A favourable all-round film for soft and hardener.

Beef · 2008-12-01T15:32:28+00:00

Hallo Seit ca einem halben Jahr beschäftige ich wieder intensiver mit der Analogfotografie. Bisher hab ich kreuz und quer folgende Filme verwendet: Ilford...

Beef

Hello For about the last six months, I’ve been getting back into analogue photography in earnest. So far, I’ve been using a mix of the following films: Ilford FP4 Plus 125, Ilford HP5 Plus 400, Fomapan 100, Agfa APX 100 As a developer: Adox Adolux ATM49 Up until now, I’ve actually been experimenting quite a bit (development times, exposure, etc.). But now I want to stick to ONE film, create a few test series for it in terms of exposure and development, and always produce my photos according to these templates. In other words -> I don’t want to be constantly worrying and fearing that the pictures will turn out badly or be unusable. I’ve already had some sad experiences in this regard :( So, first things first: in my opinion, the Ilford films are excellent. However, as I go through a lot of film and am also a student without much money to spare, I’m considering the Fomapan 100 and the Agfa APX 100 (plus: the Fomapan comes in great 30m rolls that you can cut to size :D ) My question to you now: [color="#FF0000"]Which of the two films mentioned would you recommend? [/colo (sharpness, contrast, etc...) I also like hard (I mean really hard) images. So the film should also have a wide range of contrast... from soft to hard (depending on what I need at the time)... e.g. by pushing. I’d also appreciate any recommendations for a developer... the ATM49 hasn’t really convinced me that much :rolleyes: I think that’s largely because it’s a BALANCED (which isn’t always what I want) developer :lol: And another tip would be useful: should I make the film harder by pushing it, or simply use a harder developer with a normal development time? But bear in mind, I do want soft images sometimes too :) So, sorry about the long text. But as for the saying ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’, that’s no longer really the case for me in photography...I’m slowly running out of money :lol: Oh, and by the way: I’ve only mentioned two 100-speed films... the same applies to 400-speed ones too :) So, for example, Agfa APX 400 or Fomapan 400 :D Best regards

Gerd

In my opinion, one drawback of APX is that it won’t be available for much longer. The film is no longer being produced; what’s on sale is just remaining stock. That means you’d have to switch again soon. I can’t say anything about the developer; I just know that it’s generally praised as a decent developer. As for whether to use soft or hard development, I’d leave that to be decided afterwards using contrast-shifting paper. For 35mm, I don’t really use anything else in practice, because I rarely fill a 36-exposure roll with shots of similar contrast. If you do want to do things differently, you can experiment with the development time. If you’re having problems with development, it’s certainly not down to the films mentioned, or the developer, but because you haven’t got your development process under control. You should stick to one film, whichever it is – the 100s mentioned are all good – and always develop it identically (and, of course, always ensure correct exposure). You shouldn’t underestimate the importance of the thermometer. At the very least, it should always be the same one. But it’s best if it’s a high-quality thermometer; then the development times floating around online are very often spot on. With my bath thermometer at 20 degrees, I found a difference of a good 2 degrees compared to a better thermometer. That’s a lot, amounting to about a 20% change in development time. Since I’ve been using the new thermometer, all my films have developed perfectly. Of the 400-speed films, the APX isn’t supposed to be anything special; I’m not familiar with the Fomapan, and the HP5 is brilliant. Gerd

Beef

Hi Gerd Thanks in advance for your reply. Hmm... that’s a shame about the Agfa Klassiker... I’ve only developed one roll so far... but I was disappointed with the sharpness :) So it’s not down to the temperature... I use two thermometers designed specifically for the darkroom... and they both read the same. I’ll admit that before the last development, I noticed the developer had turned slightly milky :rolleyes: . I’ve only developed about 4–5 films in 2 litres... but it seems I’ve slowly exceeded the 6-week storage period (yes, I use dark plastic bottles and always squeeze the air out :( ) I think I’ll focus more on the Fomapan 100 and 400 from now on... if only because of the 30m rolls. Taking 36 shots every time and developing them all using the same method is starting to get on my nerves :D And after all, that one Fomapan turned out brilliant...the Ilfords didn’t even come close in terms of sharpness and image quality :) Could you perhaps still recommend a developer to me, before I end up making a bad purchase (after all, I need a new one now anyway :D )? I’d like a harder one...mine is so popular because of its balancing effect (which I usually don’t want) :lol: The liquid ones, like Rodinal, are supposed to last longer too (though this one is said to produce a lot of grain again). And as for enlarging... unfortunately, I only have fixed-grade photographic paper. I haven’t dared to buy multigrade paper yet, as I don’t have any colour filters for my enlarger (just a red one). I recently bought some colourful party lights for my enlarger just for a laugh (red, green, blue, yellow)...maybe I can achieve something with multigrade paper :lol: But even if I have a soft (or normal) negative and then perform an exposure on grade 5 paper, I often don’t get the contrast I want :) Regards Andi

Gerd

Yeah, I use dark plastic bottles and always squeeze the air out :lol: )

Plastic isn’t really that great. Have a go with apothecary bottles.

Taking 36 shots at a time and developing them all using the same method is starting to get on my nerves

Film development is boring.

Could you perhaps still recommend a developer to me, before I end up buying the wrong one (after all, I need a new one now anyway :lol: )? I’d like a harder one...mine is so popular because of its smoothing effect (which I usually don’t want) :rolleyes: The liquid ones, like Rodinal, are supposed to last longer too (though this one is said to produce a lot of grain again).

You could try pushing the film. Maybe you’ll find some information somewhere on how to develop a 100 film as if it were 400 ISO (you’d have to expose it that way too, of course). That gives you sharper negatives. To be honest, though, I’m not really sure if that’s what you want, or if we’re on the same page. Do you have a link to a picture with the look you’re after? I’ve never heard of anyone looking for a ‘hard’ developer either. If you want that proper 80s punk look, they used to copy their negatives several times on an office photocopier. With every pass, the image gets significantly harder. But if you really do only have very low subject contrast (which I don’t believe either), then the HP5 is actually quite good. It conjures up contrast everywhere. Gerd

cfb_de

Hi Andi, That tip about the pharmacy bottles is a good one. Go for ‘Aponorm’ bottles with the red screw-top cap. A one-litre bottle costs less than three euros at the chemist’s and is far better than all that plastic rubbish. The 49 is a strongly balancing developer, so not quite what you’re looking for. You’d be better off with another classic like Rodinal. You control the balancing effect via the dilution and the grain via the temperature. An HP5+ in Rodinal 1+50 at 16°C achieves grain values typical of medium format, to the point where viewers ask if it’s medium format. Which brings us to the film. I’m quite fond of the Fomapan-100 (I’ve got 30m in the cellar and about 12m left in the film loader). But I also like the HP5+. In HRX, it delivers a speed of around 250 ASA with a fine grain to start with, and in Rodinal it’s very easy to control from 400 to 3200. Either soft or hard. It’s also available by the metre. Although buying by the metre seems to be better for you anyway: just wind short rolls of film and you can develop each one exactly as you like. You’ll need to test this out beforehand, though. Best regards, Franz

Beef

Plastic isn't really the best option. Why not try using apothecary bottles?

Well, where am I supposed to get a pharmacy bottle that can actually hold 2 litres? :D I thought one of those brown ‘Hohes C’ bottles would be quite suitable... plus you can squeeze them so there’s no air left in the bottle.

Film developing is boring.

Yeah, that’s true... especially because you can’t see anything and you can only do it once :D But what I meant was that it’s very rare that I want ALL the pictures on a roll of film to be hard or soft. I could actually always overdevelop... if I want a hard image, I’d push it, and for a soft image, I’d pull it... so underexpose or suffer from overexposure when taking the shot :) but that definitely won’t work... I think it’s one or the other :)

If you want that proper 80s punk look, they used to copy their negatives several times on an office photocopier.

Nah, it’s not quite that extreme :) I’m particularly into two types of images: [color="#FF0000"]For portraits or model photos where you can play around with the light, I like this contrast: [/colo Perfect photo...Not too soft and not too harsh for me (apologies for the image content, but it’s simply the perfect picture :rolleyes: ) [color="#FF0000"]For outdoor photos or just normal everyday snaps with friends, I actually prefer harder photos: [/colo Slightly harsh Harsher Harshest In my view, the first picture (with the woman) is now soft and perfect. I don’t know how others see it... I just like it when certain details (e.g. freckles, wrinkles, etc.) disappear from the picture. But anyone who’s only worked with the ATM49 so far dreams of pictures like this :( By the way, this picture was developed with Xtol...so I’ve gone and ordered the developer now :D The last three pictures were taken with a “Technical Pan” B) The highest contrast I’ve managed to get out of my ATM49 is this photo I developed myself: [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] Although I have to admit that the background is really badly chosen :-D These days, the only pictures coming out of the ATM49 are ones where you’d think someone’d mixed chocolate into the developer :-D Even though I’ve only developed 4–5 films in it so far... and spread that across 2 litres too :) Right, now to cfb_de (I’ve only just read your reply): First off, thanks for your reply. Oh, so I can just buy those bottles at the chemist’s? Then I’ll get some of that. As for Rodinal, I was actually considering it at first... but then I read so many bad reviews that I decided to go with X-TOL instead :) Although I’d really have preferred a liquid concentrate. Actually, I read that Rodinal in particular is NOT suitable for pushing and that it produces extremely coarse grain :lol: Yes, roll film would be best for me and the Fomapan 100 has totally won me over (at least with ONE development). But then I wonder how I’m supposed to change the bits of film in the camera :lol: Can you use old cassettes for that? I reckon they won’t stay 100% light-tight. Or are there special cassettes that you can open again and again? Anyway, just generally: Sorry for this long-winded post :) Cheers Andi

cfb_de

Hi Andi, There are refillable plastic cartridges available. Here at the host site, as well as from many other suppliers. Today’s crimped cassettes really can’t be resealed properly. That said, you can remove the film from them using a film extractor. You’re then left with a small piece outside the cassette, to which you can stick the roll of film. Best regards, Franz

Beef

Hi Oh, that’s true... I’ve still got loads of unopened cassettes lying about here. With my camera, I can rewind them so that about 5 cm of film is still sticking out when I take them out. It’s always easier for me to slide it into the spiral in the dark :rolleyes: I would have taken the spindle out, stuck the film in, and tried again to somehow get the thin metal cover back on so it’s light-tight :-D but in the dark, that’s a bit of a nightmare :lol:

MirkoBoeddecker

Andi, You can gain a basic understanding of the relationship between subject contrast and the appropriate developer with any of the films mentioned. The ATM49 is a developer that consistently strives to produce finely detailed, balanced and easily reproducible negatives. In the case of the photo with the woman, for example, it would help you achieve your goal, even though I find the skin tones a bit odd there. The photo with the aeroplane would also work out that way, as it was the subject contrast (the tarmac at midday in blazing sunshine) that led to the somewhat harsher impression of the image. I can’t say exactly what went wrong with the garden photo, but I suspect the film was over-developed. That’s why the image lacks detail and, in the old-school view, would be considered a ‘failure’. If that’s exactly what you want, simply overdevelop (30% to 50%). The negatives will then be ‘lost’, though. You’ll only end up with such harsh images that are difficult to print. This works with any of the films mentioned and almost any developer. The matter of grain and sharpness is a different story. Here, it would be really interesting to compare Rodinal with ATM49. One (Rodinal) works less as a balancer and is sharply defined/grainy, the other is strictly balancing and has fine grain. It therefore doesn’t surprise me that you found the combination of APX 100 in ATM4 to be somewhat lacking in sharpness. That changes with Rodinal! If you try both developers on the same film (again, it hardly matters which of those listed above), you’ll see the difference in how they work. I also think that Rodinal might be a better fit for you than ATM49. Best regards, Mirko

MirkoBoeddecker

Gerd, We are definitely planning to continue producing the APX, but we are forced to wait to launch it until our remaining stock has been sold. With a retail price of less than €1.50 per roll (including VAT), it would be economic madness to start production. We hope that the ‘Made in Germany’ label will make us competitive against Ilford. We do not intend to compete with Foma on price. Therefore, the Fomapan is probably the best choice for Andi at the moment. Best regards, Mirko

Gerd

Beef

If that’s exactly what you want, just overdevelop (30% to 50%). The negatives will be ‘ruined’, though. You’ll only end up with those harsh images that are difficult to print.

Well, what I want is FEW grey tones... lots of deep blacks and bright whites, with only a few shades in between. But the developer should also be able to produce (if I want) more balanced (yet still sharp) images. I ordered X-TOL yesterday...if you say it’s mainly just down to under- or over-development, then it would be OK, wouldn’t it? Or would you rather recommend I change the order to Rodinal? :( Or best to get both? :lol: Sorry for all the questions, but I’m afraid I don’t know much about all the different properties of the developers...I only know ATM49. Here are a few scanned images from one of my photography books as an example: [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] [ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND] The book is quite old and you can see through the pages in places... that’s why the scans are so poor. But you can clearly see here what I mean: The strong contrasts and lack of grey gradations cause details to disappear. For me, the images have simply always been too PERFECT :lol: As if I’d taken them with a modern DSLR and was viewing them on a PC. Often, that’s not what I want, and the ATM49 didn’t give me that sort of result... except perhaps just about the third image (by the sea). But it still didn’t manage those luminous effects on the water (from the soft-focus filter)... the ATM49 has conjured the water back here as if by magic, as if you were looking at it live with the naked eye :) That’s actually brilliant , but if you want to play around with the light a lot and get creative, it just doesn’t work :rolleyes: