Gast
Hello forum,
I’m still looking for a good, affordable medium-speed film for my Adox Sport 6x9. The lens needs to be stopped down to f/11 or f/16 – then it produces beautifully sharp negatives. I use the Sunny 16 exposure rule (tending to overexpose slightly). I use natural tripods – i.e. walls, lampposts and the like. So far I’ve had very nice results with the XP2, but I’d like finer grain, greater sharpness and to develop it myself. A49 1+1 and 1+2. Subjects: landscape, city, people.
Question – which of these two films is more suitable for my purposes? Does the T200 really offer an extra stop of light? That would be quite useful at f/11. Any other comments on this?
Regards
Christian
MirkoBoeddecker
Hello Christian,
You’re asking for a bit of a ‘jack-of-all-trades’.
A film that’s finer-grained, more sharp and more sensitive than XP 2 – that doesn’t exist, provided we stick to standard development and the same film format.
However, you can have either more sharp, more sensitive or finer-grained.
The fundamental drawback of XP2 is that you cannot develop it yourself (using black-and-white chemicals) and therefore cannot control the contrast precisely or experiment with different developers to specifically influence edge definition (sharpness), fine grain or sensitivity.
Furthermore, the brown dye formation can lead to shifts in gradation on multigrade papers (though I have never noticed this myself).
Otherwise, the XP2 or Kodak CN is already pretty close to being the ‘jack of all trades’. That was, after all, the market strategy adopted by the folks at Ilford and Kodak – a ‘people’s film’, so to speak, that performs equally well in all situations and can also be developed quite simply at a high-street chemist.
Above all, ‘real’ black-and-white photography offers you a wide range of possibilities for creative expression through all the various combinations available.
If, for example, you want sharpness, it’s best to use a single-layer film that produces both grain clustering and edge effects (e.g. efke/ADOX 100). However, this isn’t as fine-grained as a multilayer film with a flat crystal structure (such as Tmax, Delta or Fomapan 200) and is more finicky during overexposure.
So now you also have to combine it with the appropriate developer to achieve the desired result. For sharpness, for example, there’s R09/F09, Emofin or Neofin Blaue, and for fine grain (grain-preserving development) Perceptol, Ultrafin Plus etc. A49 lies somewhere in between, though with an emphasis on fine grain and maximising sensitivity.
All clear?? <_<
I’d pop the cheapest film (Classicpan 400) into the old ADOX and develop it with A49 at 1+1 dilution.
If it doesn’t have enough fine grain, next time use Classic 200 or Fomapan 200.
If that’s still not of sufficient fine grain for you, there’s always Delta 100 or TMax 100.
If the sharpness isn’t sufficient for you: Efke 25 (that’s got everything except speed :P) but then you might get camera shake at f/11....
Your question about speed: the effective speed of a film is different from the exposure latitude. Foma claims a very wide exposure latitude for its films. They say that even +/- 3 stops still deliver printable results. Let’s leave that aside for now (when developed in Fomadon LQN, that’s actually true). However, it does NOT mean that at -3, for example, full shadow detail is still present. Only that would effectively attest to the film having one or more stops more speed.
Fomapan 200: in my opinion, effectively no more than 160 depending on the developer. Nevertheless, print-worthy negatives are achievable even with over- or underexposure because the film has a strong shoulder and a gentle rise (contrast curve: light leak to negative blackening).
The Classic does not do this, which makes it better suited for working with the zone system.
Regards
Mirko
Gast
Hi Mirko,
Thank you very much for your detailed reply. However, it mostly covered things that weren’t the main focus of my question. So I suppose I didn’t ask it very clearly.
Finer grain and sharper... that’s quite simple. When I look at the differences between APX100 (bought from you in Tura packaging) and XP2 in the 35mm sector, I find the former to be with finer grain and higher sharpness. No wonder, given the effective two-stop difference (I base this on sufficient shadow detail). The XP2 is a very good film! But not the best option if 21 DIN is sufficient. Otherwise, you could discontinue the entire silver halide range and we’d only be doing C41.
Now, I could simply use the APX100 as a roll film and everything would be fine. Except – a glance at the price list shows me that it’s worth looking for alternatives. That’s what I’m doing right now. Classic400? No, thank you. As a complement to the roll film format (or rather, mainly for that), I use a Contax G1 when travelling -> with the Planar 2/45 and an APX100, there’s no reason to bother with the cumbersome folding camera and then perform an exposure on a 400-speed film. I’ve tried it with HP5 and 6x9 – you don’t achieve anything that wouldn’t be easier to achieve with a Planar on 100 film.
The advantages of the 6x9 format, in my humble opinion, start with 24x30 enlargements, when the finest details arise not from grain structures but from subject structures. That’s where the roll film negative outperforms 35mm film. Ah yes, the grey tones – all theory is grey. My definition of the attainability of tones with greater sharpness probably differs quite a bit from yours, but this topic has recently been discussed here in such an unspeakably polemical and, at times, hair-raising manner that one hardly dares to bring it up anymore. Be that as it may, as grain increases, I see fewer and fewer grey tones and more and more of a ‘digital’ image – there are clear analogies between the irregularly scattered raster of a laser printer and coarse grain. Nor does the equation ‘grain = impression of sharpness’ convince me! The viewer has to mentally block out the grain in order to perceive grey tones; this is nothing more than a mental blurring of the image.
Back to the question. It should be a medium-speed roll film. If I have the choice,
Gast
Hi Christian,
I think the Fomapan 100 + A49 (1+2) combination is brilliant in this price range (sharp, forgiving of exposure errors, great – what’s that called? – grey tones); it doesn’t quite match the Delta 100 + HRX in terms of sharpness, but it costs less. You hear a lot of good things about Fomapan 200, but usually in combination with HRX (which means: expose as if it were 80 ASA). My results so far with Fomapan 200 (exposed as 160) + Xtol aren’t (yet?) very promising (does anyone have a tip on how to get good results with it at a true 200 ASA?)
Do you really need that extra stop?
Regards
Detlef
Gast
Hi Detlef,
Well, who actually NEEDS a stop more? The only practical handheld shutter speed on my ADOX is 1/250; it doesn’t go any faster, and 1/100 works in a pinch. For longer exposures, I rest it on a table or a wall. This camera has the world’s smallest tripod: a little folding spigot that turns the body into a tripod for portrait shots. Apertures – from f/8 it makes sense, f/11 is good and f/16 is perfect. f/22 doesn’t cause any deterioration because with a 105mm triple-element lens, diffraction blur isn’t an issue. The charm lies in the fact that you get a maximum 5x linear magnification.
At some point, a folding camera with a decent Tessar or Solinar will DO come along again...
So, the scope you have to adapt to changing lighting conditions is limited. I WOULD like a wider aperture, but I’m not a professional and don’t depend on the success of the results.
I’ve just seen that Mirko is also offering the XP2-120 at a very reasonable price. And I read in the ‘Profi’ forum that the Fomas compress the highlights heavily – that ties in with what Mirko writes about these films. But after your post, I’m feeling confident about just giving the two Fomas a go in A49. And then there’s the Classic200 and the Efke R50 with completely different characteristics...
Actually, a nice selection. I’m sure I’ll find something there.
Regards
Christian
Gast
Over the weekend, I developed a FOMA T200/120 and a FOMA 400/KB (unfortunately I couldn’t get hold of any roll film, Mirko;-)) in an A49 1:1 tank for the first time, and I’m quite happy with the results. I exposed them at 200 ASA and 400 ASA respectively. Of course, satisfaction is always relative, so I can’t say whether you’d be relatively satisfied too.
But from what I can judge from the negative, it seems to produce quite nice grey tones. I haven’t got round to printing them yet, unfortunately, and hope that this proves to be the case.
By the way: I intend to use the films in my ADOX 6X6 in future. I shot the two mentioned above in a Rolleicord and a Pentax ME.
Best regards,
Franz
MirkoBoeddecker
Foma 400 rolls have been back in stock for a week now <_<
Best wishes
Mirko
