LF beginner Film

[Kiwi7475]

Personally I just stick to tmax 100. I know it well, have the workflow down and I find it quite forgiving. Even if you’re starting I would stick to one, the one you like best, and go for it. There’s no real reason to start with cheap film just because “you’ll make mistakes”. When you don’t, you feel like you’ve wasted a good chance to get the better tonality; and when you do make a mistake, it’s actually more forgiving than say EDU ultra 100. Yes ok it’s more expensive but in the end this is not the cheapest hobby and might as well spend your time knowing really well the film you want to use in the end, sooner rather than later.
Just my 2c.

[angusparker]

I'm the opposite. I prefer slow film for landscape work. Generally, under the canopy I usually shoot in, the 2-stop difference is negligible when it comes to wind (2 seconds vs. 8 seconds is no difference when the leaves are bobbing constantly from water flow). I'm also well acquainted with TMX so stick with it. HP5+ is fine though and I shoot that sometimes as well. Your preferences will develop once you start shooting. The films are slightly different from 120 to LF and you may find your tastes differ between formats.

There is almost always a coastal or inland breeze in the Bay Area. Shooting on a ridge line is impossible with slow film. I guess I need to do some dark interiors!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Corran]

Yeah, the natural wind created by the waterfalls and flowing creeks is constant here, and sometimes it's simply impossible to shoot LF, if you want to compose with the big mountain laurel leaves in the frame close by. You need 1/30th of a second exposure time at the minimum, which would imply about f/11 and a full 400 speed film in many situations I find myself in. I have setup my 8x10 a few times and not made an image because I realized some element would be a giant blur on the film. Sometimes a smaller format is the correct answer!

[Larry Gebhardt]

I've just recently tested FP4+ and Delta 100 in a jobo with expert drums and xtol 1+2. Let me know if you want the results. My conclusions: Delta 100 is faster than FP4+ in XTOL despite Ilford's ratings. FP4+ has a longer toe though so you can probably salvage underexposure a little easier, so I guess it could be seen as more forgiving. However it's really minor. The curves between the films are different shapes so they won't produce the same prints even if the contrast ranges are exact. I think that is the major difference between the two. Both are great films and either would be great to learn the camera with.

[Bruce Watson]

What do folks REALLY find in shooting? Is Delta really less forgiving? Does FP4+ really have better tonality and wider lattitude?

What I found in my years of LF is that you're really asking the wrong questions. You only need the concepts of "wider lattitude" and "more forgiving" in roll film because you can't develop the individual exposures individually. It doesn't really make any sense with sheet film.

If you're going to maximize your photography, you have to learn to expose the film, whatever film it might be, to put the shadow detail exactly where you want it. Then you have to learn to develop your film, individual sheets if it comes to that, to put your highlight detail exactly where you want it. IOW: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. That's the point of the whole exercise. It works with all the B&W films I've ever heard of, and probably a lot more besides. [Color films are more problematic because you can't really change development time much to put your highlights where you want them (you'll start introducing the most interesting color artifacts that are difficult to impossible to correct; fun stuff but also pretty frustrating)].

A lot of roll film concepts, from "wider lattitude" to "more forgiving" to "pushing", etc. just don't have a lot of meaning in a sheet film context. Just like the concepts of "camera movements" and "bellows factor" don't have a lot of meaning in a general DSLR context.

So... pick a film and start shooting with it. Burn a lot of film, learn from every sheet, especially the ones that end up in the trash. You'll know when it's time to make a change. Trust yourself. You'll know.

[roscoetuff-Skip Mersereau]

Okay... thanks for the guidance, and yes, you've shamed me into it. Looks like the thing to do is to pick up some Foma/Arista 100 and 400 film and just give it a go. At least the inevitable screw-ups will be "cheap"... expensive relative to roll film, but there you are. I call it "tuition". Have an Arca-Swiss Model B coming ...which should be a good place to start. Won't get a real chance to start until much later when I can get a developing/darkroom set up going in the house we're moving to (since we move out in a week or two from here into a temp rental without capacity or approval for these things).

[Bernice Loui]

There is no shame in any way. This is much about learning by doing. There will be "screw-up" and more expect this as it is part of the learning process. More important is to learn from these "Screw-ups" and do what is needed to reduce or prevent the same incident again.

Foma/Arista 100-400 will do great at this point.

Beyond camera and all that film burning stuff, focus on how that film will be processed, then prints made and mounted.



Bernice

Okay... thanks for the guidance, and yes, you've shamed me into it. Looks like the thing to do is to pick up some Foma/Arista 100 and 400 film and just give it a go. At least the inevitable screw-ups will be "cheap"... expensive relative to roll film, but there you are. I call it "tuition". Have an Arca-Swiss Model B coming ...which should be a good place to start. Won't get a real chance to start until much later when I can get a developing/darkroom set up going in the house we're moving to (since we move out in a week or two from here into a temp rental without capacity or approval for these things).