PDA

View Full Version : ULF shooters who use Ilford film



Robert Skeoch
28-Jun-2005, 15:17
I'm doing a quick survey of Ilford film shooters who are using large sheet sizes.
In sizes larger than 8x10 do you shoot HP5 or try to find a slower film.
I'm planning to switch to HP5 from T-max 400 but wondered what others were using. A slower film is nice but I only make contact prints so grain is a non-issue, and I feel I can use the extra stops.
Let me know.
-Rob

Tedd
28-Jun-2005, 15:41
I use HP5 and am very happy. A test enlargement with the new enlarger at a comparable size of 1,2x2 meters there is no grain.

www.soost.com

Jorge Gasteazoro
28-Jun-2005, 15:56
Why change from Tmx 400? HP5+ is a very different film and I am not sure it will be as good for pt/pd as Tmx 400. You will be forced to use stanning developers with HP5, with Tmx you can use Xtol or HC110 and still get enough density for pt/pd.

If you are pissed at Kodak because they stopped making paper, then if you stop buying film the sooner they will stop making it too....self fulfilling profecy, you know?

robert_4927
28-Jun-2005, 16:03
Jorge, Where do you find tmax400 larger than 8x10?

Jorge Gasteazoro
28-Jun-2005, 16:11
Rob mentions he is planning to switch from Tmx 400 to HP5, this is the reason for my comment. For ULF I use the Ultrafine film but I am planning to switch to the JandC 400, I have heard good things about it. Once upon a time Clay tried to get Tmx 400 in 12x20 but Kodak would not do it, they sold him Tri X.

If the intention is to switch to have just one film for all formats, I would go with the JandC 400 for contact printing. It seems to be able to get enough density better than HP5, at least people who like to print with Azo are using it succesfully, so I am hoping it will be good enough for pt/pd too.....

Michael Kadillak
28-Jun-2005, 16:16
I and several others are working with Kodak as we speak to try to get T Max 400 in larger sizes. Be patient, just maybe in the not to distant future we will be able to post some good news.

Fp4+ is the only Ilford film I find worth shooting. I find that HP5 tops out pretty quickly in the heel section of the film curve for my requirements.

Cheers!

Ken Lee
28-Jun-2005, 16:43
Michael - I have been exploring HP5+ in 8x10 and 5x7, because of its availability in so many sizes, and because I plan to go larger still. I am confused by the terminology you are using. How can a heel top-out ?

Do you mean that the highlights reach a certain density, and go no further upon longer development/exposure ?

Or, do you mean that the shadow values drop off precipitously, once the exposure falls below a certain threshold ? (That has been my experience, which prompted me to consider revising my effective film speed to something lower than 200).

Roger Hein
28-Jun-2005, 16:48
Rob,

I think you'll find that most ULF users choose the film that best suits their intended output. You didn't specify if you'll be contacting on to 'silver' or one of the 'alt' processes. Those working in alt processes find FP4 (Photowarehouse 125) works extremely well either with or without pyro developers. HP5 as Michael says "tops out pretty quickly" and really needs something like the pyro stain to improve it - at least for 'alt'. I've been very happy with Photowarehouse 125 but am aware their website lists the film as 'unavailable' so I'll have to look for an alternative in the future. A friend of mine gave me a few sheets of Efke PL100 to try but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

Cheers,
Roger...

robert_4927
28-Jun-2005, 17:10
Jorge, I've been using the J&C400 for about 3 months now. I also print in pt/pd. I've been developing in pyrocat hd and wd2d+. It is a great film and I encourage you to give it a try. At first I tried rating it at 200 and soon found out that it is a 400 speed film. That extra speed is quit impressive. It compliments my pl 100 nicely when I need that extra speed, a full 3 stops faster than the efke. Nice expansion, although not like tmax.

Bruce E. Rathbun
28-Jun-2005, 17:14
I first tried J&C Classic after making the move to ULF as Kodak was not available. After one box the Efke became available in both ULF sizes that I use. What an amazing difference in quality. The Efke responds well to both expansion (N+2) and contraction. At this point in time I am not using a staining developer yet I will be moving in that direction. Even with traditional developer the results from Efke for me are amazing. Even on pt/pd the my intital results are positive. For 8x10 I still use T-Max and will as long as it is available. Despite yanking Azo from production I am not pissed enough at Kodak to stop using T-Max and Tri-X.

Jorge speaks the truth. Moving to another film will involve more work and help to seal another nail in the Kodak film coffin. Michael also has good advice. I still believe that Kodak will continue to make film for years to come. Maybe even in ULF sizes. The ccontinued use of T-Max may help to justify that cause. Botom line....if Kodak made T-Max in ULf sizes I would stock a freezer of all sizes I use.

-Bruce

Oren Grad
28-Jun-2005, 17:21
The problem with Ilford film in ULF is that, at least for now, you can't get any of it, except for 11x14 HP5+. Photo Warehouse has used up their last FP4+ master roll.

At the View Camera conference in Springfield, Ilford did promise to try to come up with a way to supply ULF sizes once again, but they said it might take a little while before they could figure out ordering and manufacturing procedures that would be workable, and so far there's been no further information from them.

Jorge Gasteazoro
28-Jun-2005, 17:29
Thanks Robert! The only thing that has stopped me from getting it is the 50 sheet box, I am dreading spending all that money only to find out I did not like it, but then, seems we dont have to many choices, so might as well give it a shot!

robert_4927
28-Jun-2005, 17:45
Jorge, If you want to split a box just to see if you like it I would be interested. Or if you buy a box and don't like it let me know I'll be happy to buy the rest from you.

Michael Kadillak
28-Jun-2005, 17:51
Ken: I am talking about the top of the curve whereas additional development/exposure are useless because they reach a density limitation rather quickly IMHO. T Max 400 on the other hand goes to the moon on a straight line and as a result, you have the capability to direct it to your specific requirements without a hitch. I cannot at times believe how marvelous T Max 400 is (any developer, short toe and linear densities to the moon) and contrast this to how mediocre HP5 really is when it is subject to N+ subject matter. Clearly, a higher ASA ULF/Large format sheet film is not only desirable but necessary because of the utilization of small apertures for depth of field and being able to make photographs when a bit of wind is in the field. HP5 has been the only alternative up to this point, and clearly we have been grateful for it, but it cannot hold a candle to T Max 400 to truly discriminating LF/ULF photographer when it comes on the market in sizes beyond 8x10. I am talking about 11x14, 8x20, 7x17 and 12x20.

I have some cost numbers from Kodak that I need to share with my associates for T Max 400 in larger sizes to see if they would work. Hang in there! More to come later.

Cheers!

Jorge Gasteazoro
28-Jun-2005, 18:04
Robert, thanks for your generous offer. I will spring for a box, film is like sex, even when it is bad it is still good... :-)

robert_4927
28-Jun-2005, 18:06
Roger , the pl 100 is a great film. But keep in mind if you use the tray shuffling method this film scratches very easy. I have not had any scratching problems since I started using the brush method. But before the brush method I was shuffling 6 negs at a time. I thought I was really good at it until i saw the results. ( scratches). If Michael can get Kodak to make 8x20 Tmax I'll take out a second mortage to stock a couple of freezers.

Roger Hein
28-Jun-2005, 18:33
Robert - thanks for the heads up re pl100's soft emulsion. I have a very limited space and tend to work with 2, maybe 3 trays, max (for the large negs) so I tend to process not more than a couple of sheets at a time - just don't have the room to lay out 4 - 5 trays.

Oren Grad
28-Jun-2005, 18:39
HP5 has been the only alternative up to this point, and clearly we have been grateful for it, but it cannot hold a candle to T Max 400 to truly discriminating LF/ULF photographer when it comes on the market in sizes beyond 8x10.

Michael, it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish, and on your personal taste. I don't do alt-process, and the last thing I want in a film is "linear densities to the moon". I'd much rather have a bit of a shoulder, and maximum densities that don't explode with modestly extended development. HP5 Plus is a better match to my purposes than is TMY.

Michael Kadillak
28-Jun-2005, 19:12
Oren:

If you want the density and have the ability to obtain it within systematic and purposefull Zone system applications, how can that possibly be a bad thing? Nobody says that you need to use it all the time. A film that purposefully "restricts" negative density is a limiting condition that you must work around when you use HP5. In other words, with this film you have one less "tool" in your tool box when it comes to the tackling the varied and challenging things that natural light photography in the field can throw at you unaccounced and at a moments notice - expanding the tonal range of a scene. There can be no mistake about that.

Why then is the no longer available Super XX considered a great film? Because it did not limit the top end. It had a unique characteristic to provide a continuing linear density response to exposure/development (without a manufacturing limitation) that would allow you to accomodate the density requirements of Azo or N++ development perfectly. Ahh yes, the tonalities that make you want to purchase a lifetime supply because it is so sweet.

If you discount the ability of a film to produce linear densities at the top end, then either you are unique in your ability to shoot only N or N- scenes or you have not experienced the middle tones that T Max 400 can get for you. And that is a fact. I do not do alt processing either and I will tell you without hesitation that it does make an enormous difference in the results - wheither you want to acknowledge it or not.

Cheers!

Oren Grad
28-Jun-2005, 21:56
Michael -

If you discount the ability of a film to produce linear densities at the top end, then either you are unique in your ability to shoot only N or N- scenes or you have not experienced the middle tones that T Max 400 can get for you. And that is a fact.

No, it just means I have different goals and preferences from yours, in terms of both working methods and results.

My point isn't that TMY is a bad film. It's a fine film with distinctive characteristics that fills an important niche in the marketplace. I'm glad you like it and I hope you'll be successful in getting Kodak to produce it in all the formats you need. HP5 Plus just gives me a much higher yield of negatives that I'm happy with, and I find it both easier and a lot more satisfying to use.

Cheers!

Oren Grad
28-Jun-2005, 22:04
It had a unique characteristic to provide a continuing linear density response to exposure/development (without a manufacturing limitation) that would allow you to accomodate the density requirements of Azo or N++ development perfectly. Ahh yes, the tonalities that make you want to purchase a lifetime supply because it is so sweet.

PS - Azo doesn't do anything special for me. Consequently, I don't feel any need to choose my film and tailor my working methods to obtain negatives that are especially suited to printing on Azo. That may account, in part, for why we judge films so differently.

Michael Kadillak
28-Jun-2005, 22:23
Then the only conclusion I can come up Oren is that you have not seen a quality Azo print. After I saw the real thing, I have not used my 8x10 and 5x7 enlargers in over a year.

By the way, I have a 25 sheet box of 11x14 HP5 and a 25 sheet box of Bergger 12x20 (less two sheets) in the freezer that I will make someone a hell of a deal on. I am surely not going to shoot it.

Good Shooting!

Oren Grad
28-Jun-2005, 22:47
Then the only conclusion I can come up Oren is that you have not seen a quality Azo print.

Do Michael and Paula's qualify?

After I saw the real thing, I have not used my 8x10 and 5x7 enlargers in over a year.

This reminds me of the religious-conversion stuff one sometimes hears from Pt/Pd partisans. There's nothing especially wrong with the results that can be obtained with Azo by a skilled worker. I just don't find it to be head-and-shoulders above other papers, and I see no special advantage to repay the hassles of using it.

As we have hereby demonstrated, YMMV. ;-)

Roger Hein
29-Jun-2005, 05:16
Getting a bit off topic but I was one of those pt/pd zealots that Oren refers to. I continue to use and enjoy the process but have to agree it does not suit every subject/situation. I've seen a MS 'signature' azo print (over a span of several months). It may have been the particular subject or the way it was lit at the time it was taken but the print didn't do anythiing for me (ie. no 'wow' factor). I'm not sure if this has more to do with one's own perceptual expectations or whatever but Oren, I hear what your saying. :-)

Ken Lee
29-Jun-2005, 06:55
Michael -

I had a fresh look at Sandy King's sensitometric data for various films, in the UV spectrum. (See http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html (http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html" target="_blank)).

Professor King has posted charts that show near-linear curves for several films, including HP-5, TMAX 400, and Acros. It does appear that TMax 400 is the most linear of the lot, but I'm not sure that HP-5 is too far behind - or am I missing something ?

May I ask, on what basis have you concluded that HP5 has a limitation in this regard ? I'm certainly not trying to be contradictory, just trying to learn, so thanks in advance ! I am rather new to this level of careful measurement, and there is much to learn.

Jorge Gasteazoro
29-Jun-2005, 07:14
Ken, with HP5 you need a staining developer to reach the densities required for processes like pt/pd or Azo, with Tmx you can reach the same densities with either a staining, or a non staining developer. I decied to see if my negatives would print differently with a non staning developer than they would with Pyrocat, I would not have been able to try this if I was using HP5, at least not as well as I am able with Tmx 400.

sanking
29-Jun-2005, 07:25
I am a ULF photographer and print with a number of processes, including AZO, carbon, kallitype and palladium, all of which require negatives of rather high contrast. I don't print at all with regular silver papers so take that into account when reading my comments below.

FP4+ is a great film, with a very linear curve that responds well to both contraction and expansion development. But it is quite slow, not such a big deal with 4X5 and 5X7 work, but for ULF where you need to stop down to f/45 or f/64 in many situations to get decent depth of field you will quickly run into reciprocity failure in low lighting conditions.

HP5+ is less desirable for my work than FP4+ since it shoulders considerably when developing for the CI needed for the processes I print with. With some scenes the shouldering can help to tame highlight densities, but in most situations the shouldering is quite undesirable. It has plenty of expansion potential for regular silver printing but not enough for AZO 2 and alternative processes when exposing film in low contrast scenes, at least not IMO. One can certainly use it, but the results won't be optimum.

TMAX-400 is the best film available for UFL work, IMHO. It has outstanding potential for both contraction and expansion development and very low reciprocity failure. If it were available in ULF size I would use it for about 90% of my work.

All of this is somewhat academic at this point since Ilford is no longer supplying either FP4+ or HP5+ in ULF sizes and TMAX-400 has not been available in this size for years. But understand this, if I could have my choice of only one sheet film, for either LF or ULF work, it would be TMAX-400. For my work it has so many advantages over the other films available there is simply no contest.

Ken Lee
29-Jun-2005, 07:55
Sandy -

I am a little confused. Figures 12 and 13 in your article show the UV plots for HP5+ and TMAX 400 respectively, and they both seem pretty linear to me - especially compared to Figure 10 (Berger BPF200) Am I consulting the wrong type of chart ?

FWIW, I was a happy TMAX 400 user (on your initial recommendation), until I got a 5x7 camera. It occurs to me, now that I have a night vision device: why not just standardize on TMAX 8x10, and cut each 8x10 sheet into two 5x7's myself !

In that vein, Michael, I would ask you to add me to your list of interested parties, with respect to purchase of TMAX 400 in ULF size, since I plan to evolve into 11x14 soon.

Oren Grad
29-Jun-2005, 07:56
I had a fresh look at Sandy King's sensitometric data for various films, in the UV spectrum. (See http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/PCat4/pcat4.html).

Professor King has posted charts that show near-linear curves for several films, including HP-5, TMAX 400, and Acros. It does appear that TMax 400 is the most linear of the lot, but I'm not sure that HP-5 is too far behind - or am I missing something ?

Ken, the charts posted on the page you linked are not characteristic curves, they're time/contrast curves. You can't tell the shape of the underlying characteristic curve from looking at them.

Getting a bit off topic but I was one of those pt/pd zealots that Oren refers to. I continue to use and enjoy the process but have to agree it does not suit every subject/situation.

Roger, thanks for your comment. With the right subject and in the hands of a master, Pt/Pd prints can be exquisitely, achingly beautiful. But IMO the medium just doesn't work for everything, and in fact probably has a narrower scope of situations for which it's at its best than does silver.

Ken Lee
29-Jun-2005, 11:06
"Ken, the charts posted on the page you linked are not characteristic curves, they're time/contrast curves. You can't tell the shape of the underlying characteristic curve from looking at them."



Oren - Thanks for the clarification. And thanks for your patience. I am new to this approach.



Looking at The Arentz book Platinum and Palladium Printing, Second Edition, Appendix C, pages 166 and 167, we see some tables for 400TMax and HP5+, in D-76.



Comparing the two films, I see that TMax is capable of N+ 1 1/2 expansion, while HP5 seems to go only up to N+1 (unless you heat the developer to 85 degree F). Is that a substantial difference ?



Is there a diagram somewhere which better underscores the differences between films, along these lines ? It seems to me that we would want a third dimension to the graph, showing characteristic curve (x and y) as it varies with development (z).

Oren Grad
29-Jun-2005, 11:25
Is there a diagram somewhere which better underscores the differences between films, along these lines ? It seems to me that we would want a third dimension to the graph, showing characteristic curve (x and y) as it varies with development (z).

The conventional, and still quite useful, way of displaying this kind of information is to show a single chart with multiple characteristic curves generated at different development times with a given film. This has actually been Kodak's standard way of displaying characteristic curves in their data sheets. Here's an example:

www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f009_0438ac.gif (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f009_0438ac.gif)

Phil Davis has also used this kind of chart quite a bit of this in his BTZS writings.

The catch is that the official data often don't extend to development times that give the sort of overall density range that alt-process printers want. And no manufacturer supplies charts for their products used with pyro developers, which are in any case tricky to generate and interpret because you have to take into account not just the silver density but also the stain. But I'm sure there are alt-process folks, especially those who use the BTZS method, who have charts like this floating around for their favorite film/developer combinations.

Rob Vinnedge
1-Jul-2005, 13:19
Michael,
I just finished speaking with Kodak about the possibility of special runs of ULF sizes in TMAX 400. I was informed that special runs are generally priced at around $10,000 to $12,000 for any particular size ( quantities weren't specified), but that TMAX 400 would not be considered, in any case. I expressed my dismay and left my name and number, just in case.

I'm not sure what your plans are regarding this issue, but you can count on me and several of my friends for large quantities of 14"x17" and 16"x20" TMAX 400 if you put together a group of buyers.

Please keep me posted of any news you might receive.

Michael Kadillak
1-Jul-2005, 16:19
One of the reasons that I posted this information is to attempt to prevent overloading the circuits at Kodak as numerous people over the years have attempted to run this flag up the pole.

Fact. Kodak could care less about individuals needs with this film in ULF sizes. Unless Bill Gates himself calls it is just noise.

My approach on this subject (T Max 400) is coming at this from a different angle and all I can say at this moment is that we are still moving forward but have some logistical issues to overcome. I am still optimistic about the prospects as I did not think we would even get this far (talking numbers albeit high at this time). As soon as we work out the details we will post the results good bad or indifferent. If it does come together it will surely need he support and involvement of the large format community so we can all benefit from it. I and many others will need to step up to the plate with the pocket book and let their actions do the talking.

Have a Safe and Happy 4th!

robert_4927
1-Jul-2005, 16:33
Michael, Keep on keeping on. I for one have two chest freezers and and a check book at the ready. I'm sure Kodak won't even answer the phone for $12,000.00. But when you start approaching six figures they will sit up and listen. Keep up the endeavor and keep us posted . happy fourth, robert

Michael Kadillak
1-Jul-2005, 16:51
Thanks Robert. It is taking every bit of creativity and positive attitude I can come up with. If only we can get them to be reasonable with the price I would feel much better.

We will continue to work our contacts and hope that common sense and a bit of luck are on our side.

I would even go to Rochester and meet with them if I felt that it would make a difference.

In a couple or three weeks we should know if this is going to be workable or not.

Cheers!