If you could only...........
- Thread starter Barney
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
FP4 Plus. No second choices as everything I photograph is covered by it.
Some strange people like to use colour film, or photograph events in low lighting conditions without flash, but they are irrelevant to my choice.
I hardly think that this makes my film the best choice and best for everything. Like cameras, there's no such thing as best film for everything.
Some strange people like to use colour film, or photograph events in low lighting conditions without flash, but they are irrelevant to my choice.
I hardly think that this makes my film the best choice and best for everything. Like cameras, there's no such thing as best film for everything.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
I have got to try that film!
Does it cover 90% of situations in daylight Photography?
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That depends on your definition of a situation.
I wouldn't use it for winter sports outdoors in England - too slow. I don't photograph winter sports in England.
I wouldn't use it for candids in nightclubs or indoor events - too slow. I don't photograph in nightclubs or indoor events.
I wouldn't use it for theatre photography- too slow. I don't do theatre photography.
I wouldn't use it for colour photography - it's black and white, and making colour images from it isn't worth the effort when colour films are available.
I wouldn't use it in 35mm size for anything - too fast or too slow and too grainy.
I could go on, but by now you should understand that what I photograph may differ from your subjects, and possibly the cameras I use may differ from yours in negative size.
There is no best film in absolute terms.
I wouldn't use it for winter sports outdoors in England - too slow. I don't photograph winter sports in England.
I wouldn't use it for candids in nightclubs or indoor events - too slow. I don't photograph in nightclubs or indoor events.
I wouldn't use it for theatre photography- too slow. I don't do theatre photography.
I wouldn't use it for colour photography - it's black and white, and making colour images from it isn't worth the effort when colour films are available.
I wouldn't use it in 35mm size for anything - too fast or too slow and too grainy.
I could go on, but by now you should understand that what I photograph may differ from your subjects, and possibly the cameras I use may differ from yours in negative size.
There is no best film in absolute terms.
Last edited:
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
I love your dry wit Stephen, pure gold!
Is there any film that is not grainy in 35mm?
LeeRatters
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,354
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
All films are grainy if you enlarge them enough. It's the grain that creates the image, after all. The limiting factor is the degree of enlargement. As a good approximation, film speed depends on the volume of the grain (it isn't grain till it's developed, but we aren't splitting hairs) and visible grain on the cross section area. So, go from Pan F (50 ISO) to HP4 (400 ISO) and the grain size doubles.
If you want really, really fine grain, you need a slow film. CHS 20 at 20 ISO, fierce contrast unless you develop abnormally. Or the old discontinued Tech Pan from Kodak. The Kodak black and white data guide (probably long gone) has excellent illustrations from 20 inch prints from all their then current Black and white films. Fascinating reading and viewing.
If you aren't going to prints above say half plate, or you don't mind grain, no problem. I hate grain, so I avoid it by the obvious route - use a format size that won't show grain at my print sizes (say up to 20x16)
The last film I actively used before switching to digital was XP2. I miss it. I preferred it to FP4.
I started doing a bit of film last year and I use HP5.
If I had to have just one then HP5 covers the bases *for me*. It's good enough at its base ISO and very flexible and forgiving. And I'd be happy pushing it to ISO1600 on a regular basis.
If I was allowed two films - then XP2 would be the additional choice. I'd use that for finer stuff.
Kevin Allan
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,823
- Name
- Kevin
- Edit My Images
- No
Adox HR-50 is practically grain-free. I mean there must be some grain but you won't see it unless you enlarge it more than I have done. Here's some examples:
Adox recommend a particular developer, Adox HR-DEV, to minimise the contrast of the film. It is a fine developer but I have also found that HC110 Dilution H (1+63) also does the job very well.
Ilford PAN-F can probably make equal claims to fine grain, but HR-50 has an advantage that it can also be used for infra-red images, which is what I use it for mainly.
As I stated in another thread, 95% of my film photography (not counting paper negatives, because they are not film images) is with either FP4+ or HP5+
I don't use HP5+ in 35mm as I find it a bit grainy in that format. In medium and large format, the grain isn't an issue. When using those formats, I'll use FP4+ if the lighting will allow a lower ISO. If I need ISO400 or above, I'll use HP5+ and happily push it up to EI 800 or 1600 if necessary. So those two films cover me between EI 125 and EI 1600.
If I had to choose just one of the two, I'd probably choose HP5+ ; but I can't see why I would have to choose.
I do however choose just one developer, and develop all film types in HC110.
myotis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,503
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Exposure and development, as well as film choice affects grain. If you overexpose or overdevelop, you will get more grain. Getting a handle on consistent exosure and development is important before thinking too much about grain.
As a generalisation films around about ISO 100/125 are "general" purpose films.
My experience is that most photographers stick with doing most of their photographs with something like FP4. Really getting to know it, both in terms of exposure and development. With an occasional foray into a different film or developer as an experiment, or for a specific purpose.
We used to do weddings on Tri-X developed in HC110, but nearly all my industrial photography, and my hobby landscape photography was on FP4 developed in D76. Occasionally, other films/developers were used, just to try them out, or because we knew we would need a film/developer. combination with particular characteristics. I also used a fair bit of Pan F and Panatomic X for landscape, but these were less forgiving in terms of exposure and development, making them trickier to use.
The problem with making grain assessments between films is that it may take you several attempts with a new film before you get the exposure/development "just right" so you can make a fair comparison with your existing everyday film.
Exposure is easy, because you can just bracket exposure while testing the film, but the effects of development times and developer means you need to run through multiple rolls of film, before deciding whether a new film will offer any advantage over the one you are already using.
As an example StephenM, mentioned Kodak Technical Pan which is a film I spent a fair bit of time with, as it promised to make 35mm usable for landscape ( I was never happy with the quality of 35mm for landscape, regardless of film choice).
I found it to be very fussy with exposure and development, with the tiniest bit of overexposure dramatically increasing the grain size. When you got it right, (negatives on the cusp of being underexposed), it was superb for low grain and detail.
BUT, the lenses and shutter speeds of the day (at least on 35mm cameras) didn't allow adjustments in anything finer than half-stops, and an overexposure of less than half a stop, and less than very precise development could increase grain to a level where it was bigger than I was routinely getting with FP4. For me, it was just too difficult to get consistent results, and I went back to using FP4.
I think there are great benefits, particularly when learning, in getting to know a single film/developer combination until you are confident you are getting the very best out of it, before exploring alternatives.
I also think that it's worthwhile starting with a proven combination, ie FP4 and HC110 or D76, so while it may be boring, it should remove a variable that is going to confound all the other things you are trying to learn, e.g. exposure.
Sorry, I have gone off on a bit of a tangent here :-(
- Messages
- 49,339
- Name
- Nod (UK)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
IF I went back to film, it would be to Velvia for colour (probably 100) and XP2 for B&W, although the colour slides could be scanned and converted easily enough. No space for a darkroom.
Reasoning being that I love the colours from Velvia (most of my shots are landscapes rather than of people) and XP2 takes pushing quite well when needed as well as being fine grained.
Reasoning being that I love the colours from Velvia (most of my shots are landscapes rather than of people) and XP2 takes pushing quite well when needed as well as being fine grained.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
If I am honest Graham, that was my intention when I started taking film photographs again in 35mm, stick to one film and one developer, my original selection was HP5 and Diafine, then I found out Diafine want made anymore so chose Bellini Euro in a kit form, before you know it I started to see the wonderful images here with MF cameras and bought a few of those and then my natural Saggitarian tendencies kicked in and I was picking this that and the other film and developing combo, film x for this scene film y for that etc etc. I have got it bad....
I am now waiting of the rest of my chemicals to arrive and am eager to make and try out D23, FX55 and an old Windich developer which is a kind of a pyro staining developer reported to handle a huge contrast range.......at the moment it all seems pointless when principally I am only downgrading images for internet viewing, but I am hopeful that when I start printing next year the different combinations will give the developers the opportunity to shine.
myotis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,503
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
In return, to be frank, I think you need to try harder at being disciplined about this.
You are obviously very keen to learn and improve, but you are also probably making it really hard on yourself by flipping between different cameras, film, digital, chemicals, methodologies, etc.
Part of the problem, is that until you have a good baseline to compare film and developers against, and you are competent at getting the exposure right (or "right" enough), you are wasting time and money on trying out multiple film types and developers.
And, you aren't really learning very much because you are juggling so many variables that it's going to be easy to draw incorrect conclusions.
As an aside, I don't know how much these would cost, but the Ansel Adams trilogy are well worth studying. I assume you can still get hold of them new or s/h. his was a three volume set The Camera, The Negative and The Print.
Note there were three editions of these. All are worth reading, but the third edition is the simplist to read. Even though I thought they were a bit dumbed down compared to the second edition.
Those books completely changed the way I thought about photography, and one of my prized possessions is a copy of the 2nd edition of The Camera, which Ansel Adams signed when I briefly met him in Edinburgh at a conference, and had a quick (very quick) chat about photographing cobbled streets and using Hasselblads. I was in my early twenties at the time.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks for your stoic advice Graham, deep down I know your right, but I am sixty odd and enjoying myself, goodness knows whats round the corner, and thinking I should have tried this or should have tried that is one of the most regrettable feelings I could imagine.
Thanks for the book recommendations! I will be digging those out and having a read.
Thanks for the book recommendations! I will be digging those out and having a read.
myotis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,503
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
At the end of the day, enjoying yourself is the important bit.
But in terms of not knowing what is around the corner (I will be 70 next year) you might also be delaying the day when you can go out and focus on making photographs that reflect what you want to produce, rather than struggling with the tools and techniques.
It all depends what you want to get out of your interest in photography. And I struggle with my own demons, when it comes to that questiion.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,769
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
For me, in a miniature format like 645 or 35mm film grain will always suck, so I'd rather make it a feature/effect than try to pretend it wasn't intrusive. I'd choose HP5 because it's lumpy but looks nice in a filmy kind of way.
Last edited:
swanseamale47
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,876
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dont shoot film now, but if I only had one choice? HP5, I've shot so much of that I' know it'll do what I need
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
That's an easy one for me Graham, pleasure.
My interest is a hobby, i don't have any lofty ambitions or ideas of producing world class images or becoming professional or anything like that, there are tens of thousands better photographers than me who cant even do that.
I like going out taking a picture of a sunrise or gorgeous flower, a crooked door or flakey paint- anything has its own mysterious beauty, chatting to people when out with my camera, planning a day out where there might be the chance of a nice interesting photo, looking at photo gear, reading about photography at bedtime , films, chemistry how to make it, I enjoy developing as much as taking the photo, messing about with test tubes timers and chemicals - its like being a kid again getting your chemistry set for Christmas, chatting to folk on here, and just trying to get better is a pleasure in its own right when that one little thing clicks. I have loads of excuses for being rubbish at it, I would hate to know everything and still not be able to take a good picture, that would be so sad.
Another vote for HP5+. I use it quite a bit, and find that developed with DD-X it is quite fine grained even up to ISO 1600 if properly exposed. Now, these things are quite personal, and my idea of acceptably fine grained might not find favour with everyone.
So, my desert island luxury would be a lifetime supply of HP5+ and DD-X.
So, my desert island luxury would be a lifetime supply of HP5+ and DD-X.
Mostly Vintage Cameras
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 773
- Edit My Images
- No
I guess Porta 400 but oddly I don't currently use it often.
Maybe one of the new AHU Visteon 3 films but I haven't tried one of those yet, the current Remjet versions are just a bit too faffy for being the only option.
Totally understand people wanting XP2 however, a much underrated film.
Maybe one of the new AHU Visteon 3 films but I haven't tried one of those yet, the current Remjet versions are just a bit too faffy for being the only option.
Totally understand people wanting XP2 however, a much underrated film.
myotis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,503
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
I had taken that for granted
I wasn't thinking in these terms
Your enthusiasm for everything certainly comes across
Here is my ramble on this
Beginning at the end "...still not be able to take a good picture..." and "mysterious beauty" near the beginning, for me are the most important things you mentioned.
Everything in between is a means to the end. Important, necessary, and enjoyable, but still a means to an end.
I think it's all too easy to get trapped inside the messing about with chemicals and cameras bit (because it's the easy part; I've been there) and not get to the difficult bit of working out how to apply your technical expertise to reveal the "mysterious beauty" you are seeing, captured in a "good picture". It doesn't actually need high levels of technical expertise to make good pictures, but it does need lots of practice and vision.
I think that reading about other photographers and studying their photographs is one of the best ways of learning about photography (as well as artists using other media). Looking at the work of "kindred spirit" photographers is great for learning how you might make pictures that best represent your own vision of the world.
One of my biggest regrets is that I came very late to studying the history of art, and its importance to understanding and appreciating photography.
In contrast to this, I'm very pleased that I went through a formal technical training in photography (which had nothing about art in it), because you can solve so many practical problems in photography through an understanding of the underlying photographic theory.
But back to the plot. If the aim is to take "good" pictures, I would take the quickest and simplist route to technical competence that you can. If you are really enjoying the "chemistry" lab part of photography, and experimenting with different cameras and materials, that's great, but it's going to slow down your progress as a photographer. I would come back to the experimentation after you have established a solid working practice.
At the end of the day of course, you need to do what is best for you. My ramble isn't a list of instructions, just a collection of thoughts.
BTW, I see a photographer as someone who has equal skills in both the taking and processing aspects of making photographs, along with several other skills.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
strange you should mention art Graham,
In a book I am reading I have just started a chapter on art in photography only this morning,
And also listened, on R4, to an article lamenting this years turner prize, which is apparently a load of VHS tape and Duct tape strewn about, so who is to say what constitutes art when even respected judges and critics cannot decide.
And as mentioned earlier in another thread, someone made millions and an entire career off a picture of a tin of soup. my current thinking is its a load of codswalop, take a picture of what you want and if someone likes it they do, and if someone does not so what. However that could change. who knows.
In a book I am reading I have just started a chapter on art in photography only this morning,
And also listened, on R4, to an article lamenting this years turner prize, which is apparently a load of VHS tape and Duct tape strewn about, so who is to say what constitutes art when even respected judges and critics cannot decide.
And as mentioned earlier in another thread, someone made millions and an entire career off a picture of a tin of soup. my current thinking is its a load of codswalop, take a picture of what you want and if someone likes it they do, and if someone does not so what. However that could change. who knows.
Last edited:
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,769
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Possibly worth mentioning, art is about communicating. It's not about ability, craft, beauty, finesse or many of the things we think are valuable and attractive. It's a conundrum that seems fundamentally wrong, but apparently isn't.
myotis
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,503
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe a good argument to learn about art history
If you look at these pieces, they clearly aren't just VHS tape and Duct tape "strewn about" as they have clearly been intentionally constructed with repeated shapes and patterns.
I have no problem seeing them as works of art, and the purpose of the Turner Prize is to to promote public debate around new developments in contemporary British art.
You also need to think about it in terms of JMW Turner who the prize is named after:
"Despite his institutional success, his later style became increasingly abstract and expressive, which bewildered some contemporary critics and members of the establishment. He was known for his innovative use of light and color, which was groundbreaking at a time when classical values of balance and precision were still dominant."
Something labelled as a work of art, doesn't mean it's necessarily "good" art, and you don't need to like something for it to be art, or even "good" art. But art is usually recognised and evaluated in the context of what we know about existing art and artists, which is why new and different, artists are so important for art to move forward, even if we don't like, or understand their work.
I'm not sure I want to go any further down this rabbit hole: it's something that gets discussed often on these forums.
I often think that all the important things in life: love, friendship, happiness, pleasure, a good meal, a great day out, etc etc are difficult to define in any precise manner and mean something slightly different to every individual, but we all know what they mean.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Where have you derived that Toni, interesting? Communication occurs on many levels.
Conformity to norms is innately a restriction on creativity. the rules are flexible in so much as if you'r stuff is liked the rules and norms will be bent and ignored to accomodate you,
The rule breakers are the new rules not yet established
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe a good argument to learn about art history
If you look at these pieces, they clearly aren't just VHS tape and Duct tape "strewn about" as they have clearly been intentionally constructed with repeated shapes and patterns.
I have no problem seeing them as works of art, and the purpose of the Turner Prize is to to promote public debate around new developments in contemporary British art.
You also need to think about it in terms of JMW Turner who the prize is named after:
"Despite his institutional success, his later style became increasingly abstract and expressive, which bewildered some contemporary critics and members of the establishment. He was known for his innovative use of light and color, which was groundbreaking at a time when classical values of balance and precision were still dominant."
Something labelled as a work of art, doesn't mean it's necessarily "good" art, and you don't need to like something for it to be art, or even "good" art. But art is usually recognised and evaluated in the context of what we know about existing art and artists, which is why new and different, artists are so important for art to move forward, even if we don't like, or understand their work.
I'm not sure I want to go any further down this rabbit hole: it's something that gets discussed often on these forums.
I often think that all the important things in life: love, friendship, happiness, pleasure, a good meal, a great day out, etc etc are difficult to define in any precise manner and mean something slightly different to every individual, but we all know what they mean.
I am trying................. with my usual enthusiasm.
I think I would have liked Turner, I like some of his paintings, I have them at home. i hope and pray that one day I will happen across an idylic scene with a tractor full of plastic wrapped hay bales....... I suppose I could sit, wait and make it happen.
He seems proof that conformity in its own right was an unsatisfactory situation and he broke free of the constraints, much to his satisfaction I expect. My Turner prize comments were a report on an article. I have not seen it yet.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,769
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
The things I mentioned like ability or craft aren't excluded - they simply aren't what art is about. I've taken this from discussions on this forum and other with artists and art professionals, plus some reading and background research (that makes it sound more worthy than it is). In the past we've had art-flame wars on TP between 'art' people and ordinary not-art people, and sometimes it's become quite divisive. But one can't accuse the art world of not being innovative - a person with learning difficulties, autism and difficulty with spoken communication has just won a major art prize with international recognition, and that's certainly innovation.
As much as anything, art is about the ideas you can put into other peoples' heads, using what ever tools are available.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 27,769
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I will keep my gob shut then and my un-researched opinions to myself.
This is a place we can discuss freely (and most of the art bods have left the building now anyway) so you're quite safe as long as you discuss nicely.
Quite seriously, the usual definition of whether a piece is art or not is whether the artist says that it's art. That. Is. It.
Last edited:
My go to film and dev. is Pan-F in ID11. Used it for over 50 years so have a good idea how to work it now. I also use Ilford's reversal process to produce slides when I want to project my images. FP4 sometimes, HP5 almost never.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I settled on Pan F and Delta, could have added Fuji acros to that a few years ago, but the mk2 version is not doing it for me these days.
I use a solvent developer Xtol and that's it, its really difficult to "get your eye in" chopping and changing film and devs every 5 minutes.
At the beginning when you do that, shoot from film to film and dev to dev trying everything, which is fine, but sooner or later if your quest is for consistency and some measure of certainty, you have to settle on combination that you can learn to use..
I use a solvent developer Xtol and that's it, its really difficult to "get your eye in" chopping and changing film and devs every 5 minutes.
At the beginning when you do that, shoot from film to film and dev to dev trying everything, which is fine, but sooner or later if your quest is for consistency and some measure of certainty, you have to settle on combination that you can learn to use..
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Thank you all for your film recommendations in general and your sage words of advice in particular, it really is appreciated.
I did something today that I have not done before, went out with a film camera by itself, I usually take a digital along also, so please be assured your advice's are not going unheeded.
What swung it for me was a photo of a fence I took in digital and converted to B+W, If I had not been p***ing about with digital I would have taken that photo on film, and it would have been the best photo I have ever taken, I saw the flipping thing in black and white and did not shoot it on the film camera. I could kick my own arse.
I did something today that I have not done before, went out with a film camera by itself, I usually take a digital along also, so please be assured your advice's are not going unheeded.
What swung it for me was a photo of a fence I took in digital and converted to B+W, If I had not been p***ing about with digital I would have taken that photo on film, and it would have been the best photo I have ever taken, I saw the flipping thing in black and white and did not shoot it on the film camera. I could kick my own arse.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Thats golf or fishing not photography.
OP
Barney
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,043
- Name
- Wayne
- Edit My Images
- No
Not a bad price, 80 inches
same as 35mm or 120
It would cost more in fuel to get the exquisite location.