Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,761   Posts: 1,516,108   Online: 936
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: APX100 or FP4+?

  1. #21
    BWGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,050
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by rduraoc
    I'll probably do a test of both. Anyone with an EI and dev. times for Rodinal 1+50, to use as my starting numbers?

    Thanks again,
    Rui Durão
    Here's the times I use for the films. (these are all in 1:50 at 68deg F) -

    APX 100 @ ISO100 = 13 minutes
    (note here: another person I know uses 17 minutes, but I can only vouch for 13...besides...17 minutes is just too long for my attention span )

    FP4+ @ ISO 125 = 8 minutes
    FP4+ @ ISO 50 = 6 minutes

    Here's the same info for Acros (just in case)
    Acros 100 @ ISO 100 = 10 minutes

    Hope this helps some!
    Jeanette
    .................................................. ................
    Isaiah 25:1

  2. #22
    VoidoidRamone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    490
    APX100 EI 100 in Rodinal 1:50 is 15min for me (68 degrees).
    -Grant

  3. #23
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    Which ever one is cheaper at the time. With 35mm, its so hard to really have a opinion. So hard to tell with a smaller format. I used to process film, hand dunk, for a living. I've literally processed thousands and thousands of 35mm film. When the printers (these guys were so bad ass, we did a lot of printing for gallery shows), it was impossible to tell if it was plus-x, fp4, apx100 when it came from 35mm. Well, I lied, we could tell if it is from tech pan.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    229
    Images
    3
    No one has mentioned Plus-X. Exposed at 125 and developed in D76 1+1, it has the same fine grain as FP4+ with significantly more contrast. Now that Kodak has cut off the supply of grey market film it is about twice the price of FP4+ and APX100, however. I roll my own (35mm) so that I can afford it. I have tried to like FP4+, especially since the grey market Plus-X disappeared, but the look just does not suit my style and taste. When I shoot a roll of Plus-X the prints come out exactly the way I want them, usually on the first try. With FP4+ I have to fuss too much to get the look that I want. Perhaps I just do not have the patience to to try different meter settings, developers, contrast filters on the enlarge ... Perhaps it is because I have been shooting Plus-X since I was fifteen (I won't tell you how long ago that was) and because two of my all time favorite shots were taken with Plus-X.

    Another suggestion: APX100 exposed at 200, developed in Diafine. I use this combination in 120 format. It gives me enough speed for hand held shots with a Mockva-2. The contrast is a bit softer than Plus-X. When I finish my current 100 foot roll of Plus-X, I am going to try some of this in 35mm.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    I agree with Ian Grant's observations as I really like APX 100 in Rodinal 1:50. Let it be said, however, that APX 100 is not paricularly fine-grained to begin with and Rodinal is not a fine-grain developer.

    I'd have to say that I found FP4+ to be the finest-grain "traditional" (non-tabular) grain film in the 100-125 speed segment.

    Eric - I don't understand your comments at all. If anything, I think the differences between films get accentuated at small negative sizes since we are enlarging them so much. Then again, if you use 4x5 everything from 35mm starts to look rough junk when its at 11x14 and larger I guess...

  6. #26
    eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,586
    Images
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by aldevo
    Eric - I don't understand your comments at all. If anything, I think the differences between films get accentuated at small negative sizes since we are enlarging them so much. Then again, if you use 4x5 everything from 35mm starts to look rough junk when its at 11x14 and larger I guess...
    I'm shooting mostly medium format these days. When I was younger, I wanted less and less and less grain. I went down the path of verichrome pan, plus x, fp4, ilford 50, playing with microdol-x, d75 1:1, all that stuff. When I enlarge 8x10 or 11x14, it is soooooo hard to tell the difference between any of the 100 speed film. So I just started getting which ever one was cheapest at the moment.

    So with medium format, it finally dawned on me that it just wasn't worth the trouble getting slow speed film for 35mm. I just get 400 (tri-x or delta400) in 35mm.

    If I was stuck in the 35mm format, and had a choice between fp4+ and apx100, and my criteria is finer grain, I would probably use fp4+ and develop in d76 1:1.

    I just don't think it worth the effort (now that I've played with it) in getting the sharpest, finest grain with 35mm film. HOWEVER, you should check out www.unblinkingeye.com. There's an article with Minox film and fine grain in there somewhere.

    That "rough" look you mentioned is what I love about 35mm. I've seen prints, large prints 16x20 and higher with 35mm film (using tri-x too!) and it's awesome. There is nothing like it.

  7. #27
    eagleowl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    127

    I've used...

    FP4,Delta,and just about every 100 speed film available(and a couple which aren't anymore!),and I've just started using 100 speed foma.
    Initial results look superb!
    A common mistake people made when designing something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.

    Computers are incredibly stupid,but they are capable of being incredibly stupid many millions of times a second.

    Both said by Doug Adams

    Only put off until tomorrow that which you are prepared to die having not done-Pablo Picasso

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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