Best choice portrait BW film

[Califmike33]

I want to shoot some portraits just getting back into 4x5 BW , im thinking of using Tmax 100 for my film. Its been a long time since i did any devolping or printing or shooting 4x5. Looking for opinions on portrait BW choice outdoor and studio and what your choice for devoloper ?

[Lachlan 717]

What lens are you intending to use? Sharp/clinical or softer/pictorial?

If it’s the latter, film won’t be as important as if it’s the former.

Also, how will you be processing?

[jp]

Tmax 100 sheet film is pretty nice, but it does have a UV blocker in case you intend to make Alt process prints it will be unsuitable.

I'm a fan of tmax400; it does not have that UV block. It has slight yellow filtration for smoother skin. It has massive dynamic range for hot lights or flash.
If you have plenty of light, perhaps FP4+ would also be good. Haven't tried the delta films. Really almost anything used properly will do a great job at 4x5.

[Califmike33]

What developer do you use with that Tmax 400 >?

[otto.f]

IMO this question cannot be answered as such. It totally depends on what type of portrait and mood you want to convey. Whom are we talking about? Is it something like Miles Davis by Anton Corbijn https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-anton-corbijn-b-1955-miles-davis-5783310/? Then T-Max 100 would be perfect. Or have you got something more dreamy in mind, like Imogen Cunningham did with portraits of her parents or Edward Weston and his wife. Then Fomapan 100 would be a nice match.

[koraks]

Is it something like Miles Davis by Anton Corbijn https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-anton-corbijn-b-1955-miles-davis-5783310/? Then T-Max 100 would be perfect.
Didn't he purchase a ton of Tri-X when Kodak got into trouble?
Frankly, Fomapan 100 would have been just as obvious a choice for that particular look as TMAX100. In fact, it would have been considerably more obvious to me.

But I agree with your first sentence. I think the question as such is difficult/impossible to answer. Moreover, I think it's mostly irrelevant. Whatever film is sensitive enough to record the light levels you're planning to work with. The rest is all execution. Given today's materials, if you want to make TMAX100 look like an extreme S-curve as in the Corbijn photo linked to above, you could (granted, it'll be HARD to make it look as grainy as in that example). If you want to make Fomapan 100 look darn smooth linear, you could by exploiting the linear part of its curve in the middle. Etc.

A film in itself isn't going to produce a particular look. It's one part of a large equation. The major parts of those equation, that far eclipse choice of film, developer, etc. are things like artistic vision, pose, rapport with the model, composition, lighting setup etc.

Now, by all means go ahead and split hairs about which emulsion will be 'best'. It's an amusing exercise - and I really mean that! It's nice stuff. Just not as important as it may seem.

[Tobias Key]

Personally I would recommend Ilford HP5+ as it is a better all rounder and you would need much less flash power in the studio. It also gives you relatively fast shutter speeds outdoors in shady conditions at f16 or 22. Pretty bulletproof all round in terms of development. Why make life hard for yourself if you are just getting back into black and white?

[Tin Can]

Love the one you are with

Meaning, use any film on hand as tomorrow sitter may be unavailable

I prefer 8X10 and 11X14" contact prints

Some images do not enlarge well

[jp]

What developer do you use with that Tmax 400 >?

It's not critical but I mostly use pyrocat hdc in glycol. 1:1:100. Have also used pmk, tons of d76 1;1 and even well used brown dektol.

[otto.f]

Didn't he purchase a ton of Tri-X when Kodak got into trouble?
Frankly, Fomapan 100 would have been just as obvious a choice for that particular look as TMAX100. In fact, it would have been considerably more obvious to me.

But I agree with your first sentence. I think the question as such is difficult/impossible to answer. Moreover, I think it's mostly irrelevant. Whatever film is sensitive enough to record the light levels you're planning to work with. The rest is all execution. Given today's materials, if you want to make TMAX100 look like an extreme S-curve as in the Corbijn photo linked to above, you could (granted, it'll be HARD to make it look as grainy as in that example). If you want to make Fomapan 100 look darn smooth linear, you could by exploiting the linear part of its curve in the middle. Etc.

A film in itself isn't going to produce a particular look. It's one part of a large equation. The major parts of those equation, that far eclipse choice of film, developer, etc. are things like artistic vision, pose, rapport with the model, composition, lighting setup etc.

Now, by all means go ahead and split hairs about which emulsion will be 'best'. It's an amusing exercise - and I really mean that! It's nice stuff. Just not as important as it may seem.

Strictly, or theoretically spoken you are right and I agree. In practice however, most films have a sort of beaten path as to how they are developed, with which developer, etc. So starting with one film, you will end up mostly with a certain style and this will be sooner attained than with another film/dev combi. As you said, some effects are not so easy to attain with certain films. And I seldom see that deep blacks of Tmax 100 with Fomapan 100, although they are there.

[jnantz]

I want to shoot some portraits just getting back into 4x5 BW , im thinking of using Tmax 100 for my film. Its been a long time since i did any devolping or printing or shooting 4x5. Looking for opinions on portrait BW choice outdoor and studio and what your choice for devoloper ?

I mainly like making portraits that are very long exposures. I ditched film for this unless it is old and expired and I develop in coffee developer (with a squirt of paper developer) going back and forth with spent / black paper developer. it's a match made in heaven. I would probably use x ray film for this if I had to use film that was "fresh" it seems like paper negatives, which I have used a lot (trick for paper is to either use a yellow filter to cut the contrast (I haven't ever done this but people swear by it, beware it will increase the exposure ) or expose in open shade/overcast light to tame the contrast, native ISO of paper in bright mid day sun is around ISO 24, open shade/overcast days it's a lot slower ... good luck!

[Michael R]

As others have suggested, more or less anything will work. I’d probably go for something like HP5 for it’s faster speed. Of course TMY-2 would also be superb but it is expensive (budgetary concerns may or may not be a consideration for you). Kodak TXP would be a great choice because it is more easily retouched (directly on the negative) than other films - it was designed for that, but again, expensive.

Developer choice is not critical. Stick with the time-tested go-to developers and you’re fine.

[koraks]

And I seldom see that deep blacks of Tmax 100 with Fomapan 100, although they are there.
I agree with virtually all of the rest you said, but you lost me on that sentence. Deep blacks are a property of the output medium. Regardless of what film used, it's a matter of giving the right paper the right amount of exposure and development to get deep blacks.
If you mean, the way shadows are separated (or not separated all that much), that's a different story (although I still don't agree that this would be a 'classic TMX look'). So perhaps we disagree on word choice, only.

[Tin Can]

Remember the $1000 Wet Plate "authentic" Head Steady?

I made DIY and use one, I consider head movement a PITA

Spare C stand, a double ended clamp and a NEW Boot Jack

Hides behind head and neck

But no Clockwork Orange eyelid torture (https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/stanley-kubrick-a-clockwork-orange-temporary-blinded-malcolm-mcdowell/)

[Ulophot]

Califmike, the point about light levels may be worth considering. If, like me, you intend to work in available light when not in the studio, a faster film like HP5+ may be called for. That's what I use. I find I can push to 800 under very flat conditions and get a nice negative for printing without worrying about shutter speed as much.

[Drew Wiley]

I loved TMax 100 when it came to smooth complexions and long tonal scales. The only issue is with lighter or reddish Caucasian complexions, where a light yellow green filter like a Hoya X0 can be worth its weight in gold. It lacks a decent "retouching tooth"
like classic older films. But that can be done in a couple of manners if needed - either a spray-on variety available from art stores
(which I don't like because it permanently affects the negative and eventually goes yellow), or by registering a piece of frosted mylar to the negative, and doing your retouch pencil or dye on that instead.

[Califmike33]

Califmike, the point about light levels may be worth considering. If, like me, you intend to work in available light when not in the studio, a faster film like HP5+ may be called for. That's what I use. I find I can push to 800 under very flat conditions and get a nice negative for printing without worrying about shutter speed as much.

Good Points, i think im going to buy some Tri x 320 and some HP5 and go from there and try some different developers and see what i like, maybe i will throw in some Tmax 100 also and then choose my favorite from there. Probally get some D76, Rodinal, to start off.

Thanks for all your guys great tips and advice im very thankful.

[otto.f]

I agree with virtually all of the rest you said, but you lost me on that sentence. Deep blacks are a property of the output medium. Regardless of what film used, it's a matter of giving the right paper the right amount of exposure and development to get deep blacks.
If you mean, the way shadows are separated (or not separated all that much), that's a different story (although I still don't agree that this would be a 'classic TMX look'). So perhaps we disagree on word choice, only.
Right.

[Califmike33]

I ordered some I think it's FTP mummy 200 speed film 25 sheets for $29 figure be good to start out with not too expensive to mess around with till I get the feel for everything.

[Bernice Loui]

Wonder if mummy 200 is the same as Frankenstein 200 as the same as Arista EDU 200 as the same as Foma 200...

Previous discussion.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169394-What-film-to-use-for-first-test-shots


Bernice



I ordered some I think it's FTP mummy 200 speed film 25 sheets for $29 figure be good to start out with not too expensive to mess around with till I get the feel for everything.

[jnantz]

I ordered some I think it's FTP mummy 200 speed film 25 sheets for $29 figure be good to start out with not too expensive to mess around with till I get the feel for everything.

it's inexpensive, that's good.
so you can't forget to have fun

[Califmike33]

Wonder if mummy 200 is the same as Frankenstein 200 as the same as Arista EDU 200 as the same as Foma 200...

Previous discussion.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?169394-What-film-to-use-for-first-test-shots


Bernice


It maybe the same i have no idea. I think to get the feel for developing, loading film holders, just the whole 4x5 exp this a good way to start out for a box or two. I ordered some D-76 so i guess i will use that to start.

[Tin Can]

Aren't the only 2 wild cards

Foma and China

[Califmike33]

I have another question that's maybe doesn't fall under this category. Is there any type of Polaroid backs or Polaroid type film available today for 4x5 cameras?. I know you can still get old Polaroid but that stuff like ridiculously expensive is there any modern stuff that's come out in the last 5 years?

[Daniel Unkefer]

"I know you can still get old Polaroid but that stuff like ridiculously expensive is there any modern stuff that's come out in the last 5 years?"

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52478802781_c4db046d5a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nXnzJv)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2nXnzJv) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I glued a Sony NexC3 body to a lens board, and it's going to working great for testing. It even indicates exposure. Sony was Sixty bucks at the used camera store. A lot cheaper than Fujiroid

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52481889775_7ae9bff165_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nXDpox)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2nXDpox) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Test exposure with Nex3 150mm f5.6 chrome Symmar. Camera was handheld! Handheld view camera photography LOL

[Califmike33]

Very interesting device I might have to check into that.

The film I have is not mummy it's 200 speed Frankenstein.

[FotoD]

Aren't the only 2 wild cards

Foma and China

Don't know about wild cards. But Fomapan 400 is brilliant if you are making portraits in cool north light. Wonderful skin tones. The speed is OK, don't expect more than EI 200.

[Califmike33]

I will look into the Fomopan film to go along with my Frankenstein 200. Got my film holders in the mail today, camera and lens arrive friday, getting really excited to start. I know i will have to play with different films and devolopers and see what look i like.

I watched a couple of good youtube videos on Fomopan vs Tri x both 400speed, the Fomopan has a much larger grain pattern for sure, looks a bit grainy for my taste.

[Bernice Loui]

B&W film grain.. what degree of enlargement/magnification?

Not going to be much if any visible grain from a 4x5 contact print. Significant visible grain close up for a Six foot X Four foot projection enlargement from a frame of 35mm B&W film.. Similar visible grain for 4x5 once projection enlarged printed up BIG..

~What are your print goals?

Part of why sheet film is to reduce the amount of enlargement/magnification to gain improvements in tonality and visible grain in the print. If the print magnification is not more than 4x, film grain visibility is more often than not an issue at all.

Keep in mind most film folks on YouTube and similar are producing content based on 35mm or 120 roll film, typically not on sheet film.

Add, film image size does make a significant difference, even with the very best camera/optics and such there remains a significant advantage from the larger film image until the film image size becomes a limitation of it's own as there are very real limitations at 8x10 sheet film and larger.
It is much dependent on what the image goals are. Note, there are very real advantages to 35mm roll film too, as each film format has minus/plus and their specific trade offs.


Bernice



I watched a couple of good youtube videos on Fomopan vs Tri x both 400speed, the Fomopan has a much larger grain pattern for sure, looks a bit grainy for my taste.

[Drew Wiley]

If one wants that shotgun grain of old-school 35mm photojournalism, then Tri-X makes sense. Just depends on what expectations are in a portrait, as well as its degree of enlargement. It's still quite visible in most 4x5 format examples in the lighter areas even at 4X, and somewhat even in 8x10 work magnified even less.
I'd personally avoid anything like that for portraiture, at least of smooth complexions or high-key subjects, if I expected to be paid. But everyone if free to take their own path.

[Califmike33]

If one wants that shotgun grain of old-school 35mm photojournalism, then Tri-X makes sense. It depends on what expectations are in a portrait and its degree of enlargement. It's still quite visible in most 4x5 format examples in the lighter areas even at 4X, and somewhat even in 8x10 work magnified even less.
I'd personally avoid anything like that for portraiture, at least of smooth complexions or high-key subjects, if I expected to be paid. But everyone is free to take their path.

Thank you for your opinion.

[Califmike33]

I know the guy on youtube was reviewing FP4+ in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 and giving a very very indepth review of different devolopers and times, going over the shadow, highlights, a very very good video. Given what i have seen and researched i think my film i want to try the most is FP4+ and FP5+. As far as goals of print size i would say 20x24 is likely the largest i would go, maybe a tad bigger. Here you go tell me what you think of his channel and review i think its very good. https://youtu.be/mqB5SQ3BTHE

[Califmike33]

Ok i bought a new tripod today and got to talking to the guy at the camera store, i have known and talked to him in the past, loads of exp, 4x5, 120, printing. So i asked him if i scan my 4x5 BW negatives and print them thru a Canon pro 1000 lets say can i retain that film look. He tells me for sure , no doubt and tell me he can achieve and better print of a digital scan of the 4x5 negative than he can print in the darkroom. He told me a good Epson V700 and a good Epson or Canon printer, the higher end models will achieve stunning results ? love to hear your guys take on this ?.

Years and years ago with i lived in the darkroom i lovedddddddddddddd printing BW so im thinking of doing it again, but if i can achieve the same or better by scanning and printing at home, not sure which way i would go.

[Corran]

The quality of each solely depends on your experience and dedication to getting good results from either printing method. Beyond that, it's a matter of preference with regard to the final print medium. I personally greatly prefer traditional silver prints and would not ever want to futz with an inkjet printer again - my "best of both worlds" is traditional printing and using a lab for on-demand, custom prints as needed. If you loveddddd darkroom printing, why would you not want to go back to that?

[Califmike33]

The quality of each solely depends on your experience and dedication to getting good results from either printing method. Beyond that, it's a matter of preference with regard to the final print medium. I personally greatly prefer traditional silver prints and would not ever want to futz with an inkjet printer again - my "best of both worlds" is traditional printing and using a lab for on-demand, custom prints as needed. If you loveddddd darkroom printing, why would you not want to go back to that?


I did love the darkroom and i am going back i have already signed up here at a local place that rents darkroom time $15 for 5 hours, seems like a steal to me. The reason i question which is best is cause i cannot have a darkroom to print at home and driving back and forth 12 miles each time to go print is not always that easy to do. The ability to print from home and print the same print with a push of the button and Lightroom your negative has some appeal to me. I am looking foward to the whole process or i would have just bought a digital camera, so i really enjoy the loading and devolping film. I think im going to back to the darkroom after i have some images and print and see if that love for darkroom is still there or is the home route more well suited, i will know the moment i make my first test strip in the darkroom.

[Roger Cole]

"I know you can still get old Polaroid but that stuff like ridiculously expensive is there any modern stuff that's come out in the last 5 years?"

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52478802781_c4db046d5a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nXnzJv)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2nXnzJv) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

I glued a Sony NexC3 body to a lens board, and it's going to working great for testing. It even indicates exposure. Sony was Sixty bucks at the used camera store. A lot cheaper than Fujiroid

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52481889775_7ae9bff165_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2nXDpox)SONY DSC (https://flic.kr/p/2nXDpox) by Nokton48 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/18134483@N04/), on Flickr

Test exposure with Nex3 150mm f5.6 chrome Symmar. Camera was handheld! Handheld view camera photography LOL

I'm missing something here. If you want a substitute for Polaroid instant, wouldn't you need to attach it to the back somehow, maybe to take a close up of the ground glass, and not to a lens board?

The idea of attaching a cheap but close up capable - if any would shoot close enough to work - digisnapper to the BACK to take photos of the ground glass is an idea. No exposure estimation but you could then "preserve" the look of one set of focus and movements, play around some, compare, etc. I could see that being useful if one could get it to work.

[Alan Klein]

If one wants that shotgun grain of old-school 35mm photojournalism, then Tri-X makes sense. Just depends on what expectations are in a portrait, as well as its degree of enlargement. It's still quite visible in most 4x5 format examples in the lighter areas even at 4X, and somewhat even in 8x10 work magnified even less.
I'd personally avoid anything like that for portraiture, at least of smooth complexions or high-key subjects, if I expected to be paid. But everyone if free to take their own path.

Grain could block the zits.

[Drew Wiley]

I was about to mention that fact, Alan. But yearbook photographers always had softie filters on hand. I sure had my share of authentic zits at the time, but didn't get the softie treatment like the girls did. And with black and white pan film, a reddish filter nulls them out.

[Michael R]

I was about to mention that fact, Alan. But yearbook photographers always had softie filters on hand. I sure had my share of authentic zits at the time, but didn't get the softie treatment like the girls did. And with black and white pan film, a reddish filter nulls them out.

Worse than that, I remember you saying you had tried some of the cheaper films that turned out to have zits of their own.

[jnantz]

Grain could block the zits.

so could foundation / base, and minor retouching which was done by competent people throughout the 1980s

[Tin Can]

I have 2 1969 pics of me, one shot 35 slide, great! Inside, no flash, handheld

and the Yearbook, expensive high end machine and we paid for crap, no choice

what a difference

1000 idiots in the class of 1969

I did see, hear and worship the 5th Dimension front row on gym floor

Inspirational!

I never had Zits

[Alan Klein]

What's the expression? When you have two watches, you never know the right time.