What films did you shoot most recently? (Part 2)

Black Dog · Dec 8, 2014

Some Rollei Retro 400 @320 in my trusty Trip.

Kokoro · Dec 8, 2014

http://qr.net/NCmv
Two rolls of Agfa XRG 200. I think they came from the charity shop mum works at. I found them in the bottom of my film drawer.
http://kokorolibrary.net/photography/?picture=1516

flavio81 · Dec 9, 2014

Just enlarged: Delta 100 in 35mm. Gorgeous film, thanks Ilford for such a film.

The weekend i shot 5 rolls in 120: two of Delta 400, three of Neopan Acros. Haven't developed them yet.

RattyMouse · Dec 12, 2014

In the last 6 days I have shot the following:

11 rolls of Neopan Acros
3 rolls of Astia 100F (220)
1 roll of Provia 400X
7 rolls of TMAX 400
7 rolls of 400H
4 rolls of Delta 400
2 rolls of Delta 3200

StoneNYC · Dec 14, 2014

-120

5 rolls Neopan400@320
2 rolls Provia400X
3 rolls PanF+@25
1 roll Portra160@125

110

Lomorgraphy Orca B&W
Kodak Kodacolor II

"Polaroid"

1 sheet fuji FP 3000B, a single shot, the last one in the pack.

StoneNYC · Dec 16, 2014

1 sheet 8x10 Portra100T
1 sheet 4x10 HP5+

darkosaric · Dec 16, 2014

You do shoot a lot Stone !

StoneNYC · Dec 16, 2014

darkosaric said:
You do shoot a lot Stone !

I try to shoot every day, it is after all the thing that I want to do for my career

pentaxpete · Dec 16, 2014

Finished up a roll of 120 outdated Ilford Pan F ( 1978) on some night photography in London, re-loaded an A12 back with a roll of 1993 dated ORWO NP22 from a bulk purchase before the UK Importer went broke, then in my A16 Hasselbald backs I finished up a roll of 2002 dated Fuji NPC 160, and a 1999 dated Fuji Velvia 50 and re-loaded with some 2002 dated Fuji Provia 100 to compare the effect on 'night photography' ( not finished up yet)

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 16, 2014

Ilford Pan 400. I'm halfway through a roll, and waiting to go out to try some long exposures in the dark to check reciprocity.

flavio81 · Dec 16, 2014

Just developed and printed: Ilford Delta 100.
I see that if you use it carefully it more or less equals 6x4.5 format quality with HP5. Beautiful prints.

Now i have to pick from the lab some prints made from Acros 100 and Delta 400 in 6x7 format.

TheFlyingCamera · Dec 16, 2014

1 roll Ektar 100 in 120. I'm going to go burn a few more rolls to make up a big enough batch so I can run it myself without wasting chemistry.

benjiboy · Dec 16, 2014

i just loaded a roll of Kodak Portra 400 VC I got out of my freezer into one of my Canon New F1's

Regular Rod · Dec 16, 2014

HP5 Plus 120

RR

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 16, 2014

Regular Rod said:
HP5 Plus 120

RR

And what a fine film it is. My staple.

StoneNYC · Dec 17, 2014

35mm Delta3200@1600

bdial · Dec 17, 2014

A roll of Tmax-100, 35mm.
A lot more highlight density than I expected, though it's all pictures of snow, so big areas with a lot of density are sort of to be expected.
The prints seem to be working, but it makes me miss my Plus-X

flavio81 · Dec 18, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
And what a fine film it is. My staple.

Also my staple, but for pushing to 1600. For ISO 400 shooting I prefer Ilford Delta 400, which is sharper, or sometimes Fomapan 400. At 1600 Ilford HP5+ is king.

In any case I always leave a HP5 roll in my camera bag, because it will work perfectly in any light situation -- from ISO 200 to 3200 !

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2014

flavio81 said:
Also my staple, but for pushing to 1600. For ISO 400 shooting I prefer Ilford Delta 400, which is sharper, or sometimes Fomapan 400. At 1600 Ilford HP5+ is king.

In any case I always leave a HP5 roll in my camera bag, because it will work perfectly in any light situation -- from ISO 200 to 3200 !

Interesting. I never push process film, but the way I photograph never really requires it either. I shoot it at 250 in normal contrast, 200 in high contrast, and 400 in low contrast, and love its tonal qualities. Sharpness is something that matters very little to me.
But I use a developer that isn't exactly speed enhancing. If I could continue using just HP5+ for everything it would be king. Because I was gifted a large amount of fine film such as Tri-X and Acros not long ago, there is currently less HP5+ in my life, but I'll get back to it.

baachitraka · Dec 18, 2014

May I know why you shoot at 400 when contrast is already low? Or I'm I miss-understood something.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2014

baachitraka said:
May I know why you shoot at 400 when contrast is already low? Or I'm I miss-understood something.

Why not?

StoneNYC · Dec 18, 2014

Yea why not? It's already a low contrast film, shooting it at 250 and pulling it would make a really low contrast scene almost unbearable to print with. 400 makes sense for low contrast.

Thomas Bertilsson · Dec 18, 2014

StoneNYC said:
Yea why not? It's already a low contrast film, shooting it at 250 and pulling it would make a really low contrast scene almost unbearable to print with. 400 makes sense for low contrast.

Yep.
EI 400 for low contrast, and slightly longer developing time.
EI 250 for normal contrast, and normal dev time.
EI 200 for high contrast, and normal dev time.

The contrast of the film is actually constant.
But the contrast of the negative is a variable.
That is because with exposure and development variations WE are completely in control of the final negative contrast.
If somebody thinks ISO 400 film is too low in contrast, then just develop it longer. Easy peasy.
I was actually surprised by the question, because it is a very fundamental quality of the black and white photography system, to manipulate print contrast at the negative developing stage.
If you look at old Agfa data sheets they gave different developing time for different gamma. It's really that simple.

flavio81 · Dec 18, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Yep.
EI 400 for low contrast, and slightly longer developing time.
EI 250 for normal contrast, and normal dev time.
EI 200 for high contrast, and normal dev time.

The contrast of the film is actually constant.
But the contrast of the negative is a variable.
That is because with exposure and development variations WE are completely in control of the final negative contrast.
If somebody thinks ISO 400 film is too low in contrast, then just develop it longer. Easy peasy.
I was actually surprised by the question, because it is a very fundamental quality of the black and white photography system, to manipulate print contrast at the negative developing stage.
If you look at old Agfa data sheets they gave different developing time for different gamma. It's really that simple.

Well said !!

baachitraka · Dec 18, 2014

I have mixed up with SBR and what you have said.

Yeah, nobody want to give more exposure when it is already contrasty.

But then it also depend on Dev time.

What films did you shoot most recently? (Part 2)

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency