Post your B&W Film shots

tuco · 01-05-2021, 03:41 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Huss

I never had issues with Fomopan 100. This was rated at 400 i.e. pushed 2 stops, using DF96 Monobath.
Leica M3 w Summicron 40mm f2

Looks good. I don't understand when people say some film is problematic without talking about the developer used. BW film and developer go hand-in-hand to produce the final results. A film like 320TXP developed in Rodinal, for example, is much different film than when developed in D-76.

**TwoUptons** · 01-05-2021, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Looks good. I don't understand when people say some film is problematic without talking about the developer used. BW film and developer go hand-in-hand to produce the final results. A film like 320TXP developed in Rodinal, for example, is much different film than when developed in D-76.

I agree 100%.

I’ve used commercial labs for probably 95% of my black and white film work in the past decade or so, so I’m constrained by their results.

Neopan? Beautiful ( haven’t tried the new batch). Tri-x? Awesome. TMax? great.

HP5? Contrasty, grainy mess. Fomapan? Worse than the HP5, despite being two stops slower...

So until I work out a developing scheme at home, I’m stuck... back in the day, it was TMax in TMax with multi contrast paper... what couldn’t I do?

We were going to have a local rental darkroom open up before COVID messed up everything... sigh...

-Eric

g026r · 01-05-2021, 09:33 PM - **10 Likes**

I'm amazed I got any frames at all off this roll. Not only did I open the back on the film, I later went and did it a second time.

Pentax Super Program.
Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f1.4.
Kodak Plus-X Pan.

Huss · 01-05-2021, 10:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by TwoUptons

So until I work out a developing scheme at home, I’m stuck...

Due to Covid I started developing my own using Cinestill DF96 Monobath.
One liquid - reusable 16+ times - does it all.
Super easy with excellent results.

I load the dev tank in a closet at night. Then do the rest in my bathroom which entails in pouring in the DF96, then pouring it out (and back into the bottle from whence it came), washing/fixing the film with tap water, then hanging to dry.

The B&W images I've posted on this site are all processed with it.

Jonathan Mac · 01-06-2021, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by officiousbystander

Mamiya M645 1000s, 80mm f2.8 C, Fomapan 120 100, Ilfotec LC29, Epson V550. Cheap film with good results. I suspect larger formats are more forgiving of this film.

Originally posted by TwoUptons

I shot some Fomapan 100 in 35mm about 8 years ago, and it looked like overdeveloped Tri-X.
I wasn’t a fan...

But a bigger negative would have helped a lot...

-Eric

I've shot Fomapan 100 and found it to produce very nice images with good tones and contrast. The first problem with Foma films is that they are generally rated around 2/3 of a stop faster than they really are, so the 100 is closer to 64 or maybe 80. The second problem is that the negatives are very, very curly, making them difficult to scan and impacting on the sharpness.

tuco · 01-06-2021, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

.. The first problem with Foma films is that they are generally rated around 2/3 of a stop faster than they really are, so the 100 is closer to 64 or maybe 80.

I haven't tried Foma but is the film base like RR 80S and RPX 25 which also is really curly?

I find it is not easy to consistently develop my film to 1/3-stop of precision. So I'm curious how people ascertain 1/3 stop film speed ratings when they don't measure the density of their BW negatives. Printing on a fixed grade 2 or 3 paper is one feedback method but most people are scanning these days I think.

g026r · 01-06-2021, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by tuco

I find it is not easy to consistently develop my film to 1/3-stop of precision. So I'm curious how people ascertain 1/3 stop film speed ratings when they don't measure the density of their BW negatives.

I don't have them handy at the moment, but with Foma it's generally been via the response curves in their published spec sheets.

Swift1 · 01-06-2021, 01:42 PM - **6 Likes**

From November 2012... lab đeveloped in Clayton F-76 IIRC.

Pentax MZ-L
SMC Pentax-FA 43/1.9 Ltd.
Ilford FP4 Plus
Epson V750

tuco · 01-06-2021, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by g026r

I don't have them handy at the moment, but with Foma it's generally been via the response curves in their published spec sheets.

Okay, you mean the published characteristic curve of the film for a specific developer?

I use the zone system's method to find the speed of my exposure/developer/agitation profile/film combo. In a nutshell, you place a grey card at zone 1, bracket your ISO, develop and find the negative that measures closest to 0.10 density above the base + fog density. If it is 1/3 stop off box speed, I don't even bother and call it box speed. I'd need to do the test multiple times and find the average really.

The leaf shutter lenses I own have rather large shutter speed variations in some of their shutter speeds. So getting down to 1/3 stop accuracy without performing a speed test on each lens and shutter speed I have is way more work than I want to do. I have a local repair shop that gets a lot of my business. He performs a shutter speed test on my leaf shutter lenses when I send them in for a CLA and, man, some speeds are off by a lot.

g026r · 01-06-2021, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Okay, you mean the published characteristic curve of the film for a specific developer?

Yes. Correct.

tuco · 01-06-2021, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by g026r

Yes. Correct.

Good deal. What densitometer do you have?

stevebrot · 01-06-2021, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by tuco

I haven't tried Foma but is the film base like RR 80S and RPX 25 which also is really curly?

RR 80s lays flat for 35mm. I have some in 120 that I need to shoot. Thanks for the head's up.

Steve

tuco · 01-06-2021, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

RR 80s lays flat for 35mm. I have some in 120 that I need to shoot. Thanks for the head's up.

Steve

PF member Kris posted a picture back in Sept of the curl in his roll of RPX 25 in 120 roll. The curl on my RPX 25 is like that too but I have noticed after a year or so stored in archive sleeves it is a little more manageable. If you can overcome the curl, the film does produce a unique look with metallic things I think.

g026r · 01-06-2021, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by tuco

Good deal. What densitometer do you have?

I don't have one. And, before you ask, I have never measured Foma & therefore can't saying about the accuracy of the published curves.

nickthetasmaniac · 01-07-2021, 04:55 PM - **4 Likes**

Native Grassland | Township Lagoon Conservation Area

Rolleiflex 2.8D Planar and Pancro400

---------- Post added 01-08-21 at 10:57 AM ----------

Originally posted by TwoUptons

I agree 100%.

I’ve used commercial labs for probably 95% of my black and white film work in the past decade or so, so I’m constrained by their results.

Neopan? Beautiful ( haven’t tried the new batch). Tri-x? Awesome. TMax? great.

HP5? Contrasty, grainy mess. Fomapan? Worse than the HP5, despite being two stops slower...

That's very interesting (and I guess makes Tuco's point). I also rely on commercial labs, and in my experience Tri-X and HP5+ have similar grain, but both Tri-X and Tmax have FAR more contrast than HP5+, which tends towards a million shades of grey without the use of colour filters.

01-05-2021, 09:33 PM - 10 Likes	#9723
g026r Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,074	I'm amazed I got any frames at all off this roll. Not only did I open the back on the film, I later went and did it a second time. Pentax Super Program. Nikkor-S Auto 50mm f1.4. Kodak Plus-X Pan. Last edited by g026r; 01-06-2021 at 07:04 PM.

01-06-2021, 12:18 PM	#9726
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac .. The first problem with Foma films is that they are generally rated around 2/3 of a stop faster than they really are, so the 100 is closer to 64 or maybe 80. I haven't tried Foma but is the film base like RR 80S and RPX 25 which also is really curly? I find it is not easy to consistently develop my film to 1/3-stop of precision. So I'm curious how people ascertain 1/3 stop film speed ratings when they don't measure the density of their BW negatives. Printing on a fixed grade 2 or 3 paper is one feedback method but most people are scanning these days I think. Last edited by tuco; 01-06-2021 at 12:32 PM. Reason: SP

01-06-2021, 02:19 PM	#9729
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by g026r I don't have them handy at the moment, but with Foma it's generally been via the response curves in their published spec sheets. Okay, you mean the published characteristic curve of the film for a specific developer? I use the zone system's method to find the speed of my exposure/developer/agitation profile/film combo. In a nutshell, you place a grey card at zone 1, bracket your ISO, develop and find the negative that measures closest to 0.10 density above the base + fog density. If it is 1/3 stop off box speed, I don't even bother and call it box speed. I'd need to do the test multiple times and find the average really. The leaf shutter lenses I own have rather large shutter speed variations in some of their shutter speeds. So getting down to 1/3 stop accuracy without performing a speed test on each lens and shutter speed I have is way more work than I want to do. I have a local repair shop that gets a lot of my business. He performs a shutter speed test on my leaf shutter lenses when I send them in for a CLA and, man, some speeds are off by a lot. Last edited by tuco; 01-06-2021 at 02:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
58mm Lens Club - Bring your Biotar, your Helios, your Tak 58mm... bring 'em all!	pepperberry farm	Lens Clubs	310	04-14-2024 06:43 AM
Post-Processing The Film Emulation Challenge - Post your Digital Pictures with that Film look	ChristianRock	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	22	07-14-2023 10:20 AM
I'd Print and Hang This - Your Best Film Shots	Eyewanders	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	102	01-09-2020 01:36 PM
Old tech shootout: your MX-1 vs your phone. Is your MX-1 still holding it's own?	MD Optofonik	Pentax Compact Cameras	7	05-16-2019 07:40 PM
Photo Story Time documents: Show me your genre study, your reportage, your photo story... etc.	christophleipzig	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	11	10-15-2011 06:26 AM

01-05-2021, 03:41 PM - 1 Like	#9721
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by Huss I never had issues with Fomopan 100. This was rated at 400 i.e. pushed 2 stops, using DF96 Monobath. Leica M3 w Summicron 40mm f2 Looks good. I don't understand when people say some film is problematic without talking about the developer used. BW film and developer go hand-in-hand to produce the final results. A film like 320TXP developed in Rodinal, for example, is much different film than when developed in D-76.

01-05-2021, 06:40 PM	#9722
TwoUptons Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,223	Originally posted by tuco Looks good. I don't understand when people say some film is problematic without talking about the developer used. BW film and developer go hand-in-hand to produce the final results. A film like 320TXP developed in Rodinal, for example, is much different film than when developed in D-76. I agree 100%. I’ve used commercial labs for probably 95% of my black and white film work in the past decade or so, so I’m constrained by their results. Neopan? Beautiful ( haven’t tried the new batch). Tri-x? Awesome. TMax? great. HP5? Contrasty, grainy mess. Fomapan? Worse than the HP5, despite being two stops slower... So until I work out a developing scheme at home, I’m stuck... back in the day, it was TMax in TMax with multi contrast paper... what couldn’t I do? We were going to have a local rental darkroom open up before COVID messed up everything... sigh... -Eric

01-05-2021, 10:03 PM - 1 Like	#9724
Huss Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2020 Posts: 629	Originally posted by TwoUptons So until I work out a developing scheme at home, I’m stuck... Due to Covid I started developing my own using Cinestill DF96 Monobath. One liquid - reusable 16+ times - does it all. Super easy with excellent results. I load the dev tank in a closet at night. Then do the rest in my bathroom which entails in pouring in the DF96, then pouring it out (and back into the bottle from whence it came), washing/fixing the film with tap water, then hanging to dry. The B&W images I've posted on this site are all processed with it.

01-06-2021, 06:39 AM	#9725
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,904	Originally posted by officiousbystander Mamiya M645 1000s, 80mm f2.8 C, Fomapan 120 100, Ilfotec LC29, Epson V550. Cheap film with good results. I suspect larger formats are more forgiving of this film. Originally posted by TwoUptons I shot some Fomapan 100 in 35mm about 8 years ago, and it looked like overdeveloped Tri-X. I wasn’t a fan... But a bigger negative would have helped a lot... -Eric I've shot Fomapan 100 and found it to produce very nice images with good tones and contrast. The first problem with Foma films is that they are generally rated around 2/3 of a stop faster than they really are, so the 100 is closer to 64 or maybe 80. The second problem is that the negatives are very, very curly, making them difficult to scan and impacting on the sharpness.

01-06-2021, 01:32 PM	#9727
g026r Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,074	Originally posted by tuco I find it is not easy to consistently develop my film to 1/3-stop of precision. So I'm curious how people ascertain 1/3 stop film speed ratings when they don't measure the density of their BW negatives. I don't have them handy at the moment, but with Foma it's generally been via the response curves in their published spec sheets.

01-06-2021, 01:42 PM - 6 Likes	#9728
Swift1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Oregon Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,079	From November 2012... lab đeveloped in Clayton F-76 IIRC. Pentax MZ-L SMC Pentax-FA 43/1.9 Ltd. Ilford FP4 Plus Epson V750

01-06-2021, 02:44 PM	#9730
g026r Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,074	Originally posted by tuco Okay, you mean the published characteristic curve of the film for a specific developer? Yes. Correct.

01-06-2021, 02:51 PM	#9731
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by g026r Yes. Correct. Good deal. What densitometer do you have?

01-06-2021, 04:58 PM	#9732
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by tuco I haven't tried Foma but is the film base like RR 80S and RPX 25 which also is really curly? RR 80s lays flat for 35mm. I have some in 120 that I need to shoot. Thanks for the head's up. Steve

01-06-2021, 05:24 PM	#9733
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,029	Originally posted by stevebrot RR 80s lays flat for 35mm. I have some in 120 that I need to shoot. Thanks for the head's up. Steve PF member Kris posted a picture back in Sept of the curl in his roll of RPX 25 in 120 roll. The curl on my RPX 25 is like that too but I have noticed after a year or so stored in archive sleeves it is a little more manageable. If you can overcome the curl, the film does produce a unique look with metallic things I think.

01-06-2021, 07:05 PM	#9734
g026r Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,074	Originally posted by tuco Good deal. What densitometer do you have? I don't have one. And, before you ask, I have never measured Foma & therefore can't saying about the accuracy of the published curves.

01-07-2021, 04:55 PM - 4 Likes	#9735
nickthetasmaniac Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 2,361	Native Grassland \| Township Lagoon Conservation Area Rolleiflex 2.8D Planar and Pancro400 ---------- Post added 01-08-21 at 10:57 AM ---------- Originally posted by TwoUptons I agree 100%. I’ve used commercial labs for probably 95% of my black and white film work in the past decade or so, so I’m constrained by their results. Neopan? Beautiful ( haven’t tried the new batch). Tri-x? Awesome. TMax? great. HP5? Contrasty, grainy mess. Fomapan? Worse than the HP5, despite being two stops slower... That's very interesting (and I guess makes Tuco's point). I also rely on commercial labs, and in my experience Tri-X and HP5+ have similar grain, but both Tri-X and Tmax have FAR more contrast than HP5+, which tends towards a million shades of grey without the use of colour filters.