I have tried both of these films, and I believe the Ilford Pan F is superior because its Panchromatic. Efke 25 and 50 are orthochromatic and not sensitive to red light. although the Efke has a higher silver content, the images from 25 and fifty tend to be flat. You may be able to overcome Efkes short fall with a yellow filter.
Originally Posted by slnce-z-gsi
Ilford Pan-f is great film and coupled with the right developer can produce some really great negs.
Pan F in Rodinal 1:100 is a wonderful combo. Pan F has a tendency to blow out highlights so 1:100 minimal agitation works well.
The 3200 I would soup in Diafine. I am not the diafine fan as some are, I don't find the tonality to my likeness. But... if you want an image on a piece of film, if it's there, diafine will give it to you without blowing out the highlights.
The FP4+... I agree that the Pyro developers give you the best, most consistent results. I use WD2D+ but PyroCat works just as well.
For your Efke films.. Shoot them on the low side, be conservative, then keep the agitation down so you don't blow the highlights. I would try both Rodinal 1:100 and the pyro developer of your choice. You won't be disappointed.
I am of the thinking that if you standardize on three films and three developers, you will do just fine. I use a number of films and a number of developers, but then again, I am exceptional. *L*
tim in san jose
Where ever you are, there you be.
Thanks thanks thnaks.
Some of my comments:
1) Pyrocat HD
- would probably do the job well - how about the Delta 3200?
- but how about the film speeds? It seems that one gets EI of only 200 whit it. This makes it a little bit less attractive as for a "fast" film option. Any opinions here? - What about Tmax400? It was reported that it gets a nice shoulder in Pyrocat - but as well it is better at EI 200 (I am reffering to Ken Lee here). I would like to have a reasonable 400 option.
I am really leaning towards the Pyrocat at this point. Will have to find more info about it (and how to use it).
2) If I go with D76/ID11 it will be all right with fp4+ and hp5+. Still the problem With Efke, PanF and Delta 3200 remains.
3) Lowell Huff pointed my attention to F76+ as an all around developer - what is your experience with foremetioned films?
1. Re: film speed. It depends on how you use the developer, how you agitate. You know, it just might work perfect with D3200.
2. I reiterate - what makes you think you cannot use D76 with those films?
3. No idea.
"Make good art!"
- Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera".
- Yousuf Karsh
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit".
I should point out that rating a "400" speed film at 200-320 is pretty common. Be it theories that the film's speed is overrated, that the developer is reducing the film speed or because you want better shadow detail and the particular film/developer combination won't blow out the highlights. And that's not even covering things like metering technique or your camera's meter.
Your best bet is to shoot some test shots under a variety of conditions and bracket the exposures, then take a look at your negs and see which exposures give you what you want and then determine what your EI will be for the film.
The other thing to remember is that any B&W film will work in any B&W developer, if processed properly (possibly a few exceptions). What changes is the characteristics of the negative (tonality, grain, accutance, etc) and much of this is a matter of personal preference.
You seem to be at the learning phase of film processing so I'd encourage you to just bite the bullet and develop the films. Forget about what you may or may not have heard about a particular combination and just look up some times for the film and bite the bullet and develop the stuff in it. Then take a look at the negs and see what they look like and decide what you like and what you don't. Then ask yourself what it is you like or don't like. Maybe it's the contrast, maybe it's the grain, maybe the negs are underdeveloped, whatever, and then fine-tune things. Maybe you just won't like the look of a particular film. Well guess what? You've just learned that you don't like that particular film (at least in that particular developer) and that's far more valuable to you than anything what a bunch of people can tell you on the board before you've developed the film. Not saying the board isn't useful but this particular question is so much a matter of personal preference (as well as technique) that you'll get overwhelmed with all the variations.
Film is cheap, shoot a lot and process a lot and take a look at the results with a critical eye. Then if you get some results you can't figure out, post some examples and ask what's going on. Unless you have some once in a lifetime shots on an unfamiliar film just go for it and don't be afraid to try stuff and see what happens.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I'm with Frugal. All the combined expertise of grizzled veterans on APUG can only give you a starting point, and each one individually is likely to give you a different one. Be ready to waste some film and developer on the road to finding what you like. It will be worth more than what anyone else can tell you. We can all make pictures that suit us, and we will probably wind up with very different interpretations of the same subject matter.
There used to be terms used by those who made a living criticizing photographs. Seminal and terminal come to mind. Was Ansel Adams, for example, sowing seed or did he breed a bunch who wanted to stand where he did and make photos that were just like his? The answer is "Both." His alter ego as a gifted musician made him see a scene as a melody to be fitted into a musical scale. If we take that insight as a starting point without ever looking at one of his photos, we can make great pictures of whatever we choose without being imitative.
Enough with the philosophy. You can do no harm by studying the Zone system and using it as a means of judging how well your photographic technique shows what you saw in the original scene, whether realistically or impressionistically.