which film for landscape?

Ken N · Jan 9, 2009

My B&W axes of choice are Ilford PanF and Delta 400 processed in DD-X. DD-X is a fantastic push-pull style developer. But to echo others, I'd recommend FP4 with your D76 chemistry. The apparent sharpness of the negatives is extremely high because of the traditional grain-structure (not T-grain), and the way the grain tends to "migrate" giving USM (unsharp mask) characteristics to edge details.

Probably my most favorite lower speed B&W film is Delta 100 processed in DD-X. The highlight details just go on forever. My only grouse with that film/developer is the compression of Zones II-III. (It lifts Zone II, lowers Zone III). The resulting mud is similar to what you see with digital B&W conversions after using too much "shadow fill".

I prefer the Delta films for one primary reason, however. In a mixed post-processing environment, the Delta films scan much better because the base is slightly frosted. But if digital is THE output medium, I would suggest XP-2 as you get extremely fine-grain and you can overexpose it (reduce ISO) multiple stops. It has a shoulder that begins at the toe.

white.elephant · Jan 9, 2009

Output

Are you planning to print or scan the negs?

srmcnamara · Jan 9, 2009

my recent experience certainly agrees wholeheartedly with what 2F/2F said.

Pan-F is an absolutely gorgeous gorgeous film but I haven't taken the time to really nail it down with my processes. However, I was doing a project in the woods last semester and was having huge problems controlling the extreme contrast.

I switched to FP-4 and I really love this film. It's difficult to really nuke the highlights as bad as I was with the Pan-F and I loved what it gave me in the darker tones.

TMax-100 is the only other film I have much experience with and it's really sharp but I've never been a fan of my results.

everyone is different though so I think you'll have to try them all yourself.

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 9, 2009

FP4+ is a really nice film. TMAX 100 has great resolution, but I find it has softer edges compared to FP4+.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 10, 2009

FP4+ is a very popular film, and you're getting a lot of recommendations for it. That tells you two things - it's good film (where there's smoke there's fire) and it's easy to use (forgiving, as is said).
I love FP4+, and if it wasn't for me getting into a whole mess of Plus-X in 120 I'd be using it along side my all-purpose film Tri-X. With those two, FP4 & Tri-X I will never need another film. Both of them will soup well in D76.

To address your question of "What film for landscape?" question: It's a matter of taste. Use what you like, and it takes a bit of trial and error to come to an understanding of what you like. The good news is that one film can do many things. For example:
I use two developers to achieve different results. Edwal 12 is great for flat lighting. It gives brilliant negatives with lots of contrast. I use Rodinal for when I need to bring the contrast down. In addition you will get different results by agitating differently too.
These are things you learn as you go, but please focus on one film and one developer and explore its full potential by varying filtration, exposure, developer dilutions, agitation techniques. There are many variable that affect how your negatives will look; how you use your materials can vary your results more than what materials you use.

Good luck!

- Thomas

Gizzo · Jan 10, 2009

@white.elephant: mainly printing, but I hope in the near future to bring my minolta scanner to create some sort of "digital contact sheet" (and to upload on-line).
but the objective is the print.

@all: thanks for all the suggestions, personally I agree with the idea that at the beginning it's better keeping variables as low as possible, to go through each of them with method. I developed the first batch of HP5+, a good film because it allows also hand-held shots (ideal when travelling without tripod).
but based on my photographic "expertise" (quite low in reality), a slower film can be useful for some situations.
As Thomas was pointing out, with 2 films, one developer you have at least 3-4 tools to play with, and this is just on the exposure/development side. keeping in mind that I can add more on the printing side, well I say that there's enough to keep me playing for a year at least

thanks!!!

André E.C. · Jan 11, 2009

Thomas Bertilsson said:
To address your question of "What film for landscape?" question: It's a matter of taste. Use what you like, and it takes a bit of trial and error to come to an understanding of what you like.

I fully agree with Thomas, if 200 people answer this thread, you will end up with 20 different films I think, FP4+ is my favourite film, therefore, I also endorse it.

Maybe you should avoid the Deltas and Tmaxes for now, try more traditional bases and give the tabulars a try later on.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers

André

Matt5791 · Jan 11, 2009

André E.C. said:
I fully agree with Thomas, if 200 people answer this thread, you will end up with 20 different films I think, FP4+ is my favourite film, therefore, I also endorse it.

Maybe you should avoid the Deltas and Tmaxes for now, try more traditional bases and give the tabulars a try later on.

Good luck and have fun!

Cheers

André

I agree with this - I think FP4 woudl be an ideal film to start with and stick with for the time being.

Also, as Ian has said, I have found that PanF can be a tricky film to get fully to grips with (and I've not got there yet!)

Matt

mongo141 · Jan 11, 2009

Amen, FP4+ or Plus X . Dave

jgjbowen · Jan 11, 2009

Gizzo said:
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!!

The key to making photographs of waterfall/sea with the "silky" effect is to be there before the sun rises, after the sun sets or else on a VERY overcast day. I have a bunch of negatives of "silky" (I like the term "Fuzzy") water. Almost all of them were shot before 9am or after 4pm. I shoot 8x10 TMax 400 (rated at 400) with an exposure of ~1/30 to 4 seconds wide open (depending on the lens from f6.8 to f11). It NEVER dawned on me to shoot a slower film..... I'm usually looking for a FASTER Lens so I could have water that actually looks like water.....

Take a look at John Sexton's photographs and you will see what I mean.

YMMV

mikebarger · Jan 11, 2009

Andre is quite correct relating to the number of opinions you'll receive.

For 120mm I use Tri-x (400) and for 4x5 since Kodak doesn't make make Tri-x (400), I use HP5.

Please reread Robert Hall's post. As with most of us, your skill level (KNOWING how your equipment and processing impacts your finished product) is the key to beautiful prints.

Mike

Gizzo · Jan 11, 2009

this forum is amazing.
a total newbie posts a simple (maybe even repeated) question, and gets back a whole world of infos
and now I realize that I was wrong even from the title. I am not looking for a landscape film, rather than a lower-iso film to cover those situations where HP5 is too much.

anyway. looks like FP4 will be my next film.

a couple of OT questions, arisen while reading your posts.
@John Bowen, can you link me a specific picture that shows what you are talking about? I saw some galleries from mr. Sexton but it's hard for me to find a correlation
@Mike: do you have a link to mr.Hall's post? sounds interesting!
thank you all

André E.C. · Jan 11, 2009

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, 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

It's here, page 1!

Cheers

André

mikebarger · Jan 11, 2009

It's the 8th post of this thread.

Mike

jgjbowen · Jan 11, 2009

Gizzo said:
@John Bowen, can you link me a specific picture that shows what you are talking about? I saw some galleries from mr. Sexton but it's hard for me to find a correlation

check here for John Sexton Images:
Dead Link Removed

John's book "Reflections" should be available at a good book store or library.

See Plate 2: Rock Forms and Roaring Fork River, Near Aspen, Colorado Tmax 400 2min @ f32 N-1
Plate 3: Fallen Trees and Waterfall, Hanging Lake, Colorado Tmax 100 50 sec @ f22 N-1
Plate 6: Lower Calf Creek Falls Detail, Utah Tmax 400 1/4 sec @ f22 N+1

You should probably look to pick up copies of John's Books. You will see lots of "silky" photographs. Of the 55 plates in "Reflections" only 9 received less than 1 sec exposure. His FASTEST shutter speed of any image in the book was 1/30 sec @ f16 using Tmax 100 film and a #12 yellow filter.

Good luck,

Gizzo · Jan 11, 2009

John, I presume he was using a medium/large format, was he?
the quality of the images is amazing as far as I can see!!

thanks for your suggestion!!

Gizzo · Jan 11, 2009

sorry, double post

jgjbowen · Jan 11, 2009

John Sexton shoots 4x5 ALMOST exclusively. I think his Reflections contains 1 or 2 images from medium format negatives.

AlanC · Jan 12, 2009

Gizzo,
What really matters is the look you want to achieve in your prints. Once you have decided on this, you can choose the film ( and format ) that will deliver this look.

Alan Clark

Claire Senft · Jan 12, 2009

There is no bad choice among Pan F+, Ilford Delta 100 and 100 Tmax Any of the three handled so that they begin to be near what is achieveable with them will provide outstanding results...OUTSTANDING. You need to pick one and learn to use it Were the choice mine I would go with 100 Tmax and Pyrocat MC...but it is your choice. Pick one of the three, a developer and a paper and stick with it. Within a few years you will, with dedicated effort, be able to produce very fine results.

The other choice is to play with all three as well as others and the developer of the week, and every paper on the market , to spend a lot of time and money and to still be producing crap 20 years from now.

AlanC · Jan 12, 2009

Claire's post illustrates the point I was making just before her. Claire says Delta 100 will give OUTSTANDING results. Maybe it will if you like the look of it, but for the look I like it would be just about the last film I would use (in 35mm format)

Alan Clark

Gizzo · Jan 13, 2009

@AlanC: what I want to achieve in my prints? detail, and a good tonal range first of all. then if the resulting picture it's also nice and worth showing, well that sounds like a goal to me and for the idea I have what I need is a slower film than the HP5+.
that's how far my knowledge goes.
One thing that I learned being essential (with analog photography more than the rest) is not to follow every trend. Sounds good, I will choose 2-3 film depending on the ISO rating and stick with them until I understand how they works....

thanks for your help

DavidM · Jan 13, 2009

I enjoy using the Efke 25 as it is slow so i can get the water movements by stopping down to f16-f22
It also has a very smooth grain and nice rich blacks.
Have fun experimenting
David

AlanC · Jan 13, 2009

Gizzo,
Traditional films like HP5+ and FP4+ impart a distinctive "rugged" underlying structure to the print. More modern films like Delta are a bit sharper and have a smoother creamier look. The differences between Delta 100 and FP4 are easily seen in an 11" wide print. Without going to a lot of trouble you could always photograph the same subject with both these films, make some prints and see which you like best.

And don't overlook the effect of different film developers. 11" wide prints from HP5 developed in Rodinal will be sharp, but grainy. ID11 diluted 1+3 will yield just as much sharpness but noticably finer grain

Alan Clark

PhotoJim · Jan 13, 2009

I like the Delta and T-Max films a lot. I didn't recommend them here, though, because of the original poster's admitted inexperience. I suggest they are films that should be grown into, not used early in the process. They are fussier with exposure and processing than traditional emulsions.

which film for landscape?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency