Re: film users: what kind/brand/format of film do you use? why?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



FP4 is a decent film, can be abused a little bit and in Rodinal 1+100 is superb... takes away the flatness....
in 120 FP4 is a bit different than in 35 and I like it even better.
HP5 can get much more abuse than FP4, push it as much as you want!
I still buy APX100 by the 100' loads ;) been using it for over 20 years and can't find a replacement !


I started trying the Neopans as per kostas reccomendation, Neopan 1600 is much better than Delta 3200 IMHO, grainwise, tonality wise and can be pushed to 12,800. Neopan 400 is a unique animal, still testing it but gives lovely tones/grain with Rodinal 1+50. Acros in Rodinal gets a tri-dimensional quality almost, incredibly sharp and very litle grain.
I'm going to try the perverted versions of Rodinal+Xtol that supposedly give the best of both worlds.


XP2 is the film of choice of my father-in-law after I introduced him to it, canbe processed anywhere and then he sends me the negs for me to make real prints of the pictures he likes ;)
I like it too even though is kinda hard to compose under my enlarger becasue grain is hard to find.




At 08:04 PM 9/30/04, you wrote:
unBob Rosen <afterswift@xxxxxx> writes:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>TMAX 3200 (although recently I've used Ilford 3200)  In both cases I
>>>use them at an EI of 1600.  I develop them in Rodinal.  I find TMAX's
>>>grain structure nicer, although the Ilford emulsion isn't too bad.
>>>
>>
>>I find I have a strong preference for the Ilford; the TMAX is just
>>flat somehow.  However, I'm not developing either myself.
>>
> Weird.  If anything I find the opposite.  But I've not actually done
> any side by side comparisons.

I have, and I find the Ilford much cleaner-looking.

>>>FP4+ again, developed in Rodinal (hey -- I develop *everything* in
>>>Rodinal).  I like the look of this film and it's pretty forgiving.

>>I shot 100 feet of that once, back in the 1970s.  Most hated film I
>>ever saw.

> :-)  I guess that's why we're individuals.

Yep.  Looking back -- part of my results may have been because the FP4
didn't have the slight purple base tint that the PLUS-X did.  I was
printing mostly on variable-contrast paper....  Haven't actually
tested the theory, I invented it *years* later.

>>I'm actually really impressed with the Ilford XP2 Super (after having
>>a really bad experience with the original XP, back in the 1980s).

> Is that a B&W C41 emulsion?   I've got to say I've never shot it.  I
> have tried one of these developed as B&W and I quite liked it, but it
> was just an experiment with a roll of old film.  I didn't really go
> back there again.

Yes.  I've seen 4-foot prints from 35mm XP2 that are clean, smooth,
and grainless.  And I've shot some in 4x5....

My bad experience with XP back in the 80s was quite possibly because I
developed it in conventional B&W chemistry (in accordance with their
instructions; they didn't make clear to me that the C-41 route was
*preferred*).  Grain was horrid.

> Oooh, I almost forgot...
>
> The public wants to see more use of film.  They DEMAND their PQRSTUVW!
> And FP4+ is only hated by digital lovers :-p
>
> I feel so much better now :-D

Good!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Pablo Coronel Ph.D. Candidate Food Science Department North Carolina State University Room 39 Schaub Hall, Box 7624 Raleigh, NC, 27695

Phone (919) 515-4410
Fax (919) 515-7124
e-Fax (419) 818-7590
e-mail pcorone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~pcorone


[Index of Archives] [Share Photos] [Epson Inkjet] [Scanner List] [Gimp Users] [Gimp for Windows]

  Powered by Linux