Large Format Shooters... MF as backup?

[Eric Leppanen]

If I were using an incident metering I would rate the film at EFS 100 and take the reading in the open shadow area of the scene.

That is exactly what I did with Acros, with the caveat that, depending on what developer you are using, you may have to pull process to hold the highlights in high contrast scenes. When processed in undiluted Xtol, Acros is noticeably "hotter" than traditional films or even TMX (the owner of my local Xtol-based B&W custom lab calls Acros the "Velvia of B&W films"), which poses challenges with rollfilm cameras where processing individual sheets is not an option. I believe Sandy processes his film in Pyrocat and apparently this has not been an issue for him.

Personally, my preference for rollfilm cameras is FP4+ due to its superior latitude and reasonable grain size, but if your process can tame Acros then you certainly get the smallest grain size short of TechPan (plus great reciprocity too).

[Capocheny]

Hi Sandy,

Thank you... I shot my first roll at 100 but will expose the next one at 50 to see what results it gives.

Thanks Eric... I'm a big fan of shooting FP4+ and HP5+ in LF. Will expose a few rolls of FP4+ in MF the next opportunity I have.

Cheers

[sanking]

That is exactly what I did with Acros, with the caveat that, depending on what developer you are using, you may have to pull process to hold the highlights in high contrast scenes. When processed in undiluted Xtol, Acros is noticeably "hotter" than traditional films or even TMX (the owner of my local Xtol-based B&W custom lab calls Acros the "Velvia of B&W films"), which poses challenges with rollfilm cameras where processing individual sheets is not an option. I believe Sandy processes his film in Pyrocat and apparently this has not been an issue for him.

Personally, my preference for rollfilm cameras is FP4+ due to its superior latitude and reasonable grain size, but if your process can tame Acros then you certainly get the smallest grain size short of TechPan (plus great reciprocity too).

I develop medium format film with two-bath development which limits contrast to a certain level. For this I have used both two-bath D23 and Diafine, but more recently adapted my own Pyrocat-HD formula to two bath use and I am finding that it gives outstanding results.

Tmax-100 and Delta 100 are also excellent films, but I prefer Acros because it has very low reciprocity failure.

Sandy King

[sanking]

I am attaching an image file of the *real big print* my friend made for me. My head is on the left, that of my friend on the right.

To appreciate the detail in this print, which is from a Mamiya 7II negative, go back and have a look at the crop I provided earlier.

Sandy King

[Bob McCarthy]

I develop medium format film with two-bath development which limits contrast to a certain level. For this I have used both two-bath D23 and Diafine, but more recently adapted my own Pyrocat-HD formula to two bath use and I am finding that it gives outstanding results.

Tmax-100 and Delta 100 are also excellent films, but I prefer Acros because it has very low reciprocity failure.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I have been using your two bath (Adams formula) approach with great success.

I have to admit more than a little curiosity regarding the pyrocat two bath approach. Could you describe the whys and the differences you observe between the two approaches.

bob

[sanking]

Sandy,

I have been using your two bath (Adams formula) approach with great success.

I have to admit more than a little curiosity regarding the pyrocat two bath approach. Could you describe the whys and the differences you observe between the two approaches.

bob

Bob,

First, the stain gives some grain masking and I find that there is less visible grain in negatives developed in two bath Pyrocat compared to development in two bath D23 or Diafine. Second, I believe there is more acutance with negatives developed in two bath Pyrocat than in D23 and Diafine, at least when the same type of agitation is used.

The disadvantage of two bath Pyrocat is that it uses a lot of solution since the working solution is used at dilutions of 1:10 - 1:20.

Sandy

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob,

First, the stain gives some grain masking and I find that there is less visible grain in negatives developed in two bath Pyrocat compared to development in two bath D23 or Diafine. Second, I believe there is more acutance with negatives developed in two bath Pyrocat than in D23 and Diafine, at least when the same type of agitation is used.

The disadvantage of two bath Pyrocat is that it uses a lot of solution since the working solution is used at dilutions of 1:10 - 1:20.

Sandy

Am I reading between the lines when you say you use it for medium format film that you are not using it with sheet film?

I've been using FP4 and Delta 100 with 2 bath D23. I've adjusted the sulfite back to 75g from the Adams formula and am now testing T-Max 100.

Are we going to see an article on this in the future?

bob

[sanking]

Am I reading between the lines when you say you use it for medium format film that you are not using it with sheet film?

Are we going to see an article on this in the future?

bob

That is pretty much correct because I still generally record subject brightness conditions for each sheet of LF film that I expose, and develop with normal agitation in Pyrocat-HD 1:1:100 or 1.5:1:200. If I happen to not record the subject brightness data I develop the film in two bath D23. Two bath Pyrocat gives excellent results but the amount required makes its use somewhat costly for LF film, at least with my system of tube development.

I have some information about two bath Pyrocat-HD in an article on mixing pyrocats over at APUG but I don't have any more research on this planned at this time.

Sandy King

[Drew Wiley]

Although I'm a big fan of ACROS, I find it just doesn't have quite the scale or definition that I seem to need in small cameras. In fact, if I didn't have access to
R25 Efke/Adox, I don't think I'd be shooting MF at all. In 35mm I don't mind the look
of a grainy high-speed film on a small print. But recently I've been printing some
11x14's from 35mm and 16X20's from 6x7, and that's really big for my standards.
I can approximate the large format look to some extent, with the spontaneity that
I need for the wildlife etc subjects that aren't going to stick around for the 8x10.
But in the darkroom there sure ain't no substitute for real sheet film! A four-foot
wide print from an 8x10 of almost any film flavor is sharper than any 11x14 from
35mm, at least in my case. But I often alternate format, just to keep the juices flowing. I also alternate exercise regimens. One week I'll lug the 8x10 up a steep
hill, which is good for the knees, while the next week I'll walk fast for distance,
with a small camera.

[Ben Syverson]

In order to get the most out of a Mamiya 7 negative you definitely need to use it on a tripod at the optimum aperture

The negative was shot on a tripod at f/11

Sandy, which lens did you use? Obviously the result is great, but on the 80mm, optimum aperture (at least optically) is f/5.6. Anything beyond that suffers increasingly from diffraction.