Most of my work is in 35mm for various practical and aesthetic reasons, but I've been consistently impressed by Tri-X in XTOL 1+1 enlarged at 11x14. I did a little bit of testing, and got a good EI/dev combo that gives me rich tones and not too much contrast. You want a negative with detail (proper EI), but not too contrasty either (not too much development)--you get the contrast right by changing paper grades, then dodging and burning.
I tested various print developers and found out that Ansco 130 gave me a little something more. I also tone in selenium anything that gets shown, whether it is RC or FB. It removes the colour cast and gives a little contrast edge.
All these little things eventually stack up and instead of having prints that look like soot and chalk, you can get very good looking results. And then you see the work of a 35mm photographer at 16x20 that just blows your mind, and you feel like you have to start all over again...
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
Isn't Rollei Retro just rebranded APX from the final production run? It's still available in 100-foot rolls of ISO 100 and ISO 400 from Freestyle. There are also plans afoot to resurrect it in smaller production runs, although I gather they won't be getting to the films until after the papers are in production. If the papers aren't successful, the films might not go into production.
Originally Posted by Jadedoto
You can make exceptional prints from 35mm. The crux, from my experience is that the margin for error, in all phases of the process is smaller.
Master 35mm, and larger formats in many respects become that much easier, if your a mind to deal with the drawbacks, that come with the advantages. There is no free lunch.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
"Master 35mm, and larger formats in many respects become that much easier" Thats very well put Mr Brunner
When I made a conscious change in direction about 20 years ago that's exactly what I did, return to 35mm tighten up my techniques & processing then switch cutting out MF for my personal work & only using 35mm & 5x4. It does mean you also tighten up your LF techniques as well and get optimal quality.
After a medium format calamity right before departure on a vacation this summer, I put some Plus-X through my Canon A-1 on the trip. Souped it in straight D-76 and was quite pleased with the results. Printed one shot of a waterfall at 11x14 -- something I haven't attempted in eons. I thought the tonality was excellent, the main difference I noticed was a bit of softness relative to similar efforts in medium format. In an art show of diverse media it got an honorable mention, so it wasn't just me that liked it. (As one might expect, the dig**** shot of the print does not do it justice but gives a hint of the presentation.)
I used D-76 because it was the only thing I had personal data for with 35mm Plus X and I had no time to test with HC110 Dilution H (my current preferred 120 developer) before I left.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The biggest challenge I find with moving back and forth from MF to 35mm is that 35mm spoils you with respect to depth of field. I expect those who shoot even smaller format di***al suffer even more with this.
35mm, PanF, ELFK 25, Delta or Tmax 100 developed in Rodinal, DK 50, 777, or Edwal 12 can produce 16X20 with ease. I usally develop 35mm in Edwal 12 as my standard developer but as I am using my old stock I stumbled on ELFK 25 and DK 50, full film speed and excellent tones, tight grain. But then again a 6X9 ELFK 25 negative, looks as good as most 4X5.
EFKE not ELFK sorry for the mistake.
Originally Posted by Paul Howell
35mm image quality
I use LF/MF/35mm usually in that order. Each has their place, 35mm cannot be beat for ease of setup and handiness especially in rapidly changing light: note I have not used the standard "its good for quick shooting like street photography". Its good for all serious image making. I find myself wondering why being able to make large prints means something is good. I personally enjoy making 5X7's from my 35's.
No escaping it!
I must step on fallen leaves
to take this path
I print 35mm at 12x18. My negs vary from fine grained film to hp5.
I think the best advice I ever recieved was to let go of my hatred of grain and embrace it.
I use 35mm for the ease and freedom it affords, but also for the effect it allows in the final print. Grain is not an enemy, it adds so much atmosphere and reality.
Choose the tool that best suits the subject, and conditions.