Help Request : Film Choice

[jamgolf]

I am starting out in large format and currently taking a Darkroom class at a local art institute. I have also picked a couple of Stearman Press SP-8x10 daylight processing trays and their chemistry to start developing, although I will try Pyrocat-HD once I get comfortable.

I am unsure about the film I should choose because I want to really stick to one film, keeping variables to a minimum, and learn that way. I have looked at lots of images online and watched lots of videos on Youtube. In the past week, I think I have changed my mind four times. I like the character of Bergger Pancro but the fine grain (and density) of Ilford Delta 100. I want smooth tonal gradations, sharp not grungy, characterful not clinical result. I understand a lot of this also depends on the developer/chemistry and darkroom process, but I want to pick a film that will yield my stated goals if I know what I am doing to achieve those goals. Can Ilford FP4 be the middle ground or Fomapan 100/200?

Any recommendations for a newbie?

Thanks in advance and cheers!

[Richard Wasserman]

Some questions—

What format are you shooting? 4x5, 8x10...
Are you contact printing or enlarging? Optical enlarger or scans? What size prints?

Almost no matter your answers I would use FP-4. It's a great film and likes pretty much any developer. You can bend it to your will, but if you're just starting out it is reliable and forgiving.

[jp]

You'd do well to learn FP4+. Grain isn't a major concern with 8x10. It's a good quality normal film.
Delta100 might be better for night photos with very long exposure (reciprocity issues)

Some people might say use the cheap stuff like Foma or Xray for learning.. I had some quality issues when I did that, and I prefer to know for sure any learning issues I'm chasing down are my own fault and not the factory's.

[jamgolf]

Thanks for your response, Richard

I am going to be shooting 8x10 but have also ordered a 4x5 back for my 8x10 camera, primarily to economize the cost of learning.
I will be contact-printing. Enlargements perhaps down the line, but a bit out of my league at this time.
Not my preference, but probably some scanning would come into play.

[jamgolf]

I prefer to know for sure any learning issues I'm chasing down are my own fault and not the factory's.

That is an excellent point. Thanks!

[Ulophot]

From your indication, I'll assume you are shooting 8x10. FP4 is a fine film indeed. I shoot 4x5 and chose HP5 in order to have extra speed, but that is because my primary interest is in portraiture in natural light on location, emphatically including inside. I spent a lot of time thinking about this when I returned to photography a few years ago, because my previous work in 4x5 had mostly used Tmax 400, which is considerably finer-grained. I ended up finding that I had worried a lot more about grain than necessary.

An 8x10 negative makes a 16x20 print with nominally only 4x enlargement. I enlarge only to 11x14, which is really x by about 13, though I am perfectly ready to crop the negative. In any case, in this format my enlargement is unlikely to exceed 4x and usually stays closer to 3x or less. I print with a diffusion head, which inherently minimizes grain. While some LF photographers would complain of "too much grain" in my images, I, frankly, don't see it -- though the look of a print from an 8x10, ISO 100 negative, all other things being equal, would distinguish it. It's a matter of style. I have no problem with the grain in an 11x14 from my 645 HP5 negatives, an enlargement by maybe 5 1/2 to 7 times, which, to me, is still very modest indeed, roughly equivalent to a 5x7 print from a 35mm frame but in a print one views from a significantly greater distance. If I had more money, I would probably use Tmax 400, but frankly, I hardly lose sleep over it; my focus is not on porcelain skin. My goal is to compose and print images that will make grain the last thing on my viewer's mind.

Such considerations will emerge as you refine what it is you wish to do in your own work.

[jamgolf]

Philip, thanks for your thoughtful response. You are right about the over-emphasis on grain. I don't mind grain actually. I just don't want a very grungy look. Maybe that comes from over developing or use of chemistry that yields the very harsh look.

[Tin Can]

X-Ray is dying

Buy where you live, have good supply and pick what is affordable for you

It is good advice to use the same film, chems, process for a long time

[jamgolf]

use the same film, chems, process for a long time

That is my intention. Leaning towards FP4, Pyrocat-HD in SP-8x10 daylight processing trays.

[Vaughn]

I use that combination (in Jobo Expert Drums/motor base)...great way to start.

[Oren Grad]

When I got started in large format around 25 years ago I chose HP5 Plus for its extra speed, its forgiving latitude in processing and its characteristic curve, which I find relatively easy to print to my taste on readily available papers. As I moved into exploring many less common formats the availability of HP5 Plus in those formats through the annual Ilford special order program reinforced my choice - I am able to use the same film and, correspondingly, the same processing and printing approaches, regardless of which camera and format I'm in the mood to work with. HP5 Plus remains my standard sheet film to this day.

[jamgolf]

Oren, thanks for your sharing thoughts and experience with HP5.

[esearing]

when I restarted LF a few years ago the instructor pushed HP5 but shoot at 200 and cut development time from the charts. It may have worked for her, but I often ended up with muddy blah negatives. Switched to FP4 @100 and loved it ever since. I like Delta 100 too and their differences are subtle. You can jump right in with Pyrocat HD at 1:1:100 for 8x10. HC110 is also a fine developer as are most of the other standard film developers out there. If budget allows, the Kodak products still have the best overall look when properly developed but FP4 is the best value compromise for me. I support Ilford for their customer service and their dedication to Film for even odd sizes in the ULF annual order.

[jamgolf]

Not considering cost, what is the Kodak option comparable to FP4 for 8x10?
TMax 400 is probably an HP5 alternative, so it must be TriX 320 - right?

[Doug Herta]

I use FP4 and Pyrocat-HD as well. Work with what you pick for awhile.

Read this:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

[Roberto Nania]

Not considering cost, what is the Kodak option comparable to FP4 for 8x10?
TMax 400 is probably an HP5 alternative, so it must be TriX 320 - right?

I use FP4 between 80 and 125 iso, depending on the contrast of the scene and I really like it. I use HC110 but I like it more on D76 (shame is not convenient).

Your will of sticking to one film and one developer is absolutely right and I would suggest to use FP4 with a convenient developer like HC110 or similar; you're going to use liters of solutions for 8x10 so I'd suggest to avoid stock dilution developers, you'll be spend a lot of money on each session then. I never liked Rodinal and I suggest to skip it.

Some thoughts onto other films:
Foma200 is a very good and cheap film, you might consider it as an alternative to FP4 after you "mastered" the developing procedure. I heard about inconsistency on some Foma product, that's the reason why better not to use it as your first film.
HP5 allows you to shoot with two more stops than FP4 but it is quite flat in contrast; after some testing, I'm happy using it at iso 500 mainly and iso 320-400 for very high contrast scene.
Kodak counterpart for FP4 is TriX, imho. Actaully, TriX is a very unique film and I never found nothing close to in other brands; I love TriX but its cost in Europe is simply non-sense. FP4 as a contrast that could be comparable with the one of TriX although the high lights are boosted with TriX (FP4 has a more linear behavior); the difference in speed is at around one stop if you consider that many times TriX is shot at iso 200 and FP4 at iso 100.
This thoughts are based on my own experience so somebody could not agree.

[Peter De Smidt]

If you're contact printing, then grain is not an issue unless you're doing some really wild developing. The big question is: how much speed do you need? Subject motion can be a real issue with LF, and it increases in importance as you move up in format, as you'll likely be using smaller apertures. So: what type of subjects in what type of conditions will you be photographing? Narrow field of focus or everything sharp?

[jamgolf]

Thanks, everyone for sharing your thoughts. I really appreciate it.

As far as subject matter, I have primarily enjoyed landscape photography and would like to continue to do so with 8x10. But with 8x10 I would also do portraiture, not necessarily studio but environmental or on location with mostly available light. So, film speed could be an issue for that use case.

[Bob Wagner]

Against the conventional wisdom I suggest a $40 box of 100 sheets of Fuji HRU x ray film and the raw chemicals to make D23 developer. There are so many ways to screw up in large format and $5 a sheet film is an expensive way to get past a bunch of them. Open 8x10 tray development with a piece of plexiglass with the edges smoothed off with sandpaper in the bottom will get you scratch free negatives and it is a lot of fun without breaking the bank
My 2c. ymmv

[jamgolf]

Bob, that's a good thought. I don't want to throw away money but I personally feel that when I make a costly mistake, I learn my lesson and try not to make the same mistake again, and if that mistake teaches me something then I am willing to pay the price.

I am not too sure about a lot of things, but I am sure that I want to stick to one film be it FP4 or Tri-X or Foma or Delta. Once I make an informed decision, based on advice here and my own judgement, I will stick to it including the learning phase, with the understanding that it will be costly.

I am not a professional photographer, its just a hobby and passion for me. Its a cost I am willing to pay.

[Peter De Smidt]

Take a look at https://www.instagram.com/dendorff_bw/ He's a member here. If I remember rightly, use uses Foma 200, both at 160 and at 800. I was amazed at the quality he gets at 800, and that speed is very useful, especially for portraiture! I ran some film tests, and I was able to verify his results (not that he needed it!), but I haven't been able to shoot much with it. Anyway, the film is well-priced.

[jamgolf]

Thanks, Peter. Seems the link you posted is inaccessible - at least for me.

But regarding Foma 200, Tim Klein the maker of SP-8x10 trays also recommended Foma 200 but it does not seem to be available in 8x10.

[Richard Wasserman]

Foma 200 8x10— https://www.freestylephoto.biz/42028150-Foma-Fomapan-200-ISO-8x10-50-Sheets?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6__w0enk7gIV3TizAB08GAtGEAQYAyABEgJb9fD_BwE

[Tin Can]

I agree. X-Ray was very good for me to learn LF

Then I added REAL film

and still use both

buy X-Ray n0w before it disappears


Against the conventional wisdom I suggest a $40 box of 100 sheets of Fuji HRU x ray film and the raw chemicals to make D23 developer. There are so many ways to screw up in large format and $5 a sheet film is an expensive way to get past a bunch of them. Open 8x10 tray development with a piece of plexiglass with the edges smoothed off with sandpaper in the bottom will get you scratch free negatives and it is a lot of fun without breaking the bank
My 2c. ymmv

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Peter. Seems the link you posted is inaccessible - at least for me.



I expect you need an Instagram account to view. Try this instead: https://www.flickr.com/photos/artwedd

[Drew Wiley]

I too would recommend FP4 as an excellent middle-of-the-road learning film. But it's versatile enough that you might decide to stick with it for the long run. Lots of developers work well; my personal favorite is PMK pyro in trays; but Pyrocat HD gives a similar result.

[Tin Can]

https://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/8x10-in-fuji-x-ray-film.html

[jamgolf]

Thanks, Peter. I can access that flickr-stream. Quite nice.

[jamgolf]

I must admit I have no idea what X-ray even looks like. Unless I have seen some X-ray prints without realizing it was X-ray.
The only time I've seen X-ray is my own x-rays at the doctor's office and that was not impressive, partly because of the subject :)

[Tin Can]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50845311183_49437904db_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kt2vAg)E XRay2x11x14crop (https://flic.kr/p/2kt2vAg) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr


I must admit I have no idea what X-ray even looks like. Unless I have seen some X-ray prints without realizing it was X-ray.
The only time I've seen X-ray is my own x-rays at the doctor's office and that was not impressive, partly because of the subject :)

[Tin Can]

Z-Ray scanned as color

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50804980872_96e6ba10b6.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kpsNN5)Mr Linhof (https://flic.kr/p/2kpsNN5) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Tin Can]

XRay

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50237781488_e7173b155a_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jxkLbm)Frame Welder (https://flic.kr/p/2jxkLbm) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[jamgolf]

Thanks for sharing these, Tin Can. Interesting. I had no idea.

[Tin Can]

The pearls are on 11X14 crop, the others 8X10

at the link I posted 100 sheets are $35

It is a bit delicate, but you will learn how to be gentle and can be loaded in holders and processed under DIM red light

Use any developer you like, i like the cheapest

[jamgolf]

Thanks, Tin Can. That is an interesting option for sure. I will learn more about it.

Peter, those Foma 200 shots @800 looks very nice. 2 stops can be a luxury. Very interesting option.

[Tobias Key]

I would use either FP4 and HP5 developed in D76 or ID-11. The simple reason being that these are some of the most commonly used combinations in film photography so lots of people know about them and can help you if you have issues. If you use something like Fomapan 200 and Pyrocat HD that pool of expertise falls exponentially, and you may struggle to find people who can help much beyond guesswork. Keep things simple.

[Michael_4514]

There are so few films available in sheets that there really is no reason not to try all of them and figure out for yourself which you like best. Try them out in 120 rolls and it will cost about the same to try them all as you'd pay for one box of 4x5.

[Peter De Smidt]

Good photo, Randy!

[Two23]

I've have got to where the only film I regularly use for all formats is FP4+. It's easy to work with, predictable, and consistent in processing. I shoot it in 35mm, 120, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10.


Kent in SD

[Jim Andrada]

I've pretty much settled on FP4 over the last few years (used to be partial to Ansco 100 but that's ancient history...)

It's fast enough for most things and pulled to 50 I can use old lenses in barrel (but still have a stash of Efke 25) with a Galli shutter or just a lens cap for that matter. Lately I've been mixing D-23 from scratch and I've gotten some nice results with it and FP4.

[jamgolf]

I am the original poster.
So, I finally got my camera and started with some testing. I am using FP4.

So far I have developed 2 sheets in Ilford DD-X and 2 sheets in Ilford Perceptol in SP-810 trays. I think Perceptol results are a bit punchier and DD-X is smoother more even.
I think I'll try Formulary's Pyrocat-HD next. I have the box but have not mixed it yet. I should probaly shoot exactly the same subject in the same light to compare developers.

FP4 in DD-X ("scanned" using Kodak Mobile Film Scanner app)
Cooke XVa wide open @ f6.8 (311mm)
https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2358945862-5.jpg

FP4 in Percepttol ("scanned" using Kodak Mobile Film Scanner app)
Rodenstock Sironar-W @f11 210mm
https://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2358945869-5.jpg

These are extremely low resolution "scans"/photos just to get the idea of what the positive image might look like. I do not have a scanner.