View Full Version : Film for learning
Hi. I'm starting now with LF and, since I never developed film by my own, I expect I will need some trial and error, so I will most likely need to waste some film...
Up to now I mostly used Ilford film (FP4+, Delta 100) in 35mm and 6x6/6x9, having them developed in a lab, but I see the 4x5 sheet film are quite expensive. So, I have a few questions:
- Is there any cheaper film that would be anyway good to start with and still doesn't have quality/processing issues (like FOMA, ...)?
- Does it makes sense at all to start with a cheap film and then later move to Ilford or would it require to almost re-start the learning curve?
- To develop the film I was thinking of getting a Jobo tank. Is it a good start or would you suggest anything different?
Thank you for your support!
- Is there any cheaper film that would be anyway good to start with and still doesn't have quality/processing issues (like FOMA, ...)?
- Does it makes sense at all to start with a cheap film and then later move to Ilford or would it require to almost re-start the learning curve?
- To develop the film I was thinking of getting a Jobo tank. Is it a good start or would you suggest anything different?
1. & 2. There indeed some cheaper alternatives out there, but i would recommend starting with a film you already have some experience with. Both FP4+ and Delta100 are excelent choices. One of the reasons is the quality control of Ilford. When something strange happens, in general a defect of the film can be ruled out. A second reason is that the previous experiences give you an indication of what you might expect contrast and sharpness wise. And a third reason is that developing film is not that hard. When following the manuals carefully it is hard to make mistakes developing film.
3. The Jobo reels is an excelent choice, especially when you plan using rotary development. An other advantage is that you can you develop 4x5, 120 and 35mm film in the same system. At the other hand: Jobo tanks and reels are quite expensive, even second hand. And when buying second hand: Jobo did built several development systems: expert drums, the 2500 series and the 1500 series and you have to be sure you have the right parts, as not everything is compatable. The 1500 series for instance doesn't have a reel for large format negatives, the expert drums don't fit the CPE processors, the 2500 series use different lids for paper processing and film processing, et cetera.
There are several other development tanks on the market, all of them capable of producing excelent results. You might look into those and there are quite a bit of reviews on this site of the different systems.
Thalmees
7-Apr-2017, 04:11
Hello visand,
Welcome to the forum.
Up to now I mostly used Ilford film (FP4+, Delta 100) in 35mm and 6x6/6x9,
These are superior films. Just choose the correct developers. Move on to do every thing your self.
Long time ago, was testing lenses on medium format, used FP4+, used improper developer to emphasize sharpness, aside from lens comparison, results of film was not that good.
Lately, used it again but in a large format and in better developer, for landscape photography not for testing lenses, result is marvelous at least. Practically no grain at 10X enlargement, and sharpness is super beyond my expectations. Before that was using only TMX/TMY2, never get the same results.
Hopefully, Kodak prices returned to the previous levels(higher than any equivalent) at freestyles at least, hope it show the same with other retailers.
.
- Is there any cheaper film that would be anyway good to start with and still doesn't have quality/processing issues (like FOMA, ...)?
Yes you can. Many film manufacturers, ILFORD, Arista, Bergger, Foma, Shanghai, etc.
As far as I know, Arista/Shanghai, cheapest, then ILFORD and others(with low difference), then Kodak as the most expensive.
Not user of Foma film, but I'm not aware of special defect in this brand. Lots of variable are involved(from storing to the water used in development, etc), you have to try it your self if you find Foma is the cheapest.
.
- Does it makes sense at all to start with a cheap film and then later move to Ilford or would it require to almost re-start the learning curve?
You may start with ILFORD. It's not in the expensive brand of the range. But you may find cheaper, you may start at as well.
Your point is logic, no re-start learning curve, just to know the nature of film/developer every time you select newer emulsion.
.
- To develop the film I was thinking of getting a Jobo tank. Is it a good start or would you suggest anything different?
As I mentioned before, start doing things your self as early as possible. Photography as an art, is very different from digital, need time and being involved your self. Not difficult at all in the first steps, but when you build your experience your standards are high already and you will not be satisfied by anything like lab development.
Photography(B&W), is a human kind tradition that has its standards built and established long time ago, as any other classical art.
If you plan to own a JOBO processor later, I think you may start with JOBO drums/tanks.
Otherwise, Paterson, Orwo, etc, are not designed for being used on processors, taking lower volume of solution, think it's better.
.
Wish this helps.
Welcome again to the forum.
Thanks.
Foma films are quite good in my experience, particularly foma 100. I've had minor issues with a particular batch of foma 200, but these weren't severe and wouldn't impede one's learning process. With foma 100 I haven't had any quality issues whatsoever in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and I find it's currently one of my favorite film stocks. Same story so far with foma 400, but I've only recently started using that. In my opinion, it's hard to beat the bang for the buck that you get with foma films and I would heartily recommend them, unless you're planning to do a lot of long exposures (>10 seconds) as the reciprocity characteristics of the foma films are their Achilles heel. Of course, the ilford films are great products as well, but apart from the fine grain of Delta 100 and its reciprocity characteristics that clearly are superior to those of the foma films, I personally find they don't deliver quality or image benefits that justify the higher prices. I once started with foma 100 because of its attractive price for 4x5 (and other formats as well) and have since then tried several other films, but in the vast majority of cases, I find there's no significant benefit to the more expensive films, except for low-light photography.
By all means, try a box of foma/arista.edu to learn the basics of LF and see if you like it. You can always upgrade if you find the film itself lacking in any way.
Fomapan is great for a starting film, the only real problem is its reciprocity failure characteristics. Its not a great film for long exposures (anything metered as 1s and longer)
The other issue is that its box speed is overspecced half to a whole stop and its a bit grainier then equivalent Ilford emulsions.
Graininess isn't too much of a problem for 5x4 though.
If you dont expect to hit longer exposures too much give it a try, the price is HALF of Ilford.
Thalmees
7-Apr-2017, 05:51
... the price is HALF of Ilford.
Hello locutus.
Thanks for the information.
From where can I get Foma or Arist at 1/2(half) the price of ILFORD.
Thanks in advance.
The other issue is that its box speed is overspecced half to a whole stop and its a bit grainier then equivalent Ilford emulsions.
I currently expose both the 100 and the 400 at box speed and get good results. I don't see much difference in grain between Foma 100 and FP4+ in terms of grain when developed in pyrocat, which is what I usually use for these films. For optimum shadow detail, the 400 may be exposed at 320 or 250, but I personally don't find it very necessary. I must say I was surprised at this. I have in the past shot foma films at one stop (or a little less) below box speed for optimum shadow detail, but have recently given up on this practice. I don't like the results any less than before!
The Foma/edu film is fine for general use... As mentioned, you will typically overexpose the film 1/2 to a full stop, and very slightly underdevelop it (about 10% or a little less of the total listed developing time with standard developers), and it looks very nice and holds excessive highlights very well...
The reciprocity tables in the instructions work (For the 100/ 1 sec=+1, 10sec=+3, 1min=+3 1/2, 120sec=+4) which is a lot of correction, but the film exposes very well, even for long night exposures...
Worth a try, not expensive for 50 sheets, and you might stick with it...
Steve K
Would start with the film you intend on using longer term, for a year at least so you get used to it.
Not that many darkroom mistakes will happen and when you get a good image, why not have it on the film you plan on using?
Any film will do a good job if you learn how to use it. Ilford FP4+ is an excellent film. Pick a developer and use it. Tray development will work if you don't have the Jobo tank yet. Will still work even if you do.
Many photographers who are excellent use film and developer combinations that others would not touch even if paid. As long as the results are what you like - why play around? When you do finally decide to check other developers or combinations be sure to make some final prints so you are comparing finished work. Then, if you can't reliably pick one film or film/developer combination over what you have been using - why change?
You won't make many darkroom mistakes. Take notes and work carefully and you may find yourself getting good results quickly. Best of luck to you.
For the record I use Ilford FP4+ and Pyrocat HD Developer. Learned on it from my Uncle who got on the Developer right after Sandy King made it public, tested it against 6 others and has never looked back. It works and the images look very good. My Uncle mixes the stock solutions for me from scratch.(raw chemicals) I have seen the 8x10 negatives & contact prints from his tests and would be happy with any of them. Small differences, nothing big and glaring. All comes down to personal preference in the end.
Good luck to you.
Hello locutus.
Thanks for the information.
From where can I get Foma or Arist at 1/2(half) the price of ILFORD.
Thanks in advance.
I buy at Macodirect.
|--------------+-----------+-------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
| Manufacturer | Type | Speed | Sheets per box | Price per box | Price per sheet |
|--------------+-----------+-------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
| Foma | Fomapan | 100 | 50 | 31.5 | 0.63 |
| Ilford | FP4 | 125 | 100 | 139.6 | 1.40 |
|--------------+-----------+-------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
Okay, bit better then half price.
Hello locutus.
Thanks for the information.
From where can I get Foma or Arist at 1/2(half) the price of ILFORD.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Thalmees. Even less then half, actually:
http://www.ebay.de/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC0.A0.H0.Xfilm+4x5.TRS0&_nkw=film+4x5&_sacat=0
Ilford FP4+ ~45euro/25sheet
Fomapan 100 ~32euro/50sheet
or here:
https://www.macodirect.de/film/schwarzweissfilm/?p=1
Ilford FP4+ ~39euro/25sheet
Fomapan 100 ~32euro/50sheet
Thalmees
7-Apr-2017, 08:27
Hello Gentlemen,
I buy at Macodirect.
|--------------+-----------+-------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
| Manufacturer | Type | Speed | Sheets per box | Price per box | Price per sheet |
|--------------+-----------+-------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
| Foma | Fomapan | 100 | 50 | 31.5 | 0.63 |
| Ilford | FP4 | 125 | 100 | 139.6 | 1.40 |
|--------------+-----------+-------+----------------+---------------+-----------------|
Okay, bit better then half price.
.
Hi Thalmees. Even less then half, actually:
http://www.ebay.de/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC0.A0.H0.Xfilm+4x5.TRS0&_nkw=film+4x5&_sacat=0
Ilford FP4+ ~45euro/25sheet
Fomapan 100 ~32euro/50sheet
or here:
https://www.macodirect.de/film/schwarzweissfilm/?p=1
Ilford FP4+ ~39euro/25sheet
Fomapan 100 ~32euro/50sheet
.
Thanks for the replies.
I do not think the price of Foma100, is the regular price(€32/50sheets).
Or, it could be marketed under another name(Arista.Edu?), in US market!
Just reviewed 3 sites, representing two(2) markets:
1. B&H, USA. Offer Fomapan $63/50sheets & Arista Edue100 $36/50sheets.
2. Freestyles, USA. Same as B&H.
3. Macodirect, Europe. No Arista Edue. Offers Fomapan(only) in Europe at the price of Arista Edue in US.
Now, I think what you call it Fomapan, others call it Arista Edue! Both around $36/50sheets.
Do not know really if they are the same? but different market?
US market, offer both actually, at very different prices.
Does that mean you are actually talking and using Arista Edue? effectively?
Is it different standards for different films from the same manufacturer?
It could be easily understood if they are different manufacturer.
I do not think the Fomapan100 at US market $63/50sheets, is the same as Arista Edue $36/50sheets.
At the same time, I do not think the European Foma100 is the same as the US Foma100!
It's really not clear!
The Fomapan100 that I know is $63/50sheets.
Last but not least, I think what you call it Fomapan, others call it Arista Edue! Both around $36/50sheets.
Anybody can come clarify? Why very different prices for the same product? Or is the Europian Foma100 the same as the US Arista Edue?
Thanks so much Gentlemen.
jose angel
7-Apr-2017, 09:15
Beware of european prices, as it will depend on the specific country. Availability is not uniform across the states, so you may need to buy at certain places that charge stupidly high shipping costs to that cheaper options, making them not worth it.
In my case, I used to buy expensive Ilford/Kodak locally, no need of added chipping charges, because a half priced eastern option (Foma, Berger, etc) grow with shipping charges to almost the same price as Ilford or Kodak. I wonder if it has been improved lately.
Germans has been always lucky in this respect, I believe.
Arista EDU is made by Foma, and i'm 95% sure its exactly the same thing as Fomapan.
Pere Casals
7-Apr-2017, 11:04
Hi. I'm starting now with LF and, since I never developed film by my own, I expect I will need some trial and error, so I will most likely need to waste some film...
Up to now I mostly used Ilford film (FP4+, Delta 100) in 35mm and 6x6/6x9, having them developed in a lab, but I see the 4x5 sheet film are quite expensive. So, I have a few questions:
- Is there any cheaper film that would be anyway good to start with and still doesn't have quality/processing issues (like FOMA, ...)?
- Does it makes sense at all to start with a cheap film and then later move to Ilford or would it require to almost re-start the learning curve?
- To develop the film I was thinking of getting a Jobo tank. Is it a good start or would you suggest anything different?
Thank you for your support!
I'd recommend to start with a film you know very well from smaller formats, then you can concentrate with LF particularities, for example exposure.
Exposing well LF film has tricks, and if you use a film you know well then you will notice if you do the rest ok. You'll find you need to compensate exposure on bellows extension (Like RB67) and you have to check well shutter accuracy for all speeds. You have to know very well your LF shutter !
If you want to shot Fomapan... this is also a good choice, specially for studio portraits with controlled light. IMHO Foma films are more difficult to use with sunlight (it's just IMHO). But to shot FOMA in LF first test it very well with smaller formats, you can make exposure bracketings and filter bracketings easy and cheap. This is just what I do.
Remember that with LF you have the great chance to make an special processing for each individual shot. For rolls you make same processing for all frames... It is very common to make N-2 or N+2 development to get the contrast, tonality etc you pre-visualize. Every sheet is a treasure, so you can end with spot meter and knowing what negative density you are to obtain for each important scene spot.
If you are to scan the thing is easier, Photoshop later solves a lot of problems, but a great thing is to learn how to get a negative that will deliver the print of your visualization. What I mean is that you are going to learn new processing possibilities from film, and it is time and money saving experimenting a film in 135. Difference is you won't see much grain in LF.
Of course Kodak an Fuji LF film is very expensive, it has 2x the per surface price relative to 120. Ilford has the same per surface LF price than with 120, and Foma has lower price for LF film.
So, IMHO, start with the film you know, and play attention to not do silly mistakes. By playing necessary attention to the camera you are to get great shots from the very first sheet, just think twice what you are doing: think twice and shot once. This is not a DSLR :) (you shot 1000 and... etc, etc... )
I agree with what others have said here. Ilford might be a little more expensive, but you don't want to find yourself having to change horses mid-stream.
As to JOBO, there are less expensive alternatives. I use Colourtronic myself (LONG out of business), but you can get Unicolor, Beseler, etc. tanks for a LOT less. And with B&W, you don't need a temperature controlled bath -- or even a roller. Just roll it yourself, by hand. For my Colourtronic tube, I only need 1.5 oz of chemical to develop FOUR sheets of 4x5 film. You can't do any better than that!!! It's basically free and the cost of the film is diminished somewhat.
aluncrockford
7-Apr-2017, 11:36
I would use what ever is the most cost effective, at the moment that appears to be forma, what you need is the freedom to develop your work without worrying about the cost. When you produce your final image nobody will care what film you shot it on, and to be honest I would be very surprised if any one can tell the difference between any thing shot on fp4, adox or forma. I would also invest in a jobo expert tank and a roller base and stick to one developer, I use rodinal which has a very long shelf life which is something to bear in mind if you do not shoot that often.
If you want a cheaper tank option the MOD54 + Paterson4 works well, much easier to load then the Jobo 2521 IMHO.
aluncrockford
7-Apr-2017, 11:43
Good point I thought we were talking about 10x8, thought the jobo expert tanks are a far better product, just not in any way cheap.
Pere Casals
7-Apr-2017, 12:02
As a first developing tank I'd suggest a bare paper safe, tray developing is vey good for single sheets...
""So, IMHO, start with the film you know, and play attention to not do silly mistakes.""
Starting with a wellknown film is a good idea.
On the other hand, please show me newbies not making silly mistakes in the early days :-)
Don't forget the forgotten iris adjusting after having everything right in place, the forgotten shutterclosing before pulling the slide, the forgotten film slide himself, the forgotten film loading, the forgotten bellows measuring, the forgotten exposures resulting in double exposures, the "forgotten to expose" and blank filmsheets, the forgotten camera movements, the ugly camera movements, the first misdevelopments, the first scratched sheets ...
So today, as a beginner I would start with 2 packs of cheap film for learning the routines first.
Second I would start to chase the "perfect" photograph.
In my first days, wasting my expensive film made me angry I became very experienced in doing silly mistakes, so I changed my strategie in wasting cheap film.
Same with paper while learning the darkroom process..
One thing of interest could be Rollei's Ortho 25 from Maco direct; for me it's an excellent film, good enough for excellent results, easy to handle, and it's not an expensive film ( here in Germany).
Ritchie
Jac@stafford.net
7-Apr-2017, 13:07
The worst and ultimately most expensive film for learning is the cheapest film you can find. Make your mistakes with a quality film that you are likely to use again.
Cheap film is often inconsistent. When you think you have it under control, a new batch is made that sucks. It has not the same emulsion, and in one case I had 4x5 cut to the wrong dimensions, it would not fit in the holder. Agony. Who needs it?
Making own experiences for that could help creating a good learning curve, but I would be surprised if the cheapest film, Xray film, would show weakness in emulsion or dimensions.
After some sheets, I have had emulsion issues with Fomapan 100, that's right, and for photographing today I also prefer Ilford, and Rollei Ortho.
For testing things, I further take cheap and cheapest film.
Ritchie
As a first developing tank I'd suggest a bare paper safe, tray developing is vey good for single sheets...
For tray developing, you need a quart or a liter. For a drum, you need 1-2 ounces. That's a BIG difference.
After some sheets, I have had emulsion issues with Fomapan 100, that's right,
what kind of issues? I fortunately haven't had any so far, neither have I noticed any inconsistencies that Jac warns about. Pure luck?
what kind of issues? I fortunately haven't had any so far, neither have I noticed any inconsistencies that Jac warns about. Pure luck?
I haven't had any issues either. I have shot 100 8x10 sheets of Foma 100 (I've just finished my second box) and I'm the one to blame if anything went wrong. With pyro510 produces beautiful results. The only thing to remember is that it is a slow film and reciprocity failure makes exposures under dim light really long.
Best,
Pau
Pere Casals
8-Apr-2017, 03:19
For tray developing, you need a quart or a liter. For a drum, you need 1-2 ounces. That's a BIG difference.
Not necessary, inside paper safe I place a little food can that is near 4x5, so I can do it with some 120ml of Xtol 1:1 or 1:2, this gives 1cm high of liquid, enough. Need a leveled surface...
Also for a LF newcomer a rotary processor is big investment and space taking, while with paper safe you can do it in the bathroom, Xtol is very low toxic...
Also tray has a huge advantage, you can make some conmpensating development by Xtol 1:2 (or 1:3) with reduced agitation. Lower time works ok for N-2, for N-3 one may prefer an N-2 with reduced agitation to have N-3 and thus controlling highlights.
Tray development allows reduced agitation as a control factor, IMHO this is great for some scenes. And less bromide drags because sheet is Hor.
And less bromide drags because sheet is Hor.
For the record, a rotary processor will generally not cause any bromide drag. However, tank processing with greatly reduced agitation or particularly true stand development is asking for trouble in this respect.
Pere Casals
8-Apr-2017, 03:55
For the record, a rotary processor will generally not cause any bromide drag. However, tank processing with greatly reduced agitation or particularly true stand development is asking for trouble in this respect.
A rotary can't cause bromide drags because is not able for reduced agitation...
But if one wants reduced agitation, IMHO, trays are better because gravity doesn't help the drag as with vertical tanks, perhaps you have better adjacency.
IMHO a tray is best way to cook a particular sheet to the desired point, and using a paper safe it is daylight. When development finished I turn light off, I place the sheet in a bare tray with stop bath and after 15 sec I open lights. Then I see (lights open) how fast fixer works, so I know for sure fixer freshness.
For developing 4 sheets of 4x5" you use a 8x10" paper safe and you place 4 mini trays inside the paper box. Also one can use a 11x14 safe... then the minitrays have more room.
Because my low volume, I'm very happy with that minimalist system, extremly cheap and straight, one shot, and great agitation control. I can turn light off to agitate a particular sheet with fingers, use gloves if Pyro...
If I want different times for the sheets, then I turn lights off to dump the developer (carefully) at right time for each sheet. Another way is using 2 paper safes at the same time.
A rotary can't cause bromide drags because is not able for reduced agitation...
Yes, I understand. I was merely clarifying as your post was a little confusing. You started talking about rotary processing and then proceeded by saying that tray development causes less bromide drag. Some could have interpreted this as 'less than rotary processing', which of course would be a very odd statement, but potentially confusing to newcomers.
As for contrast control, I stick with adjusting development time and if necessary, concentration. But to each their own.
what kind of issues? I fortunately haven't had any so far, neither have I noticed any inconsistencies that Jac warns about. Pure luck?
Knowing a bit about Foma's ancient techniques out of the sixtees, their small production and missing storage capacity, uneven production, and missing quality checks, "of cause" will describe things better than "pure luck".
But I don't want to change this discussion into a good/bad Fomapan discussion; the price is nice, the product mostly seems to be okay.
I have had good luck with Fomapan 100 the last years, before giving up because of inconsistence behaviour of the last packs.
Today I prefer to use lovely Fomabrom and Fomatone, but Ilford FP4 plus instead of Fomapan 100, plus some Rollei products like IR 400, Ortho 25.
But for learning things, I theoretically would go gack to Fomapan instead of wasting my FP4plus, of course, but here I can take my Xray films..
Ritchie
ben_hutcherson
8-Apr-2017, 08:02
I'm still at the LF Newbie stage, and I've chosen to stick to films I've learned and know well in roll film form.
That's why I've been shooting a lot of FP4+, which I've shot fairly extensively in MF and a little in 35mm. I've even braved LF transparencies, as I know Velvia 50 well.
With that said, my all time favorite film is Tri-X, and I've complained on here before about the fact that I can't get it in 4x5. I did pick up some expired 220 TXP so that I can learn it before I crack open my $100 box of 4x5 TXP.
Also, I'll mention that I did pick up some Arista 100 because it's inexpensive. A local camera shop had probably 100 sheets of Ektapan(some open boxes, some sealed) that they more or less gave me(or threw in for free when I was spending a couple hundred dollars on other stuff). I don't have high hopes for film that expired in 1980, but I figure it will be good for at least playing around with my cameras for next to nothing.
When I started into LF a few yerars back I made the mistake of shooting portra (and hp5).
It was frustrating to ruin a sheet of portra 160. I think as a bonus though I quickly learned to watch out after messing up:)
But inevitably it would happen again as I was doing portraits of my son and was working rather quickly which compounded mistakes if not careful.
Hp5 was not as painful if a mistake was made. Plus I was used to using that film over the years and knew what to expect to some degree.
Ilford makes a good film. I figure start with a high quality film. You will make nice images during your learning curve too, and maybe you'll be happy to have it recorded on a decent sheet of film
Good luck. Learning LF is fun and rewarding. Plus it has made me a better photographer in the smaller format as well.
""So, IMHO, start with the film you know, and play attention to not do silly mistakes.""
Starting with a wellknown film is a good idea.
On the other hand, please show me newbies not making silly mistakes in the early days :-)
Don't forget the forgotten iris adjusting after having everything right in place, the forgotten shutterclosing before pulling the slide, the forgotten film slide himself, the forgotten film loading, the forgotten bellows measuring, the forgotten exposures resulting in double exposures, the "forgotten to expose" and blank filmsheets, the forgotten camera movements, the ugly camera movements, the first misdevelopments, the first scratched sheets ...
So today, as a beginner I would start with 2 packs of cheap film for learning the routines first.
Second I would start to chase the "perfect" photograph.
In my first days, wasting my expensive film made me angry I became very experienced in doing silly mistakes, so I changed my strategie in wasting cheap film.
Same with paper while learning the darkroom process..
One thing of interest could be Rollei's Ortho 25 from Maco direct; for me it's an excellent film, good enough for excellent results, easy to handle, and it's not an expensive film ( here in Germany).
Ritchie
loonatic45414
10-Apr-2017, 14:10
I wouldn't start someone out with an Ortho film. I began with Kodak Tmax 100 & Tmax 400. In the 35mm, 120 and 4x5 it's very consistent. You can get a great feel for it in a cheaper format like 35mm and carry over your developing techniques to larger formats flawlessly.
Developing tanks, if not going straight into sheet film, a used steel tank and reels is a great economical start. I still use that for roll film even though I have Jobo for sheet. Intermix 35, 120 and sheet? I don't.
If looking for an excellent cheap 35mm, buy Kentmere 100 in the bulk roll. I'm not an Ilford, Bergger, Foma, etc, fan. I'm Kodak 95% of the time. Ilford I consider respectable, but if you can afford Kodak, why mess with anything cheap?
Kentmere 100 completely took me by surprise. A film that cheap shouldn't be that good.
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
I wouldn't start someone out with an Ortho film.
I agree, although x-ray film has its unique appeal, albeit not very suitable (in my opinion) as a first step into LF. Otherwise, I could name only one or two 'real' ortho films, so it's not a very evident route anyway.
but if you can afford Kodak, why mess with anything cheap?
Funny you should say that. Foma, which you don't like, is far superior to TMX in LF if one does alt. process printing, as TMX blocks about 3-4 stops of UV, while Foma doesn't, builds contrast like crazy if you coax it into doing so and responds exceptionally well to pyro developers. I know I sound like a Foma fanboy and it has to be said, I quite like what they have on offer. But my message is: 'cheap' is not just about price. Value is an abstract concept, but still, I'd recommend to look for the best value you can find, regardless of what brand you end up finding. Which you did:
Kentmere 100 completely took me by surprise. A film that cheap shouldn't be that good.
Life can be great, at times. Kentmere is a Harman product, IIRC. It's not very common where I live, but I'll be sure to try it one time. Just like the Rollei films. I'm sure they're all capable of great results. And perhaps that's my final remark on the issue: it's really difficult to buy bad film (assuming you buy fresh and not expired).
loonatic45414
10-Apr-2017, 15:28
Foma, which you don't like, is far superior to TMX in LF if one does alt. process printing, as TMX blocks about 3-4 stops of UV, while Foma doesn't, builds contrast like crazy if you coax it into doing so.
Very interesting you should bring up alt printing. I am just now learning about it and am experimenting with Pyrocat-HD.
In salt printing, people suggest Ilford Delta 100 as a good place to begin for its higher Dmax. Is Foma suitable for that as well? What about Delta 100 for platinum printing? (Comes to mind as an alt print technique requiring UV)
Interesting you mention expired film. I love it. But I have a densitometer & the ability to thoroughly test it's limitations. Oftentimes you don't get what's on the label but testing it as an unknown piece of film with its own character can turn up some interesting finds. Recommend it to a newbie or anyone? No. I do sometimes put it back on the market if it's blah, but usually I know people who will play with anything if it's cheap enough.
Jac@stafford.net
10-Apr-2017, 15:44
[...] TMX blocks about 3-4 stops of UV, while Foma doesn't ...
Forgive my ignorance. How does UV pass to film beyond our ordinary, non-quartz lenses? Then we should ask if our lenses are UV transparent, then how UV sensitive are our films?
.
In salt printing, people suggest Ilford Delta 100 as a good place to begin for its higher Dmax. Is Foma suitable for that as well? What about Delta 100 for platinum printing? (Comes to mind as an alt print technique requiring UV)
Both should work fine. I don't do much alt printing with delta100, but the few prints I've made from delta negatives were pretty straightforward. Delta sure has more desirable reciprocity characteristics, which could make the difference for someone else.
Interesting you mention expired film. I love it.
So do I, but like you said, it can sometimes be mediocre or downright garbage. You never know when you buy it. Whichever way you test it, testing is essential. TMX ages quite well, I find, more so than Delta 100, but FP4+ seems to work almost like new with the 10-15 year old stock I've tried.
Jac, my remark was about the UV transmission through the base, which is relevant for alt process printing that generally don't involve any lenses in the print making stage, but rely on sub-400nm wavelengths for their exposure. My apologies if this was unclear.
loonatic45414
10-Apr-2017, 16:13
A local camera shop had probably 100 sheets of Ektapan(some open boxes, some sealed) that they more or less gave me(or threw in for free when I was spending a couple hundred dollars on other stuff). I don't have high hopes for film that expired in 1980, but I figure it will be good for at least playing around with my cameras for next to nothing.
Don't underestimate the Ektapan. I have come across free Ektapan expired in 1974 & done some densitometer testing on it. I'm not saying yours will be good or not, but refer to my plot & you'll have a place to begin.
There's 3 old film plots here but Ektapan is on there. Not a lot of shadow detail, but that's typical of older film having lost some sensitivity. Developed in D-76 for 11 minutes, 20 deg C. I use 1:0.5 - in between full strength & 1:1, if that makes sense. I then decide which way I want to go after the initial test.
On this plot, it's usable range is between -1 and +2.5 stops when exposed at EI 32.
For best results, meter your zone 8 highlight area, open 2.5 stops & expose there, if that makes sense.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170410/699b3691b4ae879839c7e3c89701c27d.jpg
loonatic45414
10-Apr-2017, 16:32
Jac, my remark was about the UV transmission through the base, which is relevant for alt process printing that generally don't involve any lenses in the print making stage, but rely on sub-400nm wavelengths for their exposure. My apologies if this was unclear.
I think I know what he's hitting upon. Not all lenses transmit UV light from the source equally. Nikon, for example, makes UV lenses costing well up into the thousands.
Their cheap little 50mm enlarger lenses seem to transmit very well, and more than 1 website says to adapt it for camera use if you want a cheap way of playing with UV photography.
I believe, however, the answer is this... film base transmission of UV light is essential for the printing process but does little, if nothing, at the exposure stage.
Would that be accurate?
ben_hutcherson
10-Apr-2017, 16:43
Thanks for the information on Ektapan. Like I said, I have probably 100 sheets to play with(spread across 3 boxes) so I have a lot to try.
I'll take your developing suggestions as a starting point. D76 is my developer of choice-your dilution explanation does make sense to me :)
BTW, I was looking at filters on the spectrophotometer the other day. I was using a Varian Cary 50-a research grade UV-Vis spectrophotometer. In any case, while looking at filters I threw two separate lenses in it also-one an AF Nikkor 50mm 1.8 that I bought when I bought my F4, and the other an Auto-Nikkor 50mm 1.4 that I suspect was original to the c. 1965 F Photomic it was mounted on. Both had sharp cut-offs(going to 10Au, or 0%T) at 360nm. This is in line with most good quality optical glass.
loonatic45414
10-Apr-2017, 18:16
Ektapan was developed as a slide copy film, if my information is correct. It was to provide good copies of Ektachrome 64.
Shadow detail is lacking on purpose, to provide definite blacks instead of risking showing grays in the lower regions.
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
ben_hutcherson
10-Apr-2017, 19:38
Ektapan was developed as a slide copy film, if my information is correct. It was to provide good copies of Ektachrome 64.
Shadow detail is lacking on purpose, to provide definite blacks instead of risking showing grays in the lower regions.
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
Interesting.
I'm 29 and have only been interested in photography since sometime in 2005, so I missed a lot of the good days of film(although it's all I've ever used seriously).
I'd never heard of Ektapan before I saw the boxes piled up in the camera store. Initially the "Ekta" name made me think it was a color reversal film, but of course Kodak only usually appends "pan" to the end of B&W films. I grabbed it anyway since I can't pass up free or nearly free 4x5. Some research showed it had been discontinued in ~2000 I think, and that it was definitely a B&W film, but I couldn't find a lot on it. I found suggested EIs as high as 100, but what you've posted seems more realistic. Of course, nothing is marked on the box.
The same shop has some "Graphic Arts Film" in both 4x5 and 8x10. I'm guessing that this is probably a high contrast ortho litho film, but I'm thinking I should grab it. I know this general class of film is VERY high contrast, but that it can be "tamed" with low contrast developers used at high dilutions.
I think I know what he's hitting upon. Not all lenses transmit UV light from the source equally. Nikon, for example, makes UV lenses costing well up into the thousands.
Their cheap little 50mm enlarger lenses seem to transmit very well, and more than 1 website says to adapt it for camera use if you want a cheap way of playing with UV photography.
I believe, however, the answer is this... film base transmission of UV light is essential for the printing process but does little, if nothing, at the exposure stage.
Would that be accurate?
Yes sir, that's it. UV exposure plays no significant role during exposure (preferably not, as it would be out of focus comoared to visible light anyway and will cause halatians and flare in some films). It's really only about the printing process and when using a UV contact printer. Think of processes such as carbon transfer, salted paper and cyanotype. For as beginner this may be relevant due to the popularity of alternative printing processes these days; quite a few people step into LF with the desire to make alternative contact prints. While most films van be made to work, TMX is a pain in the behind even though it does work, but with excessive exposure times (over one hour for salt prints on a typical UV exposure box where a film like fp4+ would require 10-15 minutes.).
loonatic45414
11-Apr-2017, 01:16
I don't bother with Graphic Arts only because there's a lot of great old films out there. As you can see from my chart, those 3 films were in a box & all were from an old camera shop "in the back" in Dallas, Texas. I don't know how climate controlled these were but it's dubious at best. All expired 1972-1974 yet they amazingly show signs of their design.
Royal pan, for example, was a good studio film. The plot shows a slightly subdued highlight area for taming the harsh effects of flash.
Super-X was an outdoor film, supposedly, for artistic landscapes. The long, flat curve was designed for excellent tonal representation.
I am also too young to know this stuff firsthand, but the densitometer doesn't lie. I no longer have to ask what this film is for, what a good development suggestion would be, etc. You get so many conflicting reports from people who are either guessing or who've looked up times on the internet. I know exactly what I get from stand development, dilutions, agitation schemes, temperature differences, effects of filters, exposure accuracy, and for me, I can gauge the effects of aging on expired films.
I bought two 1000 foot reels of Eastman 5222 Double-X film, probably 30 years old. With this much film, I spent lots of time dialing in exposure & development. 35mm may not have the advantage of choosing the development of individual frames like sheet film, but I can shoot lengths of film for a certain lighting range & develop accordingly.
The biggest advice I can pass on regarding exposing roll film is to place your highlights and shoot to place your zone 8 just below the shoulder. I know the mantra is expose for shadows, develop for highlights, but you can't develop every frame individually in rollfilm. Placing your highlight avoids blowing out detail in the highlight or placing the highlight too low & not utilizing the full dynamic range which is especially important in old film which may have a limited dynamic range.
I became a mad scientist the day I got my densitometer. I love knowing exactly what I'll get from the film while I'm at the camera composing. I think it's great you love film. For me, digital almost doesn't exist.
Sent from my 0PJA2 using Tapatalk
plaubel
12-Apr-2017, 03:08
I figure start with a high quality film. You will make nice images during your learning curve too, and maybe you'll be happy to have it recorded on a decent sheet of film
High quality is not a problem with Ortho 25.
Made for camera tasks ( not for technical tasks ), except missing some red sensity you get a sharp film with great grey separation, in other words - you will get good to great results for a nice price.
Developing othochromatic film under safe light is a big advantage for learning around the negative - this gave me good ideas what happens with my film.
But I have been a beginner, so the OP may not need this experiences.
Ritchie
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.