• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

BW Film and Developer choices (particularly fine grain)?

Nick Masson

New member
Hey all,
So I haven't worked with film in a while, and i'm going back to developing my own BW negatives as I have been unhappy with the lab's results (Yes, I could send it by mail to a better lab, but i'd prefer to do it myself anyway).

I was wondering what folks like to use in as far as film/developer/process choices? I know it mostly has to do with 'feel' and intent in the photograph, but short (or long) descriptions would be great!

I have some Rodinal and some X-tol, and haven't really worked with them yet. Back in the day I used to use D76 w/ kodak film. In particular i'm looking for a good match-up for fine grain work (landscape oriented) and something for faster film as well. I'm thinking I may just stick with HP5 and X-tol and my faster film setup, but would like some input anyway.

As for fine grain work, i'm mainly geared towards still/landscape images. I'm thinking perhaps Ilford Pan-F 50 with a fine grain developer would work well? I'd also be interested in finding a good film/developer setup for a faster speed that I could be confident shooting tripodless (for backcountry ski touring/climbing where I can't afford to carry a tripod, but still don't mind my FM3A glued to my chest). Maybe FP4 or Tmax? In all honesty, I know that it's not really worth shooting landscapes w/ 35mm if I really want great quality results, but to go places that otherwise I wouldn't access is enough, I think, to punctuate the image itself...


If anybody has images to illustrate the different film/developer/process combos that would be great. I'm still trying to develop a 'feel' for how different films respond (in as far as contrast, acutance, softness...etc). If any color filters were used in the images i'd also care to know...

Thanks! And look forward to hearing about peoples ideas/experiments/experiences!
-Nick
 

Nick Masson

New member
Oh! If anybody has good suggestions on good films for past-speed/pushing i'd also be very interested in hearing. I've worked with HP5+ which has good latitude, but it tends to be too contrasty for me. I haven't tried pushing it to 800 or 1600, but conceptually it seems that that would make it even more contrasty?? (because shooting at 800 or 1600 is effectively under-exposing, then you over-develop to compensate, and overdeveloping will extend your range and push your highlights even higher... perhaps diluted developer would help...).
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
My preferences (which are not based on exhaustive research, but are just what works for me. All developer is used one shot:

- High speed. Tmax 3200 (TMZ) in Tmax developer (though I'd try xtol 1+1 now) at 1600. Lovely look and a bit of grain. TMZ is strictly about iso1000, but is easily pushable.

- Medium speed. HP5+ at 200 to 800 in xtol 1+1. Lovely tonality and some grain. For finer grain and are flatter tone curve (more dynamic range I think too) the amazing Tmax 400 (TMY2) in xtol 1+1. expose at iso 250 to 640. Very beautiful film.

- Fine grain/slow speed. Tmax 100 (TMX) in xtol 1+1. You wouldn't really need anything else, but Rollei 80S @64 in xtol 1+2 or rodial 1+50 is very fine grain, high resolution and beautiful. It also has sensitivity into the infra red so gives a very different look with some filtration.

There are also excellent old fashioned films from Efke (CHS 25 which is not red sensitive and the 50 and 100 are pan films. They also do a microfilm with super high resolution, but it's hard to use and very slow), foma (marginal qulaity control, but a nice old fashioned look. There is still a real cornucopis out there if you are minded to explore.

Mike
 

Nick Masson

New member
Thanks for the suggestion Mike. I'll give those a try. Do you find you get decent shadow detail (zone III) retention with HP5 shooting it at 800?


Silver Efex Pro 2!!

Fahim, that seems like a good package to complement photoshop. eems If I go back to digital i'll check it out if I want the aesthetic of BW. I decided to get rid of my digital gear, though, as I find satisfaction in the process of film photography as well; and there is a more tactile satisfaction when appreciating a photo in the context of film photography.
I will undoubtably go back to digital at some point, and I still enjoy using photoshop to work images when time doesn't permit me to get in the darkroom.

A while back you also posted a short CNN piece 'film not dead yet'. I especially enjoyed a quote by Elliott Erwitt "Anything that is simple is apt to be sloppy". I figure, until I really have a true grasp on what i'm doing in photography, i'll do it the hard way : )
 
Nick Masson;119672]
Hey all,
So I haven't worked with film in a while, and i'm going back to developing my own BW negatives as I have been unhappy with the lab's results (Yes, I could send it by mail to a better lab, but i'd prefer to do it myself anyway).
Developing black and white film is so close to foolproof it is hard to imagine what a decently run lab could do wrong. What was it about the labs processing that made you unhappy?
I was wondering what folks like to use in as far as film/developer/process choices? I know it mostly has to do with 'feel' and intent in the photograph, but short (or long) descriptions would be great!
For the last 10 years I have settled on Xtol (run as a replenished system) for all films. My present batch is 5 years old and working perfectly. Every film type has a different normal developing time that is established by testing.
I have some Rodinal and some X-tol, and haven't really worked with them yet. Back in the day I used to use D76 w/ kodak film. In particular i'm looking for a good match-up for fine grain work (landscape oriented) and something for faster film as well. I'm thinking I may just stick with HP5 and X-tol and my faster film setup, but would like some input anyway.
HP5+ and Xtol form a usable combination for landscape work. Grain is visible in 8x10 images from 120 rollfilm so it will be more obtrusive from 35mm. If your landscapes are dramatic enough to command the eye no one will care about grain.
As for fine grain work, i'm mainly geared towards still/landscape images. I'm thinking perhaps Ilford Pan-F 50 with a fine grain developer would work well? I'd also be interested in finding a good film/developer setup for a faster speed that I could be confident shooting tripodless (for backcountry ski touring/climbing where I can't afford to carry a tripod, but still don't mind my FM3A glued to my chest). Maybe FP4 or Tmax? In all honesty, I know that it's not really worth shooting landscapes w/ 35mm if I really want great quality results, but to go places that otherwise I wouldn't access is enough, I think, to punctuate the image itself...
Fine grain is 90% a function of the film. Slow film offers finer grain than fast film. There is no worthwhile work-around to reverse this even though thousands of photographers have searched for "magic developers" over the last hundred years.
35mm is an ungenerous format for landscape work. I started with 35mm but felt cheated at the end of a day because the mountains were so high, the views great, the physical effort huge, and the photographs so paltry. A Nikon FM3A weighs about 600g for the body, a Mamiya 7II (for example) about 1200g with lens. The Mamiya is a seriously effective landscape camera via its 6x7 rollfilm format.

It is said, partly in jest, that the sharpest lens in the bag is the tripod. Personally, I gave up hand-holding cameras forty years ago because every hand-held photograph has camera-shake in it. Given a fast shutter speed the shake will usually be smaller than other factors (lens sharpness, focussing error, subject movement) and pass beneath notice. As shutter speeds lengthen the proportion of shaky pictures increases in a random way . You never know which ones will be spoiled until long after you have climbed off the mountain.
 
Oh! If anybody has good suggestions on good films for past-speed/pushing i'd also be very interested in hearing. I've worked with HP5+ which has good latitude, but it tends to be too contrasty for me. I haven't tried pushing it to 800 or 1600, but conceptually it seems that that would make it even more contrasty?? (because shooting at 800 or 1600 is effectively under-exposing, then you over-develop to compensate, and overdeveloping will extend your range and push your highlights even higher... perhaps diluted developer would help...).
Nick, you are right to fear contrast build-up when films are given extended development to rescue underexposed images.

The problem is particularly severe in landscape photographs which have to bridge the 2.5 to 3 stop brightness gap between sky and land. A 2 stop under-exposure, HP5+ at EI = 1600 for example, places the sky on Zone VI where there is plenty of detail but dumps the land down to Zone III where there is merely a residue of detail. Extra development, N+2 in "zone speak", can lift the sky back to Zone VIII where it ought to be but the land on Zone III will scarcely move. Result: a photograph with a nice sky at the top and some dark schmutz at the bottom of the frame. And giving a N+2 "push" makes things really grainy. In practice "pulling" the film, HP5+ at EI = 200, and giving N-1 development, opens good tones in both sky and land but directly contradicts the hope for high film speed.

Another approach is to use a red filter, #25 red is usual, to tame the sky versus land contrast gap. The filter selectively drops sky-blue about 3 stops and land shadow detail about 1 stop. Now both sky and land fit much closer together on the film response curve. And white clouds stand out dramatically; very nice! But the downside is an effective loss of film speed. HP5+ becomes EI = 50 on the lightmeter. Again, the results can be good but the desire for high film speed is defeated.

It is no coincidence that high-grade black and white landscape photography is dominated by big cameras on tripods. Everything else is a quality compromise that may or may not reward the effort of doing the camera-work in the first place.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Nick, the Nik sw mention was a tongue in cheek statement. I love film. The difficulty of home processing or
labs is the biggest issue for me. There is almost none here.

Whenever I am abroad a film cam is with me. Not the Fs or the big fomats..just my Ms and 1 or two lenses. Mostly for bw street. Love the whole process..loading, the manual motion of advancing the film,
the sound of the click, the rewind, the waiting and then the results.

No better experience for me than sitting in Bath or the Left Bank with a film M, a 50mm lux asph or the summitar, and the scene in front of me as I raise the cam to my eye ( if not zone focussed ). The almost inaudible muffled click.
Time frozen and recorded on a media that might outlast all digital cards available now.

Best.
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
I would echo what Maris says about pushing fim. HP5 at 800 is good for pushed film, but is stil less good than than at a more reasonabe speed. I have bad memories of trying fantastic pushes as a schoolboy...

Here is a picture at iso800 from HP5.

4023218359_0cd22869c0.jpg


And this was likely a bit underexpsoed too

4521516765_de430fdb7f_o.jpg



I tend not to us ea tripod with 35mm, but do with 6 by 7, but Maris is again right.

Mike
 

Nick Masson

New member
Great, thank you all for the info.

Maris: I found that the lab developing was usually quite suitable, but I have a desire to start developing my film again by hand. I enjoyed this process when I was a student in photography class, but back then I didn't think much of different developers/concentration/times/pushing-pulling/contrast-control etc... If it were an issue of time I would just have it developed at a lab, but the engineer in me likes the chemistry and understanding what happens from principles of chemistry etc...

That being said I think I was a little disheartened recently by some negatives I had developed. Usually i'll send them out to a lab that does a good job, but I had them done locally at the consumer-oriented lab. I found that the negatives were more grainy and contrasty than normal, and some of the thin negatives from which I made prints had water/mineral marks that I had to remove with distilled water. It was just a pain. And I suspect they did a one-size-fit-all developing with excessive agitation -- the negs looked contrasty from over-developing (and sprocket streaks too). All things considered, I could just pay the good lab to develop them, but it's cheaper to do it myself if i'm willing to put in the time and a (feedback) learning experience too...

As for setup, I might someday pick up a 120/mid-format camera, and you're right that a good setup isn't really that much heavier than what I currently tote. If BW landscape photography really resonated with me i'd probably compromise, but I hardly ever go out with just the intent of landscape photography. I'm really more compelled by people and people/environment images, but enjoy taking landscape photos when my environment is really commanding. It ergs me sometimes to be in a magical place with a camera and not be able to produce an image representative of what I feel, so I typically like to have the capacity to create landscape/environment images that are satisfying enough (a matter of personal satisfaction). I guess that is what prompted my questions about getting the most possible out of 35mm. And typically if i'm not rock climbing or going very light-fast, i'll carry a carbon tripod, so film speed isn't really an issue.


Mike, thanks for the images. Looks like HP5 still gives a pretty good response when pushed to 800. Was the developing pushed to 800 or were they underexposed and developed normally; i've never shot at 800 and developed normally but folks have said that HP5 can be pushed to 800 w/o additional process time...

Thanks,
-NICK
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Hi Nick

Quickly nbefore I head off to work, the HP5 had some additional process time - likely what the data sheet suggests - for these images.

The issue you need to be careful of is, as you surmised, that contrast builds and often situations where you want to push are really dark environments with bright highlights. In these places posjing can increase contrast too much, with the lower base exposure hurting the shadows and the increased development burning the highights...

Looking forward to seeing some pictures

Mike
 

Elena Sbrana

New member
I tend to use T-MAX as my negative of choice. Depending on the grain and contrast I need, I make my selection of 100 vs 400 vs 3200. For processing I use the T-MAX developer. I've tried several other experiments over the years, including home-made developers, but the results always ended up being a bit soft-toned with a different developer, so now I always go back to the T-MAX.
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
The odd thing here though, is that TMax developer isn't actually a 'fine grain developer', but it got its name as TMax was Kodak's new thing at the time. It does, I understand, lift the toe of the curve a bit, so is an effective developer for pushing Tmax 3200 beyond its true speed of about iso1000.

In practice, I just use xtol for everything these days. Usually at 1+1 apart from Rollei 80S (agfa aviphot pan aerial reconnaisance film) which gets 1+2.

In theory, 1+1 should give slightly more sharpness and a very slight speed increase, but I'm not sure it really makes much difference:)

Mike
 

Nick Masson

New member
Hey Mike,
Do you use the standard developing time listed on the Rollei datasheet for the 80s? I picked up a few rolls and i'm keen to get a feel for it. I'm thinking i'll also give Rodinal a try with it seeing as it is so fine grained, though diluted x-tol should give it good acutance too...
Thanks,
-NICK
 

Mike Shimwell

New member
Hey Mike,
Do you use the standard developing time listed on the Rollei datasheet for the 80s? I picked up a few rolls and i'm keen to get a feel for it. I'm thinking i'll also give Rodinal a try with it seeing as it is so fine grained, though diluted x-tol should give it good acutance too...
Thanks,
-NICK

I used the standard time with no problems, and was pretty careful with temperature control for the develop phase. I didn't find a lot of difference between the xtol 1+2 and rodinal 1+50 results, so sticking with xtol works fine for me. The Rollei has plenty of acutance.

You do need to decide which developer to use before you shoot - it's supposed to be a little slower in xtol than rodinal, though I think it's better at 64 (or 50) than 80 in any case if you don't want uncontrolable contrast. I don't use acid stop, just a water wash.

When you scan it, work with the software to make sure that you don't lose the highlights - they will be on the film, but my early scans showed them as solid white as I didn't manage the expsoure correctly.

There are some scans accessible from my blog (Moments...) if you go back and look for the Nikon vs Epson V750 entry.

Mike
 

Nick Masson

New member
Great, thanks Mike. By the way, how long will X-tol after being mixed? I'm a little hesitant to mix a whole 1.3 gallons when it will probably take me a good half year to get through it... And would it happen to keep alright in a standard plastic water jug (the ones that have distilled water in them at the supermarket).
Thanks!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Maris,

Tell us more on Xtol as a replenished system. I always wonder what makes "refried beans" truly "refried"!

How does it work in rotary drum systems or is a Jobo too far foreign for you?

Asher
 
Last edited:

Mike Shimwell

New member
Great, thanks Mike. By the way, how long will X-tol after being mixed? I'm a little hesitant to mix a whole 1.3 gallons when it will probably take me a good half year to get through it... And would it happen to keep alright in a standard plastic water jug (the ones that have distilled water in them at the supermarket).
Thanks!

Nick,

Sorry for the delay - been tied up with work. I've not had any keeping problems with Xtol. I just keep it in a 5 litre bottle and screw the top firmly on when I've poured what I need for a session. You can always test it on a piece of leader before committing a roll to it. I've kept it up to about 6 months, though usually a 5 litre pack (1.1 gallons over here in the UK!) is used up in that time.

A couple more examples below - first one is TMX (Tmax 100) and the second TMY2 (Tmax 400), both in xtol 1+1 and basically straight, but resized, scans from the epson v750 (fine for the web and small prints). 35mm film. Handheld!

Mike


Evening flight.jpg


Madonna and Christ.jpg
 

Nick Masson

New member
Thanks for the input Mike! I just started developing a slew of different rolls shot on an outing a weekend ago (all rolls shot in similar conditions). I'm developing most in xtol and some in rodinal; i'm excited to see what conclusions or insight I find!
Cheers,
-Nick
 

Elena Sbrana

New member
It does, I understand, lift the toe of the curve a bit, so is an effective developer for pushing Tmax 3200 beyond its true speed of about iso1000.

Yes it does - I must confess to being a TMZ lover and to pushing the limit to the high contrast 3200 (and more) quite often. And the TMAX does the job very well.
I've tried xtol for the kodak 100 film and the ilford pan-f, but never came out too satisfied. Go figure...
 
Top