Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,872   Posts: 1,583,446   Online: 1185
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    It is very hard to beat 100 tmax...Acros 100 and Delta 100 are also wonderful choices. If I were looking for a 100 speed film it would be one of those three and I do not believe that I would be disappointed. Pick one and stick with it.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  2. #12
    Nicholas Lindan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,381
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycharms View Post
    I tried 400CN, which gave me great results, but I enjoy developing my own negatives. I just can't print them, hence the need to scan. 400CN did scan fairly well though. The problem is (apparently) that commercial negative scanners do not react well to black and white in the first place, but it seems lower grain and contrast would improve my results. From what I hear, XP2 is similar but with slightly more favorable results in most conditions. If I'm ever in the situation to shoot C-41 black and white again (and if I can find it), I will definitely give it a shot.
    If you are stuck with a scanner that does a lousy job of scanning silver grain then you may be better off sticking with the C-41 films.

    You can do your own C-41 processing. If you are not doing C-41 in color then you don't have to worry about 0.1 degree color developer temperature tolerances and 3 second timing errors - B&W C-41 yields acceptable results with black and white processing tolerances.

    There are room temperature C-41 kits available.
    Last edited by Nicholas Lindan; 09-09-2008 at 12:56 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    DARKROOM AUTOMATION
    f-Stop Timers - Enlarging Meters
    http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm

  3. #13
    BrianPhotog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan/Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    134
    With lab scans I've always gotten best results with Tri-X in Diafine (which tends to be low-contrast) and PanF in anything (I use HC-110B for 4:30 @20C).

    My "normal" Tri-X in HC-110b for 6:30 @20C come back contrasty with no shadow detail and horrible, horrible highlights.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholas Lindan View Post
    Develop in Microdol-X for the ultimate in low grain, though Xtol or D-76 work fine also.
    Be aware that the grain in TMAX films turns to mush in Microdol-X, at least in my experience.

  5. #15
    CuS
    CuS is offline

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    135
    Plus-X from freestyle - heck, but a bulk roll - you'll get 18-20 rolls from a 100' roll (which run about $48).

    I love this film, especially with rodinal 1:25, 6:30 at 20C

  6. #16
    kodachrome64's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    303
    Images
    9
    Another vote for Plus-X, it's great stuff. Good in Rodinal, HC-110, D-76, etc. It's a lower-grain Tri-X.

    I'm surprised that Tri-X is too grainy for you. If you are using a reasonably fine-grained developer like D-76 or HC-110 it should be fine. Tri-X and Rodinal is a grainy mix, at least in 35mm. If you otherwise like the look of Tri-X, you should like Plus-X with less grain.

    T-Max 100 would fit your bill though, extremely fine grain and low contrast in all developers I've tried.
    Kodachrome
    They give us those nice bright colors
    They give us the greens of summers
    Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah.
    -Paul Simon

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    39
    Thank you (as always) for all of the advice. I just remembered that I had a roll of TMX 100 that expired thirteen months ago in the fridge (I bought it a few weeks ago on a whim), and so I pulled out my TMX 400 roll (which has now been loaded and unloaded no less than four times) and popped it in. My first reaction is that 100 ISO is more miserable than I could ever have imagined, but I guess outdoors at noon and f/2 I just might be able to get something (maybe). I plan on developing this in 1+19 F76+, and if slow slightly-expired film and dilute developer isn't enough to make a commercially scannable neg, well, I need to go in another direction.

    On a side note, how bad of an investment is a $75 Epson film-enabled scanner? I mean, I know it won't be perfect, but at least I'd be able to turn off image correction and get scans without blobs and blotches right? Or am I better off taking my $75, collecting it in a pile, and burning it?
    Photoblog, though I'll warn you it's only mostly analog.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    1,344
    Good luck with the $75 scanner. If it's a flatbed, you can bet you will get miserable results from 35mm negatives. Even a $750 Epson will give marginal results from 35mm. Save your money. If you have a good negative, spend the money on a good scan from a professional lab.

    Peter Gomena

  9. #19
    Mark Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,640
    Images
    152
    I'd suggest you try two films and see which you prefer. Try a C41 BW film (Ilford or Kodak) and expose frames at the box speed, one stop over (EI200) and 2 stops over (100). C41 films look really nasty in the shadows when underexposed and it really doesn't seem too bothered by over exposure. When I used it, I exposed at 200. I'd also try a roll of Fuji Acros or Ilford Delta 100 exposed at the box speed or maybe a little lower and develop it in your favorite developer. I suspect you will prefer the C41 film if you are scanning.
    I wouldn't waste your money on a cheap flatbed......better to get some wet darkroom equipment or get a used Minolta/Canon/Nikon film scanner.....an enlarger is a whole lot more fun though (:

  10. #20
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,559
    Images
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by luckycharms View Post
    I have a roll of expired TMX 100 in the fridge, but I'd like to see if there's a cheaper film that will give me a smoother less grainy exposure.
    Last time I replied I didn't pay attention to that line. I concur with previous statements - it doesn't get any less grainy with the films available today, unless you use specialty film.
    You could also try Ilford Pan-F+, (which is an ISO 50 film), but I doubt it has any advantage in grain over Tmax 100.

    Basically, a good negative with proper exposure and well developed will yield fantastic results even if grainy. But I understand, not everybody likes grain and with scanning (unless done on really high end scanners) tends to over-emphasize the grain.

    Any ISO 100 film should give you good results, and if I may suggest to focus more on tonality and sharpness than grain, I think you may come out ahead. The only ISO 100 film I've never liked is Fuji Neopan 100 SS. It's cheap, but has weird tonality. It's also quite possibly the grainiest ISO 100 film I've ever tried. I can get less grain with Tri-X. Now, I like grain, so for me it's perfect from that standpoint...

    What I'm trying to say is that grain is your friend. Embrace it, don't fight it. It will always be there.

    - 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

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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