| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2004 11:06:13 PM · #1 |
I would like to try some different 35mm black and white films. I have used several in the past, but I would like to hear some feedback from other film shooters about which films they like and why. I have experience with Ilford Delta Pro at several different speeds. I have also used a variety of the Kodak Tri-X and TMax films as well.
I am considering trying out some of the Ilford Pan F+ 50 film... anyone ever used this before?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 11:19:29 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I would like to try some different 35mm black and white films. I have used several in the past, but I would like to hear some feedback from other film shooters about which films they like and why. I have experience with Ilford Delta Pro at several different speeds. I have also used a variety of the Kodak Tri-X and TMax films as well.
I am considering trying out some of the Ilford Pan F+ 50 film... anyone ever used this before? |
Hey John. I used to use Tmax 400 almost exclusively. it's pretty quick and pretty contrasty, which i like. The tmax 100 is really sharp, but something about some emulsion thing they do makes it look like a digi-image that's been run through neat image...almost no grain at all, which i don't love.
The Tri-X is richer I'd say, and definitely grainier (in a nice way) and really contrasty. had very good luck with it.
The TMax is C41 processing, so really easy to find shops to get it developed in, and it's cheaper. I don't know enough about the Tri-X to comment on that part.
Having said all that, I haven't shot film in about 5 years, so perhaps I'm completely out to lunch. but I don't think so. (of course, knowing this place, if I'm wrong...someone's sure to point it out).
edit: a friend shot a bunch of rolls with the Ilford Pan-50 at ISO 400 just for laughs, and got a really cool harsh look to it. can't tell you about what it looks like shot correctly. :)
later,
P-Ness
Message edited by author 2004-02-05 23:23:16. |
|
|
|
02/05/2004 11:39:50 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
edit: a friend shot a bunch of rolls with the Ilford Pan-50 at ISO 400 just for laughs, and got a really cool harsh look to it. can't tell you about what it looks like shot correctly. :)
later,
P-Ness |
Pushed 50 speed film to 400? lol.. i bet that was interesting... :)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 11:40:45 PM · #4 |
I've shot with PanF and have made 8x10 enlargements with fantastic results. I haven't noticed that much of a difference in grain compared with FP4+... but I'm guessing for larger sizes the effect would be more noticeable.
Since 8x10 is my most common printing size, I do a lot of my film b&w shooting with FP4+. I would like to try the delta series to see if I notice a difference.
I like and use solely Ilford's line, even though I've tried Kodak. I think the main reason I stick with Ilford is that I had already developed a great workflow, and obtained good results with ilford before testing Kodak, and when I found something that gave good results, I stuck with that to reduce the variables and work on other aspects of my b&w printing.
Dave
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I would like to try some different 35mm black and white films. I have used several in the past, but I would like to hear some feedback from other film shooters about which films they like and why. I have experience with Ilford Delta Pro at several different speeds. I have also used a variety of the Kodak Tri-X and TMax films as well.
I am considering trying out some of the Ilford Pan F+ 50 film... anyone ever used this before? |
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 11:46:21 PM · #5 |
The interesting thing is that I don't plan to get prints made from any of the negatives. I plan to scan them and print them digitally.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2004 11:53:22 PM · #6 |
Hmm, from that perspective...any differences between one film and another (ISO being equal) can be corrected via photoshop. (ie, contrast)
I guess the same point would still apply between the grain differences between PanF and FP4 (or delta 100), that a difference would only be noticed if you print a large image. Its mainly a guess because I haven't verified this.
Apart from that, it would be interesting to try 3200 brand film for speed bonuses normally not available with digital cameras, and special films like Ilford's SFX 200, which simulates an infrared effect with much less of a headache than real infrared film.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The interesting thing is that I don't plan to get prints made from any of the negatives. I plan to scan them and print them digitally. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2004 09:04:50 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I would like to try some different 35mm black and white films. I have used several in the past, but I would like to hear some feedback from other film shooters about which films they like and why. I have experience with Ilford Delta Pro at several different speeds. I have also used a variety of the Kodak Tri-X and TMax films as well.
I am considering trying out some of the Ilford Pan F+ 50 film... anyone ever used this before? |
The TMax is C41 processing, so really easy to find shops to get it developed in, and it's cheaper. I don't know enough about the Tri-X to comment on that part.
|
Unless Kodak has drastically changed the formulation of the Tmax films they are definitely not compatible with C-41 processing. Kodak and Ilford both make black and white films for C-41 processing, but Tmax requires a B&W developer like D-76, HC110 or the Tmax Developer as does Tri-X.
See this for processing info on Kodak B&W films:
Kodak Processing info
I used to shoot a lot of Ilford FP4 which I like, I can imagine that the ISO 50 Ilford film is similar with a smaller grain structure.
Message edited by author 2004-02-06 09:10:09.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2004 11:05:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Pedro:
The TMax is C41 processing, so really easy to find shops to get it developed in, and it's cheaper. I don't know enough about the Tri-X to comment on that part.
|
Unless Kodak has drastically changed the formulation of the Tmax films they are definitely not compatible with C-41 processing. Kodak and Ilford both make black and white films for C-41 processing, but Tmax requires a B&W developer like D-76, HC110 or the Tmax Developer as does Tri-X.
|
@Spaz,
My mistake - I assumed (ass + U + Me) that the texture of the TMax was because of the processing. I know that in the past the C-41 B&W films also have that Neat-Imaged appearance to them. Thanks for pointing it out.
Fortunately my developing costs have come down considerably since going digital :)
P |
|
|
|
02/06/2004 04:45:40 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Pedro:
The TMax is C41 processing, so really easy to find shops to get it developed in, and it's cheaper. I don't know enough about the Tri-X to comment on that part.
|
Unless Kodak has drastically changed the formulation of the Tmax films they are definitely not compatible with C-41 processing. Kodak and Ilford both make black and white films for C-41 processing, but Tmax requires a B&W developer like D-76, HC110 or the Tmax Developer as does Tri-X.
|
@Spaz,
My mistake - I assumed (ass + U + Me) that the texture of the TMax was because of the processing. I know that in the past the C-41 B&W films also have that Neat-Imaged appearance to them. Thanks for pointing it out.
Fortunately my developing costs have come down considerably since going digital :)
P |
My experience with the c41 proccessed B&W film was not good. Tried several different places and all the shots came back with a bluish hue.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2004 06:06:20 PM · #10 |
Remember the thread I started about this?
In the end I choose Kodak Plus-X 125 (125PX), because of the interesting tonal response I saw in some samples.
Don't have any results, because the roll isn't full yet.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2004 07:12:06 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Brooklyn513:
Originally posted by Pedro:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Pedro:
The TMax is C41 processing, so really easy to find shops to get it developed in, and it's cheaper. I don't know enough about the Tri-X to comment on that part.
|
Unless Kodak has drastically changed the formulation of the Tmax films they are definitely not compatible with C-41 processing. Kodak and Ilford both make black and white films for C-41 processing, but Tmax requires a B&W developer like D-76, HC110 or the Tmax Developer as does Tri-X.
|
@Spaz,
My mistake - I assumed (ass + U + Me) that the texture of the TMax was because of the processing. I know that in the past the C-41 B&W films also have that Neat-Imaged appearance to them. Thanks for pointing it out.
Fortunately my developing costs have come down considerably since going digital :)
P |
My experience with the c41 proccessed B&W film was not good. Tried several different places and all the shots came back with a bluish hue. |
Some minilabs are not equipped to print B&W negs, or their staff is ignorant of the procedures for doing so. If the machine is not set to print B&W, it will try to auto-adjust the color filtration and you will get a bluish cast.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/10/2025 02:31:21 AM EDT.
