which film for landscape?

ok, I am a newbie in b/w film but I need to re-order my stock and I was thinking about a low-iso film for landscape (at the moment I use HP5+ and sometimes 400iso are too much).

I was reading about t-max 100, acros 100, delta 100 and pan-f..... but now I am confused and i don't know what to choose...

what i am looking for is detail, mainly, and possibly something I can develop with d-76...

thanks for any suggestion

EDIT: might worth mentioning that it's for 35mm...

Test them all with various dilutions of D-76 to see which is most pleasing to you before buy a bunch of film. That's the best solution 'cause I don't know how you interpret your negatives for the type and style printing you do.

it makes sense what you say. The only problem? I am not sure to know how I interpret my negative.... even with the hp5+
what I do need for the moment is something that will allow me to have slower shutter speeds (sometimes ND4 filter is not enough) and more detail.

got my point? I need a "support" to learn what I want.
being a newbie I prefere sticking to a couple of things and try with them rather than add variability and get confused at the end...

you'll get slower shutter speeds with slower films. if you prefer Ilford films give Delta 100, FP4+ or Pan F+ a try. If you want to go slower than Pan F+, give the Efke R25 a try.

I do a lot of landscape work. What works for me is a TRIPOD, slow film and the best lenses I can afford.

IMHO, HP-5 is too fast and grainy, although it is a fine film, it's just not for MY landscapes.

I would use Efke 25, Pan-F, FP-4, or Plus-X. I'm not a fan of the t-grain films, although they do have fine grain.

All films look good in D-76. I would suggest diluting it 1+3. You can find times on the Massive Dev Chart at digitaltruth.com

A polarizing filter can make skies look dramatic.

What I think Walter means about interpreting is in the printing and evaluation of the final print, as to whether you like it or not. Hard to describe, but you will know. And you will know better over time and by the doing it, as your eye becomes educated. One of my favorites for landscape is Ilford FP4, for what it's worth.
You might also test any film you use with filters, to see its response to those as well. I use Yellow, Green, Orange, and Red (and polarizer) with landscape, depending on the effect I'm looking for.
Don't worry about "wasting time" with options that don't work out, if you are paying attention, you'll learn something every time.
As Fred Picker used to say - "Try it, try it, try it..."
Good luck.

I've always liked Ilford Pan-F, which can be developed in D-76. The rated speed is ISO 50, but with different dilutions you can get slower.

According to the Massive Developing Chart at http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html, a dilution of 1:1 gives ISO 25-50 and 1:3 can range from ISO 12-50 (I've never tired these dilutions, but thanks to this discussion, I will).

My experience with T-max 100 and other films like it is limited, but another slower film you might like is Kodak Plus-X or Ilford FP-4. Negatives from either Plus-X or Pan-F shot on medium format, by the way, are simply gorgeous.

If you are new to landscape, the last thing I would do is shoot a bunch of different films. Pick one and stick with it until you understand how it works, say 20 years, then decide if you should try another. (tongue only somewhat in cheek)

There are many films and overwhelmingly most are good. I personally shoot along the lines of Jim. Like he says, use a tripod, use a slower film if you are shooting a smaller format, then stick to it until you understand your exposure and development process.

The films you mentioned are all good. I like the older style emulsions like FP4+ from Ilford, but Acros and T-Max are awesome. Tmax is a little pickier about exposure and development. I also use a yellow filter to cut some of the blue-seeing-ness of the films. Sometimes and orange and once in a while a red filter for effect.

Keep it simple. Develop and print your own if you can. Stick with one film. (trust me about the sunscreen, as they say)

Best of luck

wow! thanks everyone for your opinion!
I am not new to landscape, maybe my landscapes are far from being excellent but I shoot some that satisfy me.. It's just the "b+w" thing that is new.
I already have a decent tripod, a polarizer, an orange filter (red, green and yellow to follow) and a remote shutter so I am nearly there.
what I need is the possibility of (for example) making a picture of a waterfall/sea with the "silky" effect without adding too many filters (and loosing optical quality).
I nearly forgot the fp4, but since I can save some money on it, I think can be good to start with...

again, thanks!!

While I prefer Delta 100 (or Tmax 100) I'll actually be loading up HP5 in a few minutes ready for a day shooting landscapes tomorrow. Tripods aren't permitted where we are going so I'll have to work hand-held. I'll also take Delta 400 for my 6x17 unfortunately it's not available in 5x4.

There aren't any rules about whether to use a fast or slow film particularly if your using 35mm and although many photographers prefer slower films some great landscape images have been made using a 35mm camera & Tri-x or HP5.

Any of the three 100 IS0 films you mentioned will produce excellent results and there's very little between them in terms of quality. Pan F is an excellent film but need more careful handling of exposures & development to get the best from the film, it's also less practical for hand held work.

Ian

Gizzo said:

wow! thanks everyone for your opinion!

what I need is the possibility of (for example) making a picture of a waterfall/sea with the "silky" effect without adding too many filters (and loosing optical quality).

again, thanks!!

Click to expand...

I love doing this stuff! Here in the Adirondaks of NY there are tons of waterfalls. Some have lots of sunshine on them in the spring when the water is high and the leaves are not on the trees. I often have to use the slowest film I can find (which really curls my bacon that my faves, APX 25, Pan-X and K-25, & Ektar 25, are all gone.)

Pan-F and Portra 160 are fine films, but sometimes too fast for these conditions.

On the other hand, many of these waterfalls are in cul de sacs and the sun never reaches them. For these a 400 speed film may be needed.

Buy several bodies/ film mags and all the film and film types you can. Buy, buy, buy! Support the economy!

Based on very limited use, I do like the look of Pan-F+ in Rodinal 1:100.

I have polarizers, various color filters (med. yellow, yellow-green, yellow-orange, red) and one 3 stop ND filter for adjusting f-stop/shutter speed combinations.

If you wish to get shutter speeds longer than 1/2 sec., Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros is the clear winner in the reciprocity failure race. It essentially doesn't have any. Fuji says "add 1/2 stop up for exposures up to 16 minutes." Compare that to any other black & white film.

Good luck!

jim appleyard said:

Buy several bodies/ film mags and all the film and film types you can. Buy, buy, buy! Support the economy!

Click to expand...

yes, and who will support my rucksack while walking??? LOL

I'd step gradually. You're used to 400-speed films... try their next slower cousin.

Ilford FP4 Plus and Kodak Plus-X are similar (but not identical) films that are fairly forgiving in the darkroom, but much finer-grained than HP5 Plus and Tri-X.

Try them, and get used to them. Then, I'd suggest trying an even slower film to see how you like it. Ilford Pan-F Plus is a logical next step.

There are other films in these speed ranges that are excellent, but Ilford and Kodak are relatively easy to find and easy to use.

If you live in an area where Fuji Neopan 100 and 400 are readily available, they are also good.

There are other films worthy of attention, but one step at a time.

Robert Hall said:

If you are new to landscape, the last thing I would do is shoot a bunch of different films. Pick one and stick with it until you understand how it works,

Click to expand...

Mostly good advise but the I would say shoot a roll or two of each, then pick one and stay with that. Like test driving a car, if you only try one you may not know what else others can do. Once all have been tried stick with one type for a good long while.

thanks for your advice, folks!

"fairly forgiving in the darkroom" sounds good to me so I will give FP4 a try!

First, there is no black and white film that cannot be developed in *any* black and white developer, so you don't need to worry about what films will "work" in what developers. What you perhaps should worry about in this department is doing enough testing to be able to get predictable and consistent results.

As for a slow film, there are numerous options. Each will be more suitable for certain things than others, and less so for others.

As for slow films, I am very familiar with Ilford films, and have some experience with Efke films. The only Kodak films I know are Tri-X 320 and T-Max 400.

Pan F gives an astounding amount of sharpness, while retaining a "classic" look. Its problem is its extremely high contrast. It has a very short dynamic range, thus low latitude, out of the box. As such, it gives killer results only when tested thoroughly and used very precisely. I have to rate this film at 16 or 20 (depending on which shutter I am using) in order to predictably place a zone I. (Contrary to what some people do, I place things at zone I all the time.) Also of note is that its spectral sensitivity is a bit different than most films. Similarly to Tri-X, it is nearly as responsive to blues as it is to reds, unlike most films, which are significantly more responsive to reds than to blues. Also, the sensitivity curve is rather "odd", dipping or jumping at certain wavelengths while the other films have more smooth and gradual changes in sensitivity. This can lead to slightly unexpected tones, even in a well controlled "system". I love this film, but it is a bitch to work with, plain and simple.

FP4 is another "classic" film that is easier to pin down than Pan F, though notably grainier (but not grainy in the grand scheme of things). It is sharp, but without being overly so like Pan F and Delta 100 can often be, IMO. It is good choice for controlling highlights and having relatively subdued shadow and midtone contrast. I love this film very much for exactly these reasons.

Delta 100 is probably what you want, based on what you said. It is very sharp and very contrasty. It has a straight characteristic curve compared to Pan F and FP4. It is very responsive to minor changes in exposure and development. It is another one that has to be nailed down pretty tightly for killer results, but if you want a more modern, sharp, detailed look with healthy amounts of shadow and midtone contrast, this is your film (from Ilford, at least).

Efke 25, 50, and 100 are good, IMO. They require very careful technique in my experience, just like Pan F, and can tend to get a bit flat, like FP4. They don't respond as well as other films to overexposure. But they do have a very classic and unique look, and are nice and cheap. I use the 25 and sometimes the 50, almost always in my Speed Graphic with flashbulbs.

As for Kodak Plus-X and T-Max 100, they are probably similar to their respective Ilford films, but I don't know this via my own experience, so will hold any further comment on them. I am only really familiar with Tri-X 320 and T-Max 400 from Kodak.

I often have to use the slowest film I can find (which really curls my bacon that my faves, APX 25, Pan-X and K-25, & Ektar 25, are all gone.)

Click to expand...

I am using one of the finest films available these day, it's Rollei Pan 25, I would recommend it. I would love to still be using Panatomic X but it's history. I still have a lot of negatives that I've shot over the years with it that I never printed, I always shoot more than I print. That will have to do, it's wonderful to work with. Ilford Pan F is my other choice for quality. It's a little less expensive than Rollie Pan.

I have just a few rolls each of Panatomic-X and Agfapan 25 120 left, I just can't bring myself to use them up.

FP4+ Works for Me

FP4+ makes a good choice. Fairly fine grained. Excellent tonality and very forgiving.

Sincerely,

Hany.

Another vote for FP4+ here.


Steve.

mmmm now a doubt arises.....

what will the FP4 forgive me for?
exposure failure that I can recover while printing?
(yes, I am a newbie...)

FP4 Plus will tend to tolerate underdevelopment and overdevelopment better than the Delta or T-Max films. While you are learning good, consistent darkroom procedure, FP4 Plus (like HP5 Plus) will give you a little more room for error than some other films do.

I've been doing black and white work (including my own development) for over 30 years and I use FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus more than any other films, so don't feel like these are beginner films. They're very suitable for beginners, but you can assuredly grow with them.

PhotoJim said:

FP4 Plus will tend to tolerate underdevelopment and overdevelopment better than the Delta or T-Max films. While you are learning good, consistent darkroom procedure, FP4 Plus (like HP5 Plus) will give you a little more room for error than some other films do.

I've been doing black and white work (including my own development) for over 30 years and I use FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus more than any other films, so don't feel like these are beginner films. They're very suitable for beginners, but you can assuredly grow with them.

Click to expand...

When I was taught B&W photography, the film was FP4 for exactly the reasons PhotoJim states so clearly. I love all Ilford films, but I have used FP4 for almost everything, and if I had only one film to choose, I'd choose FP4.

Isn't this re-branded Efke 25? I can't keep track of who makes what anymore!

Click to expand...

Jim I have Efke 25 in all sizes from roll to sheet, the Rollei Pan 25 appears different to me. I don't know who makes the stock but it's clean and well made. With Efke, Adox, I've had negative problems that I never experienced with Kodak and Ilford.

The price range being what it is, very narrow, I'd recommend Kodak or Ilford, as said before FP4 is a great choice. It's all going to come down to picking one and using it exclusively until it is learned.