Great summary, Ken, thanks! This one goes in my 'archives'.
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ken N
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 10:47 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [OM] B/W film specs
>
>
> 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 >
>
< 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 >
|