Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,922   Posts: 1,556,623   Online: 1283
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by rafal View Post
    I do landscapes in 4x5. I like Tri-X 320 (both the new and old) in HC-110 B (though the dev time is quite short for my liking) when I want more drama from my pictures. If I want to shoot misty dreamy stuff I like TMAX 100 in Xtol 1:1 or HC-110 for more punch. I am going to do a project in HP5+ next as I liked other people's results...
    Try mixing it 1:50 from the concentrate and adding 50% to your B times, so 6min, becomes 9min, etc.

  2. #12
    Jerry Basierbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Michigan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    875
    Images
    36
    I've been using T-Max 100 & 400 with T-Max developer since I started doing photography seriously. So it's basically what I know. I've recently started experimenting with Ilford Delta 100 & 400, FP4, HP5 developed in D-76. I've shot a few rolls of each so far. Not enough to tell what I like yet. I'll be doing more.

    Jerry

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,361
    Images
    299
    Kodak Tri-X 400 and Ilford FP4. I develop it all in Pyrocat-MC.
    Sometimes I use something different, like Delta 3200 for speed, or just try something new to shake it up a little bit. But I always come back to those two it seems.
    - Thomas
    "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

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,364
    Images
    84
    I shoot a multitude of different film types & most of them I wouldn't claim to know in depth.
    However I do a lot of low light photography & the one combination that I use a lot & know very well is Fuji Neopan 1600 rated at 1600 & dev'd in Diafine. Beautiful results with shadow detail, nice tonal range & sharp grain. I'm doing 5 to 10 rolls a week of this. Just wish they made it in 120.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    877
    My suggestion would be to find someone whose work you admire and whose technique you would like to emulate. Then find out what they use and try it. I think you can drive yourself nuts with different film/developer combinations. Even as the film market shrinks, the number of combinations must be nearly unlimited.

    Think of it like dating. You don't want to date everyone, you just want to find a good match for you. It takes some time to tell if it is a good match, so pick a film and get to know it very well. If after you have put in the effort you aren't happy, then move on to another film

    I started with Tri-X and HC-110. Why? Because that is what Ansel used, and if it was good enough for Ansel.... I followed Fred Picker's advice to pick one film and one developer and stick with it until you really get to know how they respond and how you can make that combination work for you. I still use Tri-x in 35mm and 4x5...i.e. for stuff that will be enlarged.

    In the last few years, I have moved up to larger formats. I use TMax 400 for 5x7, 8x10 and 7x17 developed in Pyrocat-HD. Why? Because I can 1) use one film for all three sizes, 2) TMax has excellent reciprocity and 3) a very long straight line "curve." This combination works very well for contact printing on Azo. I arrived a this combination after reading every single post on the Azo forum and hearing what others (whose work I admire) used.

    I expecially like the fact that I don't have to worry about Quality Control issues with Kodak, Ilford or Fuji films. Yeah, they cost a bit more, but to me they are worth it. YMMV
    John Bowen

  6. #16
    pellicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    370
    Images
    16
    jasonjoo

    for 35mm black and white I love neopan, in Japan you can get some nicer combinations, but I found the 100iso to be to my liking. What film will depend on the use. I scan mostly (shh) so I have different desires to those printing traditionally.

    In colour film I like Fuji Superia negative or Fuji 160 NS I love the amount of highlight tolerance I get, and exposing to get acceptable levels in the shadows the highlights are well dealt with. Until recently I was mainly a fan of slide films (chromes or positives by another name) under the belief that they scanned better. I now no longer feel that way and regard them as being only for projection purposes (where they look gorgeous). I don't have a 4x5 projector (would look wonderful I'm sure) so my chromes are mostly wasted in that respect (though its nice to put one on the light box now n then to sigh).

    ADOX makes a nice film too, so perhaps you might want to give that a burle in your camera too (beware, it scratches easily if you're processing your own)
    Theory: you understand why it should work but it doesn't
    Practice: it works but you have no idea how
    Here theory and practice meet, things don't work and I don't know why
    Homepages: here Blog: here

  7. #17
    Peter Williams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    275
    My favorite BW film is Fuji Acros 100. I don't have to adjust for reciprocity when shooting long exposures and it has wonderful tonality both for day and night shots. I use Rodinal when I'm serious and Diafine when I'm lazy (or when my 8 year old daughter wants to do some developing).
    If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
    - Elbert Hubbard

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    I'll be scanning mostly for the time being too! I don't have the room to set up an enlarger and I'm trying to pace myself in terms of darkroom stuff

  9. #19
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,611
    Images
    122
    For a long time it was PAN F if I was using a tripod or HP5+ at EI 200 hand held. I have recently been using Delta 400 (at EI 400) instead of HP5+.

    I don't have much experience of Kodak films other than a couple of rolls of Tri-X. I didn't see anything which would make me use it instead of HP5+ but a couple of rolls isn't really enough to judge it with. I may try it again one day.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  10. #20
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by jasonjoo View Post
    I'm fairly new to the traditional photography world and to be quite honest, I thought people mainly chose the films they did based on the amount of grain, the color characteristics (such as Velvia being more saturated), the ability to do long exposures (repricocity?), etc. Now that I read that post, I feel like there is a lot more to film then just the quality/size of the grain (in another thread, someone mentioned the different thickness of the anti-halation layer and how that plays a roll in developing film).
    You know, not to be more flippant than I usually am , but I think people make the error to choose their films only on the basis of sharpness and grain. I'm guilty of that as well, and it's just recently that I understood what a characteristic curve meant. In fact, it's as simple to understand as a Photoshop curve, so I wonder why it took me so long...

    What's important to understand is that some developer will nudge slightly the inherent shape of a film's characteristic curve. XTOL will raise the midtones a bit, whereas HC-110 will raise highlights instead. It's minor, but it's there for some films. In the question of "what developer to use" it's often only the grain/sharpness factors that are considered. In fact, I think it's a terrible omission from Anchell and Troop's Film Developing Cookbook that they give data only about these two factors.

    Sharpness and grain matter, but so do curve shape, spectral sensitivity, traditional/t-grain, reciprocity; for colour films: saturation, contrast, palette.

    And the most important factor: availability!!

    What: In 35mm I use Tri-X and Efke 100 in XTOL 1+1; in 120 I use Rollei Retro 100 in Rodinal 1+50 and just started playing with Plus-X in HC-110. I shoot the occasional Efke 25 roll in 120 as well. In colour, I prefer Kodak films, so I use Portra for negatives (the whole line, depending on usage), and Ektachrome E100G or Kodachrome 64 when I want slides.

    Why: 35mm Tri-X and XTOL give me smooth looking negatives that print well into 11x14, and the right "look" (which is probably a combination of characteristic curve and spectral sensitivity among other things). Efke 100 also has a "look" but I use it mainly because I sometimes prefer a slower film for tighter grain pattern, and it's very close to Tri-X. 120 Retro 100 in Rodinal has brilliant highlights, and so does Plus-X in HC-110, which is what I really like in larger formats. As for color films, it's mostly a matter of palette: I especially don't like the greens that Fuji film gives.
    Last edited by Michel Hardy-Vallée; 03-11-2008 at 11:32 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

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