Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,991   Posts: 1,524,212   Online: 1144
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,132
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    That's a very good observation.

    What aperture do you prefer shooting at? That's a very good question. For me that's between f/2 and f/5.6.
    Hi Thomas. I nearly always shoot at 1/125 and change aperture for the light in question. I am quite fond of f8 and f5.6, but my 50mm Summilux 1.4 seems to work well at every stop. I know this trade off effects my DOF, but it works for me.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    331
    Lots of very interesting observations, thanks everyone. I guess for grain I already have the 1600 in the F3. And I do like grain sometimes. I've used HP5 and FP4 in 120 format where the grain in HP5 isn't an issue when enlarged pretty big. I think I need to try FP4 in 35mm and see how I get on with it. I'm usually trying to maximise depth of field, so the slow down in shutter speed may be an issue. I have thought about a move to a different t-grain 400 film but thought I'd mess around with what I know a little about first before a total change, and HP5 in XTOL is what I know best.

  3. #13
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,132
    Images
    340
    I'm not a fan of T-grain technology. I don't think it is always possible to put all the grains in the same direction and it seems unatural somehow. I can't really describe why, I just don't like it.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  4. #14
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,624
    Images
    40
    FP4+ for greater expansion of the film's density range.

    And for being able to use lenses without shutters easier in bright light.
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  5. #15
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,134
    Ilford XPII

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,557
    Quote Originally Posted by xtolsniffer View Post
    Lots of very interesting observations, thanks everyone. I guess for grain I already have the 1600 in the F3. And I do like grain sometimes. I've used HP5 and FP4 in 120 format where the grain in HP5 isn't an issue when enlarged pretty big. I think I need to try FP4 in 35mm and see how I get on with it. I'm usually trying to maximise depth of field, so the slow down in shutter speed may be an issue. I have thought about a move to a different t-grain 400 film but thought I'd mess around with what I know a little about first before a total change, and HP5 in XTOL is what I know best.
    I guess the first question I'd ask you is what do you photograph? If you do street work, I think you'll have a hard time with FP4+. And if your preference is for open shadows, that will make it even more difficult since even in XTOL most people tend to downrate FP4+ a little. HP5+ will give you more flexibility in that kind of shooting. If the grain is objectionable to you, consider TMY-2. It is also very flexible, has excellent tonality, and is finer grained than FP4+. TMY-2 is a tabular grain film, but don't let that stop you. Tabular grained films can look just as "good" as the more traditional films (which are somewhat tabular grained anyway).

    If you are doing landscapes or other types of photography in which the subject is static, I'd highly recommend you use a tripod. TRIPOD. Then you can use a slower film like FP4+. And as some others have already said, FP4+ is an absolutely wonderful film in every way. Probably my all time favourite film if I had to pick one. If you want finer grain than FP4+, you could also try the tabular grain films such as Delta 100, Acros or TMX. Alternatively you could just use TMY-2 for everything (it is as fine grained than Delta 100).

  7. #17
    Kevin Kehler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Regina Canada (sounds more fun than it is)
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    605
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    I'm not a fan of T-grain technology. I don't think it is always possible to put all the grains in the same direction and it seems unatural somehow. I can't really describe why, I just don't like it.
    I am in complete agreement - I find t-grain/delta too perfect, almost like someone took cling-wrap and put it over everything. It just looks wrong, just like those cartoon versions of HDR or doing 15 mph in a Porsche or older women with a too tight facelift.

    I love my FP4 and if you really want to, you can push it to 200 without too much grain. I develop it in Rodinal to give a bit of bite for sharpness and the slow speed doesn't make it too grainy (HP5 in Rodinal is terribly grainy for me). That said, I use Tri-X for walking around, as it is more flexible when moving indoors. If a tripod is too much hassle, go with the monopod.
    Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.

    Andreas Feininger

  8. #18
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Ilford XPII
    Thats a great option too.

    I switched too FP4 a little while back as my primary 35mm film and I rarely miss the faster speed, of course I'm normally an f/2 to f/4 and be there type shooter.

    Like the OP I find the grain from 35mm HP5 regularly gets in the way when printed larger than 8x10.

    Delta 400 is between the two.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #19
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,177
    Images
    291
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Kehler View Post
    I am in complete agreement - I find t-grain/delta too perfect, almost like someone took cling-wrap and put it over everything. It just looks wrong, just like those cartoon versions of HDR or doing 15 mph in a Porsche or older women with a too tight facelift.

    I love my FP4 and if you really want to, you can push it to 200 without too much grain. I develop it in Rodinal to give a bit of bite for sharpness and the slow speed doesn't make it too grainy (HP5 in Rodinal is terribly grainy for me). That said, I use Tri-X for walking around, as it is more flexible when moving indoors. If a tripod is too much hassle, go with the monopod.
    To each their own. I have shown people prints made with TMax400 and Tri-X400 side by side; experienced photographers and printers who can't spot a difference.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    You don't need a tripod to steady a camera there are several other methods.

    o lean against a wall
    o use a beanbag on a horizontal surface
    o use an easy to carry monopod
    o use a 1/4 inch coarse thread eyelet screw in tropod hole and a length of cord under your foot to steady camera
    o tuck your elbows into your body and hold your breath
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin