Okie, you've got me on one topic which I find terribly interresting.
I've in the past used (I think) most b+w consumer films out there (and some
not-any-more out there) as well as a few less-consumer-type films. I've ended
up with Ilford Pan F as my B/W film of preference, both for medium-format and
smal-format (Olympus, Pentax and Minox - very small format). The reasons for
this has been, simply, that I've been most content with the combination of PanF
and my regular developer(s), which would be Ilford ID11 and Tetenal Ultrafin.
Thus, other than evaluating shots on different films under a magnifying glass
for grainity, the evaluation is mostly subjective. I've done some Ilford
FP4/Delta100/Delta400/PanF comparative testing, shooting the same (statically
illumminated) scene, developing each film in the same developer, timing as
reccomended.
However, this is hardly "fair", considering that the combintion of
film+developer has a large impact on the end reesult. And also, I've only
tested a few films from one venor.
With a little free time comming up - and curiousity enough to invest the time -
I was considering performing a more detailed testing. However,, I'd like the
collctive wisdom of the list to provide input to that end - in return, I'd
share my findings (I probably would anyways, but...). So:
- What would be a reccomende selection of films (BW only)?
- How would you go about developing these films?
(All in the same developer - if so, which - or...?)
- Exposue: does the film-maker always know what rating is
the "best"? How 'bout development when pushing/puling?
- Which scene(s) would you set? How to get the correct
amount of diferent shades of gray, contrasts etc?
- How would you - without a large set of professional
equipment - go about evaluating the results?
etc.
Of course, I do have ideas as to how to go about these tests. They're as of now
tentative, and I'll feed those to the list later. I just thought it woud be fun
and informative to get everybodys own "ideas" and hints first. And since I know
for sure that there are much more experienced and knowledgeable people out ther
than I, I am sure that their input will be usefull. In the end, I'll mail my
"original" ideas as well as those I'v decided upon after advice.
Any advice greatly appreciated :)
--thomas
________________ Reply Header ________________
Subject: [OM] B&W film
Author: Eric Pederson <epederso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:54:41 +0100
> From: "Sue -- actually Bill -- Pearce" <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ...
> results. I did get some Ilford FP4 at a really good price, about a year's >
> supply, and it was good, but not as good as Plus-X. In d&d Xtol, it should >
> be rated around 200, perhaps even 320 in some situations. This experience in
> > with 120 film.
Wow that's a remarkably high EI for FP4. Was this a typo or could you tell
us how you came up with that value? For normal contrast (sheet FP4+), I
use EI64 with Xtol and can't imagine how our measurements could be off by
a factor of 4x!
> Tri-X is a good film in large format, but I don't really like it in 35mm.
As you probably know, but others may not, Tri-X in 120 and sheet is a different
emulsion than the 35mm rolls which our Olympi require... I thought this
was not tru for FP4+.
Eric Pederson
epederso@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (no "n" in "epederso")
Professional home page:
http://logos.uoregon.edu/uoling/faculty/pederson/pederson.html
Personal home page:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~epederso/
< 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 >
|