Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Need ISO 100 B&W film with a little character
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Peabody
Jan 13, 2013, 2:30:12 PM1/13/13
to
I have an old medium format camera that shoots 6x9 negatives on 120
roll film. I did a test run using Acros 100 film, and while
everything looked very smooth and sharp, I found the results to be
a bit blah. I believe that film is a T-grain film.
I know about Tri-X, but that's ISO 400. And the problem is that my
camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 sec. So I'm afraid with
400 speed film it just isn't going to work well in daylight - too
much light. I have no ND filters for the camera.
Is there an ISO 100 B&W film that isn't T-grain and gives a more
Tri-X-like result, or am I just doomed to smoothness at that speed?
roll film. I did a test run using Acros 100 film, and while
everything looked very smooth and sharp, I found the results to be
a bit blah. I believe that film is a T-grain film.
I know about Tri-X, but that's ISO 400. And the problem is that my
camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 sec. So I'm afraid with
400 speed film it just isn't going to work well in daylight - too
much light. I have no ND filters for the camera.
Is there an ISO 100 B&W film that isn't T-grain and gives a more
Tri-X-like result, or am I just doomed to smoothness at that speed?
dadiOH
Jan 13, 2013, 3:28:10 PM1/13/13
to
H&D curve was pretty much a straight line. And, of course, the sort of
gritty look (with a bit of enlargement).
If you can't find what you are looking for - and if you do your own
processing - try playing around with some of the more energetic, non-fine
grain developers such as DK-50, DK-60a, maybe even pyro ABC. I have no idea
if those are still available but one can always compound one's own; a copy
of Photolab Index would be useful for that.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
Peter
Jan 13, 2013, 8:39:24 PM1/13/13
to
On 1/13/2013 3:28 PM, dadiOH wrote:
> Peabody wrote:
>> I have an old medium format camera that shoots 6x9 negatives on 120
>> roll film. I did a test run using Acros 100 film, and while
>> everything looked very smooth and sharp, I found the results to be
>> a bit blah. I believe that film is a T-grain film.
>>
>> I know about Tri-X, but that's ISO 400. And the problem is that my
>> camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 sec. So I'm afraid with
>> 400 speed film it just isn't going to work well in daylight - too
>> much light. I have no ND filters for the camera.
>>
>> Is there an ISO 100 B&W film that isn't T-grain and gives a more
>> Tri-X-like result, or am I just doomed to smoothness at that speed?
>
> One of the characteristics of Tri-X is/was that it had almost no toe. The
> H&D curve was pretty much a straight line. And, of course, the sort of
> gritty look (with a bit of enlargement).
>
> If you can't find what you are looking for - and if you do your own
> processing - try playing around with some of the more energetic, non-fine
> grain developers such as DK-50, DK-60a, maybe even pyro ABC. I have no idea
> if those are still available but one can always compound one's own; a copy
> of Photolab Index would be useful for that.
>
I wonder if film developer formulae are still contained in the newer
> Peabody wrote:
>> I have an old medium format camera that shoots 6x9 negatives on 120
>> roll film. I did a test run using Acros 100 film, and while
>> everything looked very smooth and sharp, I found the results to be
>> a bit blah. I believe that film is a T-grain film.
>>
>> I know about Tri-X, but that's ISO 400. And the problem is that my
>> camera's fastest shutter speed is 1/400 sec. So I'm afraid with
>> 400 speed film it just isn't going to work well in daylight - too
>> much light. I have no ND filters for the camera.
>>
>> Is there an ISO 100 B&W film that isn't T-grain and gives a more
>> Tri-X-like result, or am I just doomed to smoothness at that speed?
>
> One of the characteristics of Tri-X is/was that it had almost no toe. The
> H&D curve was pretty much a straight line. And, of course, the sort of
> gritty look (with a bit of enlargement).
>
> If you can't find what you are looking for - and if you do your own
> processing - try playing around with some of the more energetic, non-fine
> grain developers such as DK-50, DK-60a, maybe even pyro ABC. I have no idea
> if those are still available but one can always compound one's own; a copy
> of Photolab Index would be useful for that.
>
editions of the Chemical Rubber Handbook
--
PeterN
Noons
Jan 14, 2013, 5:37:53 AM1/14/13
to
Peabody wrote,on my timestamp of 14/01/2013 6:30 AM:
> Is there an ISO 100 B&W film that isn't T-grain and gives a more
> Tri-X-like result, or am I just doomed to smoothness at that speed?
>
>
Ilford Delta 100.
> Is there an ISO 100 B&W film that isn't T-grain and gives a more
> Tri-X-like result, or am I just doomed to smoothness at that speed?
>
>
Use DDX or LC29, it'll be quite nice.
Failing that, it's still possible to get some Acros and that can do the trick.
Note that exactly like Tri-X at 100 is a bit difficult, you may have to try a
few things.
The other thin I suggest is to go to www.apug.org and ask there: there are heaps
of very experienced and very recent users of film there, more than willing to
part with info.
Clank
Mar 12, 2013, 6:49:08 AM3/12/13
to
this one so thought it'd be as good a place as any to give in.
Delta 100 is another 'modern' grain film. I'd recommend taking a look
at Ilford FP4+ - traditional grain film at ISO125; I adore the stuff,
it's lovely to shoot with. Got a gorgeous contrasty look to it.
That said, I think you're going to struggle to make it overtly grainy
in medium format.
You could try shooting HP5+ with a meter setting at ISO100; the
datasheet suggests that HP5+ shot at ISO100 can be processed in
Perceptol for 9 mins (@20C) to get usable results.
Clank
Mar 12, 2013, 6:55:35 AM3/12/13
to
On 2013-03-12 10:49:08 +0000, Clank said:
> I hate to resurrect an old thread, but I'm new here and just spotted
> this one so thought it'd be as good a place as any to give in.
DIVE in, even.
> I hate to resurrect an old thread, but I'm new here and just spotted
> this one so thought it'd be as good a place as any to give in.
Sigh. Good start...
Peabody
Mar 12, 2013, 3:51:47 PM3/12/13
to
Clank says...
> I hate to resurrect an old thread, but I'm new here and
> just spotted this one so thought it'd be as good a place
> as any to dive in.
I was the OP, and it's never too late to chime in. Thanks
for doing so.
> I'd recommend taking a look at Ilford FP4+ - traditional
> grain film at ISO125; I adore the stuff, it's lovely to
> shoot with. Got a gorgeous contrasty look to it.
That sounds like what I'm looking for. I just wonder if my
local lab will be able to develop it properly. Eventually
I'll develop it myself, but not at first.
Actually, it looks like what I really need is PlusX. Right.
Where is the key to my wayback machine? Sherman?
> That said, I think you're going to struggle to make it
> overtly grainy in medium format.
I just don't want it to be as flat as the modern T-grain
films, or at least the Acros 100 I tried (but I'm told TMax
is the same). The pictures are all very fine grained,
sharp, accurate, and, well, just lifeless. Of course it
could be operator error, but I don't remember Tri-X being
that way. But for now I need ISO 100, or close to it.
> You could try shooting HP5+ with a meter setting at
> ISO100; the datasheet suggests that HP5+ shot at ISO100
> can be processed in Perceptol for 9 mins (@20C) to get
> usable results.
Yes, but I think if I'm going to do that I could just use
Tri-X.
Well, I'll see if I can find some FP4+. Thanks for the
suggestion.
> I hate to resurrect an old thread, but I'm new here and
> just spotted this one so thought it'd be as good a place
I was the OP, and it's never too late to chime in. Thanks
for doing so.
> I'd recommend taking a look at Ilford FP4+ - traditional
> grain film at ISO125; I adore the stuff, it's lovely to
> shoot with. Got a gorgeous contrasty look to it.
local lab will be able to develop it properly. Eventually
I'll develop it myself, but not at first.
Actually, it looks like what I really need is PlusX. Right.
Where is the key to my wayback machine? Sherman?
> That said, I think you're going to struggle to make it
> overtly grainy in medium format.
films, or at least the Acros 100 I tried (but I'm told TMax
is the same). The pictures are all very fine grained,
sharp, accurate, and, well, just lifeless. Of course it
could be operator error, but I don't remember Tri-X being
that way. But for now I need ISO 100, or close to it.
> You could try shooting HP5+ with a meter setting at
> ISO100; the datasheet suggests that HP5+ shot at ISO100
> can be processed in Perceptol for 9 mins (@20C) to get
> usable results.
Tri-X.
Well, I'll see if I can find some FP4+. Thanks for the
suggestion.
Whiskers
Mar 12, 2013, 5:49:52 PM3/12/13
to
combinations of emulsion, chemistry, and processing methods, to get
different effects. Try a local photography club, or public library.
The final image also depends on the enlarging method, choice of paper, and
chemistry and processing methods again.
Unless you can trust the laboratory doing the work to have a very
consistent approach to every stage of the work, it's unlikely you'll get
consistent satisfactory results.
Perfectionists using large format may expose and process each "plate"
differently; roll-film users might sacrifice a whole roll (and any photos
already on it) to get exactly the "right" combination of exposure and
processing for a particular frame. Interchangeable "backs" (eg Hasselblad)
make life easier and cheaper for people who make a habit of that sort of
thing.
Determine (by experiment) your own personal ISO rating for each emulsion
and processing combination you use - and for each batch of film.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Noons
Mar 13, 2013, 4:48:55 AM3/13/13
to
On 13/03/2013 8:49 AM, Whiskers wrote:
> There's a lot of information "out there somewhere" about using different
> combinations of emulsion, chemistry, and processing methods, to get
> different effects. Try a local photography club, or public library.
pssst: it's called www.apug.org
> There's a lot of information "out there somewhere" about using different
> combinations of emulsion, chemistry, and processing methods, to get
> different effects. Try a local photography club, or public library.
and no: I don't own it.
Clank
Mar 13, 2013, 4:54:06 AM3/13/13
to
On 2013-03-12 19:51:47 +0000, Peabody said:
> Clank says...
developers, doesn't require any particularly special treatment; if the
lab can do traditional B&W, they can do FP4+. I develop all mine with
Kodak HC110 (mainly because the keeping properties and concentration
make it so damn convenient…)
>
> I just don't want it to be as flat as the modern T-grain
> films, or at least the Acros 100 I tried (but I'm told TMax
> is the same). The pictures are all very fine grained,
> sharp, accurate, and, well, just lifeless. Of course it
> could be operator error, but I don't remember Tri-X being
> that way. But for now I need ISO 100, or close to it.
Yup, I'm not a huge fan of the modern grain films for exactly that
reason. I think FP4+ will hit the mark perfectly - and it's good to
support Ilford, they're a great company (I've had the pleasure of
touring their factory and meeting a few of them) and probably
traditional photography's biggest supporter.
The traditional grain films also have loads more latitude, which I
could claim allows me more creativity when it comes to printing them.
Or could more accurately admit helps cover up for my incompetence as a
photographer…
>
> > You could try shooting HP5+ with a meter setting at
> > ISO100; the datasheet suggests that HP5+ shot at ISO100
> > can be processed in Perceptol for 9 mins (@20C) to get
> > usable results.
>
> Yes, but I think if I'm going to do that I could just use
> Tri-X.
Fair point :-). Having given up trying to keep track of Kodak's
product discontinuations I forget that Tri-X is still available; I'm
never letting myself fall in love with a Kodak film again since they
killed E100VS :-(.
> Clank says...
> > I'd recommend taking a look at Ilford FP4+ - traditional
> > grain film at ISO125; I adore the stuff, it's lovely to
> > shoot with. Got a gorgeous contrasty look to it.
>
> That sounds like what I'm looking for. I just wonder if my
> local lab will be able to develop it properly. Eventually
> I'll develop it myself, but not at first.
They should be able to - it develops well with all the 'standard'
> > grain film at ISO125; I adore the stuff, it's lovely to
> > shoot with. Got a gorgeous contrasty look to it.
>
> That sounds like what I'm looking for. I just wonder if my
> local lab will be able to develop it properly. Eventually
> I'll develop it myself, but not at first.
developers, doesn't require any particularly special treatment; if the
lab can do traditional B&W, they can do FP4+. I develop all mine with
Kodak HC110 (mainly because the keeping properties and concentration
make it so damn convenient…)
>
> I just don't want it to be as flat as the modern T-grain
> films, or at least the Acros 100 I tried (but I'm told TMax
> is the same). The pictures are all very fine grained,
> sharp, accurate, and, well, just lifeless. Of course it
> could be operator error, but I don't remember Tri-X being
> that way. But for now I need ISO 100, or close to it.
reason. I think FP4+ will hit the mark perfectly - and it's good to
support Ilford, they're a great company (I've had the pleasure of
touring their factory and meeting a few of them) and probably
traditional photography's biggest supporter.
The traditional grain films also have loads more latitude, which I
could claim allows me more creativity when it comes to printing them.
Or could more accurately admit helps cover up for my incompetence as a
photographer…
>
> > You could try shooting HP5+ with a meter setting at
> > ISO100; the datasheet suggests that HP5+ shot at ISO100
> > can be processed in Perceptol for 9 mins (@20C) to get
> > usable results.
>
> Yes, but I think if I'm going to do that I could just use
> Tri-X.
product discontinuations I forget that Tri-X is still available; I'm
never letting myself fall in love with a Kodak film again since they
killed E100VS :-(.
Peabody
Mar 13, 2013, 7:22:38 PM3/13/13
to
Clank says...
> They should be able to - it develops well with all the
> 'standard' developers, doesn't require any particularly
> special treatment; if the lab can do traditional B&W,
> they can do FP4+. I develop all mine with Kodak HC110
> (mainly because the keeping properties and concentration
> make it so damn convenient…)
With any luck it won't be possible to develop it with C-41.
Because if they can use that, they will.
Is there a particularly good (low cost) place to buy FP4+?
For the US, I mean.
> They should be able to - it develops well with all the
> 'standard' developers, doesn't require any particularly
> special treatment; if the lab can do traditional B&W,
> they can do FP4+. I develop all mine with Kodak HC110
> (mainly because the keeping properties and concentration
> make it so damn convenient…)
Because if they can use that, they will.
Is there a particularly good (low cost) place to buy FP4+?
For the US, I mean.
Savageduck
Mar 13, 2013, 9:33:45 PM3/13/13
to
<
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/884667-REG/Ilford_1987719_FP4_PLUS_135_36_3_Pack.html
>
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Peabody
Mar 14, 2013, 9:23:25 PM3/14/13
to
Savageduck says...
> Try B&H. $11.95 for a 3x36 exp pack.
Should have said - I need 120. Well actually 620, 6x9. But
it looks like B&H is the best price on 120 too.
> Try B&H. $11.95 for a 3x36 exp pack.
it looks like B&H is the best price on 120 too.
darkroommike
May 12, 2013, 10:02:17 PM5/12/13
to
0 new messages