hands on. Taking it from that angle, find comfort in my previous post: even if the film you can easily/affordably get does not immediately look like what you were hoping for, you can still learn to bake a very nice bread with it.
In the end, in your situation I would expect more a question along the lines of: given that I can only get Fomapan 100 (to take an example), how can I use it in such a way to give high-contrast images with visible grain (again, an example)?
Just stick with one film for a while and learn how it works.
Sounds like currently you're going through film the way a wine lover goes through bottles of wine, expecting that the enjoyment of the result is entirely defined by what the maker put into the product. That's not how photography works and it's not how film works. Try to see film more like wheat flour. Nearly any kind of flour can make a gorgeous bread (or a horrible brick you wouldn't want to feed to a dog), but it's the baker who knows how to process it into something delicious, in full awareness of the properties/strengths and weaknesses of the flour.
If you keep tossing random rolls of film into a development tank and then determine how you like the outcome on your computer monitor, you're selling yourself short and deprive yourself of the most important things that make film photography worthwhile: the possibility to tailor results by using a raw material in a sensible way.
So concerning your question what film you should try next, I would say: one you already used before. And after that, the same film. And then the same one once more. And so on until you understand how it works.
IMO it'd be better to use one kind of film for a long time ...until you're happy with results....variety of films has not helped the vanishing market for film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?