I've shot a fair bit of B&W over the past two years and I've got
a few opinions regarding Ilford and Kodak films.
Ilford Pan-F: Tonal gradients that don't stop! We're talking
the smoothest gradients that run from the deepest blacks all the
way up. Grain is so fine that it is nearly impossible to use a
grain-magnifier under the enlarger to focus the enlarger with.
Only disadvantage I've found with this film is that it isn't as
dense as Kodak films so you will need to go up one grade in
paper hardness. Awesome film, incredible resolution, gradients
beyond words. ISO 50. I tend to shoot it if I'm also shooting
Velvia.
Ilford FP4: I haven't shot enough of it, but it seems to be
nearly identical to Kodak Plus-X. Fine grain (but visible),
excellent gradients, terrific contrast. Seems to work well with
grade-2 paper. Haven't personally shot enough to be comfortable
with it.
Ilford HP5: Typical 400 speed B&W film. Doesn't like TMAX
developer as it will clump the grain into strands. Tonal
gradients very similar to Tri-X, but the overall grain structure
isn't as pleasing as Tri-X. Easy to work with in the darkroom.
Ilford is running a special where they sell packages of 8x10
paper and include two rolls of HP5. The paper is slightly
cheaper than their normal packages and you get two rolls of free
film. This was keeping me stocked with B&W film, but I
personally do not like the grainy film. Good resolution.
Kodak Tri-X: Since we're talking 400 speed films, Tri-X is the
KING of B&W films. There will never be a better all-around
film. Grain structure is legendary. Tonal gradients seem to be
ideal for people photography and gives skin tones a glow not
present in any other film--even HP5 and Neopan 400. There are
probably more soup combinations for Tri-X than any other film.
You can, with the right chemicals, shoot this film at ISO 6400
and still get usable results or pull process down below ISO 100.
Grain doesn't clump, strand, or turn into paisley patterns like
other films will. Wonderful film. I'd shoot 100% Tri-X if the
grain was smaller.
Kodak TMAX 400: I've mostly shot this film in medium format as
the grain is a bit obnoxious (visible and indescribable
strangeness) in 35mm. In medium format it holds together well
enough to get excellent prints with in softer lighting. I do
not care for TMAX 400 when the scene has harsh lighting as the
highlights are a bear to work with. This is not a film you can
overexpose as the highlights block up on you in a most
aggressive manner. Decent gradients, tighter grain, but not
Tri-X. Good, subtle, shadow detail.
Kodak T400CN: No grain! Excellent highs and lows, but no
gradients inbetween. Resolution is variable depending on
density. High values (highlights) tend to be exceptionally
sharp (as sharp as Ilford Pan-F), but the shadows are MUDDY! I
thought I really liked this film and I praised it highly on this
list. That was with limited darkroom time with it. I have
since, completely halted using it or any other C-41 processed
B&W film. The base is too dark to work with making darkroom
work a chore. I've had to up the paper-grade to 4 just to get
solid contrasts out of the film. Gradients are similar to that
of a duotone. Not a smooth film. If you get good skin tones,
the rest of the print turns to mush. But, this film is
essentially grainless! If you can figure out the contrasts and
gradients, this would be a good film. Meanwhile, I have a
couple hundred pictures to figure out.
Kodak Plus-X: This is the Tri-X of ISO 125 speed. What more
can I say? Grain is small and relatively well behaved.
Negatives are dense and contrasty. Terrific gradients and skin
tones. My only problem with Plus-X is the grain is quite
aggressive for the speed and appears to be a bit 'edgy'.
Kodak TMAX 100: Terrific grain and resolution. Resolution
probably is the same as Ilford Pan-F, but with a different grain
pattern. I would rate TMX better than the Ilford Pan-F in skin
tones (must be the way Kodak engineers their film) and is twice
as fast. Grain pattern is 'edgy' (that word again) in
comparision to Pan-F and I'm not sure how it would respond to a
real Unsharp Mask being used in an enlarger. Tonal curves have
always thrown me on TMX, but I've learned much more about
development options with TMX that makes me want to spend some
serious time with it. Negative density is higher than Pan-F so
a slightly softer paper grade can be used. My problem with TMX
(and TMY) has been blocking up of the highlights. Although,
less prone with TMX (100) than TMY (400) it is still present.
According to Kodak, TMAX films are highly contrast controllable
in development with just time adjustment.
Overall, I absolutely love Ilford Pan-F, but it pushes your
lenses and is so fine grained and high resolutioned as to reveal
flaws in your lenses. This is an incredible film, but does
require a harder paper grade which reveals emulsion flaws. You
will use a lot of nose grease with this film.
Going back through my negatives and doing some reprinting this
week has shown me that the best overall film for me--at this
time, is TMAX 100. The sharpness, speed, tonal smoothness,
contrast, grain structure and color response seem to match my
vision the best. (only if Tri-X was grainless) This film is
about the easiest to work with in the darkroom too. Except for
the highlights, but we're working on that...
Note: This is with silver-nosed lenses. Your results may vary.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone.
http://phone.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|