And I concur with Simon. After bouncing around, trying all sorts of
different B&W films, I've settled on Delta 100 and Tri-X. I didn't have
much luck with Tmax films, XP2, or any of the Agfas (except I do like APX
25). In consistent light, I find that the tonality and resolution of Delta
100 is outstanding--in 120 format, I recently switched from FP4+, which is a
super film as well, and the results are outstanding. For more marginal
light or in more varied (often indoor) situation, the latitude of Tri-X is
hard to beat.
The thing that I found makes a big difference is the developer. About 6
months ago, I standardised on Xtol 1:1 and have been happy ever since.
While it took me a while to figure out how to use Xtol--use plenty of stock
and dilute with distilled water, I think it was worth the struggle.
As a side note: I've also begun to look for different things in a B&W film.
It used to be that I was worried about grain and would shoot Pan F or APX25
to get me ultrafine grain. But I've now decided that my biggest concern is
with tonality, accutance (meaning I want some grain), and what I've heard
referred to as micro-contrast or micro-detail (for which Tri-x is known).
Consequently, I'm printing smaller images. I used to feel that prized
negative demand big prints. Having been to a few recent exhibitions (one by
Lee Miller in particular), I've started to rethink magnification. For 35mm
I seldom go larger than 6x9 or 8x12. For 21/4 sq, I like to print at 7 or
10 inches. I just did a whole series of tiny 31/2x31/2 or 31/2x4 inch
images for my sisters wedding that are really pleasing (if I do say so
myself). My point is that often the standard demands that people talk
about in choosing and evaluating a film are not always relevant to our
individual needs. More and more I'm using Tri-x to ensure that I've get
sufficient shadow detail and that I've using my prized lenses at the
sharpest apertures (5.6-11).
Glen
-----Original Message-----
From: sje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <sje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 7, 2000 6:10 AM
Subject: RE: [OM] Black & White films
>I will concur with most of Brian's post of this subject. I tried Tmax films
>and didn't feel comfortable, and reverted to Ilford's traditional
emulsions.
>I think the Delta films are more like their older siblings than Tmax films
>are in relation to Tri-X and Plus-X. I am trying out different developers,
>but haven't used Xtol yet. I like ID-11 very much, but mixing up the
powders
>is a chore. DD-X works well with Delta3200 and is Ilford's recommended
>allround liquid developer, but it is quite expensive.
>
>I've used Ilford XP2, and find the dye films to have less prominent
>sharpness, but the dye structure means they show much finer grain than most
>400asa films. Great for portraits and general shooting. I don't know if
they
>would scan any better than the traditional type.
>
>As for Tech Pan, it's a high contrast film, which requires effort to get
the
>best from it. My chosen alternative is Agfa APX25 - almost as good, and
>rumoured to be marginally finer than Pan F.
>
>As in colour, there is no substitute for trying things out yourself.
>
>Simon E.
>
>
>< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
>< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
>< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|