Re: [Leica] B&W Film

[Christer Almqvist <chris@almqvist.net>]

FWIW here is my experience from testing  most films on the market in half a
dozen developers:

1. low speed films: Tech Pan, APX 25 and Ilford Pan F do not offer enough
advantage (fine grain sharpness etc) compared to Delta 100 to offset the
disadvantage of low film speed. Fine grain does not always equal sharp
pictures if that is what you are after. Low speed films are sometimes
difficult to get and need special developers.

2. medium speed films: I found that Delta 100 developed in Xtol 1+1 for 10%
longer than Kodak recommend gives the best result. I usually expose at 200
and again increase Kodak's recommendations by 10%. I am aware that some
people find Ilford's FP4 has better rendition of shadows, which may be
marginally true, but I think the disadvantage of larger grain and less
sharpness can not be ignored. I always use an orange filter if I do
landscapes, it reduces film speed by a factor of 1 and gives terrific cloud
effects without exaggerating.

3. high speed films: If you shoot Delta 100 at 200 it is pointless to use a
400 film at 400. It is better to risk a bit of camera shake or to have a
smaller DOF and get the fineness of Delta 100 film. My high speed film
favourites are Delta 400 and Tri-X both exposed at 800 (Tri-X often at
1600), but comparing them is not that easy, they are too different. I would
use Delta 400 to make an interior photo with low, even light, but I would
use Tri-X to take photos in a bar (or to take the photos Simon discribed a
few days ago with lots of uneven light in the background). Again, I use
Xtol 1+1 as developer.

4. super high speed films: I use Delta 3200 and Tri-X, both at 1600 but
with Delta sometimes at 3200. Again the films are difficult to compare.
Delta seems to give you the possibility to take photos in lower light, but
the prints do not convey the low light situaton like Tri-X. Sometimes you
want this and sometimes you do not. Developer is Xtol 1+1.

Having recently purchased a second body; one of the next few days I shall
go out and make some low light photography with Tri-X in one body and Delta
3200 in the other, shooting the same scence with both films at (almost) the
same time and then comparing the prints. (I never compare negatives, the
proof of the pudding is in the eating.) I will post the results.

I hope that Tri-X will win. That way I can limit my usage to two films
only; Delta 100 and Tri-X; the latter shot at 400, 800, 1600 or even 3200
as required.

Still, I shall continue with various otherexperiments. Next on the list are
ortochromatic films from eastern Europe, one of them being a lith film
requiring special low contrast developer.

Regards

>I used lots of D400 at one and souped it in various concontions (Rodinal,
>Ilford Plus, Kodak HC-110B, and finally XTOL).  It is certainly a fine
>grained film compared to Tri-X.  Other than its fine grain attribute, I
>found that it is just another fine grain film which lacked the kind of
>personality and chracteristics that I like in B^W films.
>
>I eventually found it in Ilford HP5+ when souped in XTOL.  The grain may be
>more obvious when you loked for it but the "smooth roundness"
>chracteristics of the HP5+ grain is hard to beat.  It sorts of grows on you
>the more you looked at it.
>
>Dan K.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>      'It seems easier for one poor father to provide for five children, than
> for five rich children to provide for one poor father' - A Dutch proverb.
>============================================================================
>


- --
christer almqvist
eichenstrasse 57, d-20255 hamburg, fon +49-40-407111 fax +49-40-4908440
14 rue de la hauteur, f-50590 regnéville-sur-mer, fon+fax +33-233 45 35 58