PDA

View Full Version : 5x7 BW 400 film options



Tyler Boley
2-Aug-2007, 16:06
I finally used the last of my horded TMY, used it for many years, both darkroom and scanning. For the landscape work I do I really can't afford to quadruple my exposures with one of the many good 100 speed films around. I just lost at least half of my exposures from the last rip from wind, and often shoot in low light.
Anyway, since I was never a big 3x fan way back when, I started using HP5. I'm really surprised at the loss of quality over my old TMY negs, going back to a conventional film. Sharpness, grain, gradation, everything.
I've only worked with about 30 drum scanned negs so far, but results are somewhat consistent. I don't think HP5 is a bad film, I just think 5x7 TMY was a great film.

If anyone has thoughts of viable options, including trying 3x again, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks so much,
Tyler

sanking
2-Aug-2007, 17:07
I finally used the last of my horded TMY, used it for many years, both darkroom and scanning. For the landscape work I do I really can't afford to quadruple my exposures with one of the many good 100 speed films around. I just lost at least half of my exposures from the last rip from wind, and often shoot in low light.
Anyway, since I was never a big 3x fan way back when, I started using HP5. I'm really surprised at the loss of quality over my old TMY negs, going back to a conventional film. Sharpness, grain, gradation, everything.
I've only worked with about 30 drum scanned negs so far, but results are somewhat consistent. I don't think HP5 is a bad film, I just think 5x7 TMY was a great film.

If anyone has thoughts of viable options, including trying 3x again, I'd love to hear them.
Thanks so much,
Tyler


Tyler,

I agree with you 100% about the quality of TMY. For my money it is the best overall film for 5X7. Unfortunately there really is not another good option, IMO. As you say, HP5+ is not a bad film, it just does not compare to TMY in the areas that are most important to me.

My understanding is that special cuts of 5X7 may be made in the future. Michael Kadillak, who was primarily resposible for getting TMY cut in speciality sizes in a big order last year, may be able to offer some advice. For my part I would also like to purchase a few hundred sheets of TMY in 5X7 size in case anyone has some they want to get rid of from that order.

Sandy

Matt Miller
3-Aug-2007, 05:01
Try "stuffmore sales" on ebay for 5x7 TMY. I've purchased several boxes from them with no problems.

Ken Lee
3-Aug-2007, 08:23
Can't you just buy some TMY in 8x10 size (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=656), and cut it down to 5x7 ?

With an infra-red viewing device, it ought to be especially easy to do.

Michael Alpert
3-Aug-2007, 08:47
I started using HP5. I'm really surprised at the loss of quality over my old TMY negs, going back to a conventional film. Sharpness, grain, gradation, everything.

Tyler (and others),

I am surprised by your blanket condemnation. Do you feel that you changed your camera technique, film-processing, and printing enough to allow HP5 to be fully explored? The two films are different animals, so a quick try, going either way, might result in disappointment.

George Hart
3-Aug-2007, 09:03
Although I come from Cheshire, UK, I have to say that HP5+ is not my cup of tea either! When I was at the Ilford open day in June I asked one of the executives whether it could be possible for Delta 400 to become available in sheet film, including 5x7. This is my favourite landscape film bar none, in 135 and 120. I wasn't holding my breath for the reply, which came back after the manner of "No way, not enough sales last time we made this film available in 5x4".

However, I guess that we could all join together in a bulk purchase. The Ilford director said that anything above a 30 metre run would be economically viable.

Nick_3536
3-Aug-2007, 09:06
However, I guess that we could all join together in a bulk purchase. The Ilford director said that anything above a 30 metre run would be economically viable.

How wide is the roll? 30 metres isn't very much. Even if you use the short 5" it's only 250 pieces. But the width is going to be more then 7" wide.

George Hart
3-Aug-2007, 09:24
How wide is the roll? 30 metres isn't very much. Even if you use the short 5" it's only 250 pieces. But the width is going to be more then 7" wide.

Nick, I didn't say in my post simply because I can't remember accurately. I think it is of the order of 23 metres wide.

I can say that it's one very impressive machine that they have at Mobberley, for coating emulsion on to materials! It's as long as a row of houses, computer-controlled, and exceedingly complicated! I was surprised that the same machine is used for both film and paper, of all types.

Sal Santamaura
3-Aug-2007, 09:31
...The Ilford director said that anything above a 30 metre run would be economically viable.Hmmm...

Not interested in Delta 400, but, even if the master roll is 3m wide, that means I only need to order 100 boxes of 6.5 x 8.5 to get Delta 100.

Hmmm...

Sandeha
3-Aug-2007, 09:37
Have you tried Forte films ...

http://www.renedecaluwe.nl/forte/forte_films.html

Price ain't bad.

Nick_3536
3-Aug-2007, 09:48
Hmmm...

Not interested in Delta 400, but, even if the master roll is 3m wide, that means I only need to order 100 boxes of 6.5 x 8.5 to get Delta 100.

Hmmm...

It's a different base then the smaller formats. I wonder if the master roll size could be cut up into various formats.

Obviously the more formats the more waste. Plus each format would have it's own waste. But if people wanted it then it might make sense to spread it out over various formats.

D. Bryant
3-Aug-2007, 09:53
Tyler (and others),

I am surprised by your blanket condemnation. Do you feel that you changed your camera technique, film-processing, and printing enough to allow HP5 to be fully explored? The two films are different animals, so a quick try, going either way, might result in disappointment.
My question is Michael have you tried TMAX 400? Give it a try.

Don Bryant

Michael Alpert
3-Aug-2007, 10:35
My question is Michael have you tried TMAX 400?
Don Bryant

Don,

Yes, I have tried TMAX 400 in smaller formats. It is very good film.

Ken Lee
3-Aug-2007, 10:41
"I am surprised by your blanket condemnation."

My experience with HP5 was similarly disappointing. With the chemistry and workflow to which I have grown accustomed, it gives a steep drop in the low section of the curve. Here is an example (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/hadleycf.htm), shot with 5x7. The shadows are... empty.

In order to get rich rendition of shadow areas, I would probably have to shoot it at a speed of 100 or less. By that point, I'm probably better off using a 100-speed film... or TMY at a speed of 250.

Bruce Watson
3-Aug-2007, 11:19
Anyway, since I was never a big 3x fan way back when...

If anyone has thoughts of viable options, including trying 3x again, I'd love to hear them.

I'd give my vote to trying Tri-X again. Kodak has kept up the improvements over the years; Tri-X is a pretty darn good film these days. I've been developing my 5x4 Tri-X in XTOL 1:3 and getting very nice results. This combination pulls nicely so I can control density fairly well. This control lets me create negatives that are easy to drum scan. That, and the XTOL 1:3 gives me a real film speed of 320, where HC-110H gave me a EI of around 200. I'll take an extra 2/3 stop of real film speed any time I can get it ;-)

That said, if you are happy with TMY, you should probably still pursue TMY. But Tri-X might be a viable substitute while you are waiting for the next group buy of TMY in 5x7 from Kodak.

Tyler Boley
3-Aug-2007, 11:51
Thanks Bruce, I will definitely give 3x another shot. Michael, I tried to be careful to not condemn HP5, I know many great workers use it happily. I'm also sure that further work with it would be fruitful. I guess, primarily, I'm astounded that the results I became accustomed to over many many years, turn out to be, still, so far ahead of the pack.
I'd prefer to find a replacement, I'm not wild about relying on special runs, or finding horded out of date film. It's gratifying to hear others confirm my experience, and I'm not just nuts.

I'm sure working with HP5 or 3x more and learning to optimize one of them will be fine in the long run, and was looking for more input. Sounds like they are my best options.

There was a 400 speed JandC 5x7 film, but I've seen no reports and they seem to have temporarily disappeared.
Thanks all, big help.
Tyler

Dan Schmidt
3-Aug-2007, 11:59
Why not cut down TMAX 400 from 8x10? A little extra work, but if you really want to use it....

edit: oh now i see that I am the seconf person to suggest this

also see Q.T's article where he describes cutting down:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/5x7.html

sanking
3-Aug-2007, 13:46
I'd give my vote to trying Tri-X again. Kodak has kept up the improvements over the years; Tri-X is a pretty darn good film these days. I've been developing my 5x4 Tri-X in XTOL 1:3 and getting very nice results. This combination pulls nicely so I can control density fairly well. This control lets me create negatives that are easy to drum scan. That, and the XTOL 1:3 gives me a real film speed of 320, where HC-110H gave me a EI of around 200. I'll take an extra 2/3 stop of real film speed any time I can get it ;-)

That said, if you are happy with TMY, you should probably still pursue TMY. But Tri-X might be a viable substitute while you are waiting for the next group buy of TMY in 5x7 from Kodak.

I agree that TRI-X has been improved, and today's version is much finer grain than in the past, maybe even better than TMY.

However, TRI-X still has a very long toe and its real EFS, even in Xtol, is only about 1/2 that of TMY, which also gains speed in this developer. If you are developing to scan, as I suspect Bruce does, the long toe won't matter as much, but if you are still printing with wet processes the only way to get good shadow separation with TRI-X is to rate it at a lower film speed than box value.

Also, TRI-X (and HP5+) has much greater reciprocity failure than TMY, which means in practice your exposures with these films might be as much as 5-10 times as long as TMY in low light conditions. The low reciprocity failure of TMY is one of its great attractions to me, along with the almost perfectly linear straight line curve.

Sandy King

Tyler Boley
3-Aug-2007, 15:29
Sandy, everything you describe about TMY, and 3X, are my experiences precisely, and why I liked the film. I've never liked long toe films. It's interesting how many here seem to have liked TMY, I always thought it was underappreciated and little used. Superior reciprocity characteristics another huge bonus, as you said. The only thing it didn't do well was massive compactions, even with special developers, but there was always 3X for that.
The touted old 3X/HC110 combo completely baffled me.
However, like Bruce, I am primarily scanning now, so will give 3X another try.
Grudgingly cutting 8x10 is an option as someone mentioned, I had thought they stopped other sheet sizes along with 5x7, apparently not the case.
Tyler

Peter De Smidt
3-Aug-2007, 15:45
I'm not sure whether Acros is available in 5x7 or not, but it might be a viable choice. Even though it's an EI 100 film, it has absolutely terrific reciprocity characteristics.

John Kasaian
3-Aug-2007, 16:49
Have you tried Forte films ...

http://www.renedecaluwe.nl/forte/forte_films.html

Price ain't bad.

Forte R.I.P.:(

jnantz
3-Aug-2007, 17:21
i've been using tri x. great film!
it is the olde stuff, not the new "improved" film...

sanking
3-Aug-2007, 20:15
Tyler,

My impression is that TMY has been vastly under-appreciated, though you will certainly find a lot of folks who really appreciate its qualities.

However, if you are developing to scan TRI-X is a good choice. Grain is at least as fine as TMY, and it *may* do contraction development somewhat better than TMY. I am not certain of that because I have done a lot of extreme contraction development with TMY and dilute solutions of Pyrocat-HD, with very good success. However, there is no question but that TRI-X does contraction extremely well.

Just curious, have you considered use of a pyro staining developer like PMK or Pyrocat-HD. If you are scanning these developers have a lot of potential for minimizing grain, and also for best channel selection if you scan in RGB.

Still, reciprocity is a big issue in much of my work and in this area TMY has it all over TRI-X.

Sandy King




Sandy, everything you describe about TMY, and 3X, are my experiences precisely, and why I liked the film. I've never liked long toe films. It's interesting how many here seem to have liked TMY, I always thought it was underappreciated and little used. Superior reciprocity characteristics another huge bonus, as you said. The only thing it didn't do well was massive compactions, even with special developers, but there was always 3X for that.
The touted old 3X/HC110 combo completely baffled me.
However, like Bruce, I am primarily scanning now, so will give 3X another try.
Grudgingly cutting 8x10 is an option as someone mentioned, I had thought they stopped other sheet sizes along with 5x7, apparently not the case.
Tyler

Tyler Boley
4-Aug-2007, 10:16
Sandy, my experience with staining developers is limited to Pyrocatechin, which very happily used for a long time with 3X for compactions beyond -2 or so. I'm sure TMY may have done that well also, but my initial tests were not great and 3X did it so well I just stuck with that. I did not give it the testing time it deserved.
I intend to try the pyros now for all the development, as you suggest, it's potential advantages for scanning are compelling. Sounds like a pyro/3X combo is promising.
Thanks for all your help.
Tyler

George Hart
9-Aug-2007, 01:55
This is to correct my previous post in which I said that Ilford's minimum print run is 30 metres, which begs the question posed by Nick as to how wide the roll is. Looking back at my notes from our open-day visit to the plant, what I wrote then was that the minimum run is ~30 square metres. For a roll >2 metres wide, that means quite a lot less than 30 linear metres. Still a big order, though!

Ron Marshall
9-Aug-2007, 08:54
This is to correct my previous post in which I said that Ilford's minimum print run is 30 metres, which begs the question posed by Nick as to how wide the roll is. Looking back at my notes from our open-day visit to the plant, what I wrote then was that the minimum run is ~30 square metres. For a roll >2 metres wide, that means quite a lot less than 30 linear metres. Still a big order, though!

30 square meters works out to 52 boxes of 25 sheets of 5x7; about a $2000 order.

Sal Santamaura
9-Aug-2007, 09:09
This is to correct my previous post in which I said that Ilford's minimum print run is 30 metres...the minimum run is ~30 square metres...Assuming we're still talking film (not "print run"), that means I'd only need to order 34 boxes of 6.5 x 8.5 to get Delta 100.

Even more Hmmmm........

Sal Santamaura
10-Aug-2007, 09:11
OK, not wanting to continue thinking about this if it's not real, I contacted Simon Galley at Ilford. His reaction to the "~30 square metres" concept was as follows:


"I really do not know who said that, 30 metres cut to one size in one finishing slot would give you waste of over 50% !!! 300 m2 would be difficult enough."

Simon went on to say:


"I will consider offering DELTA 100 sheet in the 2008 ULF run ( but not before, we cannot do anything on an ad hoc basis )..."

Not having a personal interest in it, I didn't ask Simon about Delta 400. However, I suspect that, since it's not already offered in sheets, Ilford probably wouldn't consider it as part of next year's ULF run, or there would be a much higher minimum acceptable order level. This is my speculation only. Anyone who wants further information on "ULF" Delta 100 or Delta 400 should contact Simon directly at:

simon.galley@harmantechnology.com

Note that he'll be on vacation until August 28th.

Oren Grad
10-Aug-2007, 11:53
Not having a personal interest in it, I didn't ask Simon about Delta 400. However, I suspect that, since it's not already offered in sheets, Ilford probably wouldn't consider it as part of next year's ULF run, or there would be a much higher minimum acceptable order level. This is my speculation only. Anyone who wants further information on "ULF" Delta 100 or Delta 400 should contact Simon directly at:

simon.galley@harmantechnology.com

Note that he'll be on vacation until August 28th.

If I recall correctly, the question of Delta 400 sheet film came up during the factory visit, and the chances of it happening are between slim and none, but much closer to none.

They're in a difficult position now. Given the overall contraction of the market, almost any new film products they could offer within existing formats would have the effect of cannibalizing sales from existing products while increasing their overhead cost. From a financial perspective it's a losing proposition.

That doesn't mean there won't ever again be anything new, but the hurdle is very high.

Scott Davis
10-Aug-2007, 12:12
I did a quick peek on Megaperls for Acros in 5x7, but this is apparently not a size they're stocking. That doesn't bode well for its availability in that size, but perhaps someone here knows of another source for Fuji films in Japan.

Sal Santamaura
10-Aug-2007, 13:10
I did a quick peek on Megaperls for Acros in 5x7, but this is apparently not a size they're stocking. That doesn't bode well for its availability in that size, but perhaps someone here knows of another source for Fuji films in Japan.As Dirk has posted previously:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=259786&postcount=13

Acros is not manufactured in 5x7. There won't be another source for 5x7 Acros in Japan or elsewhere, since it doesn't exist.

Justin Cormack
11-Aug-2007, 02:40
Acros is available in half plate though, just a little smaller and the holders should fit a 5x7 camera.

Greg Nelson
5-Sep-2007, 19:04
I use the 4x5 and 5x7 format, and interestingly was disappointed when I used TMY in 4x5 so I didn't try past the first box. But I love HP5 developed in D76 1:1 or Pyrocat HD. I expose for an ISO of 200, but they say it's really rated at 400. It does have a base density higher than most films, but I'm not discerning enough to tell the difference. I probably didn't give TMY an adequate chance, and maybe you should consider HP5 again.