# Thinking About Film Again



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2017)

I've been having the urge to pull out the old K1000 and try B&W again.  Any suggestions on choice of film for a first attempt????


----------



## limr (Jun 8, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I've been having the urge to pull out the old K1000 and try B&W again.  Any suggestions on choice of film for a first attempt????



Ilford HP5. I mean, Tri-X is still around and fantastic as always, but as their prices went up, I slowly migrated to Ilford and found that their HP5 is excellent as well. Plus, I feel that it pushes better than Tri-X, if you do that at all.

K1000


----------



## limr (Jun 8, 2017)

Oh, and if you want slower film, Ilford Fp4.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2017)

limr said:


> Oh, and if you want slower film, Ilford Fp4.



Have you shot Ilford Delta Pro 100 Fine Grain?


----------



## limr (Jun 8, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and if you want slower film, Ilford Fp4.
> ...



I shot a few rolls a while back - not sure if it was 100 or 400. It didn't grab me. It's a good film and many folks like it, but I'm not sure that it suited the kind of shooting I was doing. I have nothing against that super fine sharp look to an image, but I just tend to prefer a bit more texture. 

Here are some reviews if you're interested:
Ilford Delta 100   Reviews - PhotographyREVIEW.com

Edit: Reading through some of them reminded me that I did find it a bit hard to get right. It's not as picky as slide film, but when the exposure isn't right, it can get muddy.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 8, 2017)

limr said:


> Oh, and if you want slower film, Ilford Fp4.


Pan F, baby, Pan F!!!!


----------



## limr (Jun 8, 2017)

tirediron said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and if you want slower film, Ilford Fp4.
> ...



Yes! I almost forgot. That's even slower - ISO 50. It's also pretty great! 




Bash Bish resized by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 8, 2017)

Pan F is a nice.......info..... http://www.photoweb.ru/exusr/pdf/ilford/Pan_F_Plus.pdf


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jun 8, 2017)

Ive been a big fan of pretty much everything Ilford offers. You can see most of it here (albums are generally annotated with the film I used). If you get into home developing ilford also offers all the chemistry you need and lots of great instructions on how to do it. To start out ilford says the HP5/FP4 stocks are a bit more forgiving on exposure latitude but with a good light meter you should have no issues with any film stock. Delta 100 yields some really nice all around results and has been my go to usually. If you are shooting a lot indoors you may want something faster like the HP5 400 speed. 

Now for some possibly contentious advice....

The film is not so important as much as picking one film and shooting multiple (<- read as lots and lots) rolls of it and having it consistently processed. Good field notes will help here as well. Basically the best way to get back into it is to keep as much constant as you can. Observe what adjustments lead to what outcomes. Once you really learn how to nail an exposure you can work proficiently with any film stock. 

Final advice: get a good light meter...  

Dave


----------



## john.margetts (Jun 8, 2017)

I rather like Fomapan Creative 200. Benefits from an EV of about 160.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 8, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> Final advice: get a good light meter...



Have one, best accessory purchase I've made.

Any difference in exposing for digital vs film?


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jun 8, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Any difference in exposing for digital vs film?



Hmmmm, generally no as digital cameras are largely made to reproduce the feel and function of older film cameras. Film tends to have more exposure latitude so over exposed bits wont get as blown out as they do on digital. I consider this an across the board advantage. The problems tend to lie in processing and not shooting often. Find a good lab that knows what they are doing or consider processing at home (its actually quite easy). 

Dave


----------



## limr (Jun 8, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Dave Colangelo said:
> 
> 
> > Final advice: get a good light meter...
> ...



I've heard that with digital, you want to shoot more for highlights because shadow detail can be brought out more easily. That seems to be similar advice when shooting with slide film. With b&w negative film, however, you have more flexibility with highlights - they don't get blown as easily. I mean, with high contrast scenes, you still have some choices to make, of course, but overall, you may end up having a bit more flexibility with the range at the high end.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 8, 2017)

Kodak Tri-x, Ilford Delta 100, Ilford Pan F, Rollei RPX 25, Film Ferrania p30


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 8, 2017)

I'd have to go check my produce drawer in the fridge and see what's in there...I like Kodak TMAX and have used various Ilford films and papers.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 8, 2017)

On a nice sunny day, Acros 100


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 8, 2017)

If you're scanning and like grainless, try Tmax.  Here's Tmax 100 in medium format.
Search: tmax100 | Flickr


----------



## Gary A. (Jun 8, 2017)

Tri-X.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 9, 2017)

Well, no shortage of choices...[emoji23]


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 9, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> The problems tend to lie in processing and not shooting often. Find a good lab that knows what they are doing or consider processing at home (its actually quite easy).



I'd need to dust a few cobwebs from the brain, but I imagine it would come back to me. Lot of rolls developed during my early newspaper days. However, I don't see me shooting enough film to make it worthwhile.



Gary A. said:


> Tri-X.



LOL I used to buy Tri-x 400 in the 100' rolls.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 9, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Dave Colangelo said:
> 
> 
> > The problems tend to lie in processing and not shooting often. Find a good lab that knows what they are doing or consider processing at home (its actually quite easy).
> ...


I just sent 6 rolls to Darkroom, Dwayne's just doesn't cut it anymore. I really don't have the time to develop, so I'm trying them. If they aren't any good, I'm doing them myself.


----------



## limr (Jun 9, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> LOL I used to buy Tri-x 400 in the 100' rolls.



You still can  I've got a roll in my fridge right now, actually. It will just cost you a lot more these days. When the 100' rolls went up to $100, I switched to shooting primarily HP5 for half the price of TriX.


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jun 9, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> I'd need to dust a few cobwebs from the brain, but I imagine it would come back to me. Lot of rolls developed during my early newspaper days. However, I don't see me shooting enough film to make it worthwhile.



I had the same thought but the economics are actually pretty solid even in small quantities. You can get a nice Patterson 4 tank, thermometer and measuring cups for <$50 and thats all you will really need (as well as some thing to mix up the mixtures in but you can use pitchers or bottles you already have). I got my tanks on Ebay I think I paid like $30 for a whole mess of tanks of various types. This is a one time spend so lets talk about the economy of the chemistry which is really whats important. I do mostly 120 format right now so ill talk in those terms but you can do about twice the number of 35mm rolls for the same chemistry volumes. The standard tank will allow you to do 2 35mm rolls at a time of the same speed. On any note if you get the stuff from ilford DD-X, Ilfostop and Ilford RapidFixer in (1L, 500ML, 1L size respectively) you are looking at ~$30 worth of chemistry (from BH). For this I can get 10 rolls of 120 Format (its 100ml of DD-x and Fixer per dev roll the stop bath goes way further). So we are talking in the range of ~3 a roll for the chemistry which is well bellow what my lab charges for just processing (they are at ~$8 a roll). But I dont get scans or prints just yet! For that I built a small back-light box to photograph my negatives for now and all the saved money goes into my scanner fund. As for time cost, with the Patterson reals which make loading really easy I can load, mix and develop a roll in about 30 minutes depending on development times. Since my tank only fits one roll (120Format) at a time I have no problem running only a single roll if I need to.   

And of course, its fun!

Regards 
Dave


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 10, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> And of course, its fun!



Yes I agree that my time spent in the darkroom was fun, but like post processing on the computer, I would rather be behind the camera. Taking the fun out of the equation, for a half dozen or so rolls of B&W a month, I'd rather spend the money (assuming the lab is decent and I have the time to wait).


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 10, 2017)

And a question for all who've posted ----Where do you get your film????? I searched every store in town -Zilch, Nada. Non existent anymore, so I'm assuming online is the only source now?


----------



## john.margetts (Jun 10, 2017)

There are at least four shops in Lincoln that sell film - Snappy Snaps, London Camera Exchange, Tesco and Boots

Sent from my A1-840 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Jun 10, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> And a question for all who've posted ----Where do you get your film????? I searched every store in town -Zilch, Nada. Non existent anymore, so I'm assuming online is the only source now?



Yes, online. The usual suspects, B&H and Adorama, of course. Also Freestyle. Even Amazon has options.

The only brick and mortar stores that still sell film charge way too much and who knows how long it's been sitting there since stock doesn't exactly turn over quickly anymore.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 10, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Any difference in exposing for digital vs film?
> ...



Don't want to derail this thread too much but this really needs correction. The idea that film has more exposure latitude than digital is left over from decades ago when film was compared with primitive digital camera JPEGs. Times have changed and the fact is digital has much more -- very very much more -- exposure latitude than film. Silly to even try and compare. For example.

*1/60th sec. f/11 (ISO 200):




 

1/4000th sec. f/11 (ISO 200):



 *

That's an exposure variance of 6 stops. And obviously from an examination of the images I could have gone further. Also note the above is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be even better still.

Load up your favorite color film stock and let's see a 7 stop (if film is better) exposure variance looking as good as the above. Make sure and duplicate the above conditions -- full sun with some shadows you can open up like the flag and porch on left.

Joe

P.S. Film is great. People who want to shoot film should and they should enjoy it. I made a whole career out of film and I'll be scanning my film till the day I die and won't finish. Just want to keep the facts straight.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 10, 2017)

OK, I'll try to remember to go try it... lol hey maybe I will. If it's color film going to a good lab, yeah maybe... if the technicians adjust instead of just sending it thru the machine. (I don't really don't think that I could manage quite t_hat_ much range in settings.)

I can however with 400 speed film after shooting indoors low light go outside and shut down the lens to the smallest aperture and go to the fastest shutter speed on whatever camera and get something with adjustment in processing. In a pinch not as a regular practice and it's hit or miss. But possible. Sometimes. Doesn't always work.

I also have gotten a frame that was so dark on the negative all I could see were two curved lines and had to zap light thru the enlarger (and more light and more light...) to get a photo that much later got accepted into a juried exhibit. That was a lot of work I don't care to have to do again, but it was that or not take the picture at all, and I knew it was good even though I could only see those two little curved lines because I knew what picture I took. 

I have gotten photos shot on film, digitally, and a Polaroid accepted into juried exhbits and hanging on a wall somewhere so I think good is good and get there however works for you.


----------



## JonA_CT (Jun 10, 2017)

Walmart sells some sort of Fuji film around here...but Adorama delivers next day where I live so I've never been tempted to try it.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 11, 2017)

I shoot medium format film about 15-20 rolls per week, and some 35mm too.  I shoot mainly Kodak Portra 160, 400, and some 800 with my Pentax 645nii's along side with my Nikon F100.  For digital, I shoot with my Nikon D800, D750, and D600.

There are pros and cons for each medium and you just need to understand the strength and weaknesses of each. I'm not an expert in all things film, or all things digital, but I use both mediums for a specific purpose on a regular basis.

For me, pros for digital are low light autofocus and high ISO.  Anything that has to do with shooting in the dark then it's hard to beat digital. Pros for film are highlights retention and consistent skin tone colors.  You can shoot in the middle of the day, over expose like 2-4 stops and still get retain the details in both shadows and highlights. Skin tone is more personal opinion but I prefer the tone I get from film.  Some film has more latitude as far as retaining colors and details when over exposing.  I heard  you can over expose 8+ stops with fujifim 400h and still retain colors and details. I haven't tried that myself.  When I shoot Fujifilm 400h, I tend to over expose about 2-3 stops.  When I shoot Portra 400, I shoot almost at box speed with bias to over exposure.  When I shoot Portra 160, I tend to push it about 1 stop.  I do this mainly  to get a certain color tone.

Metering for film is different compare to digital.  For digital, you meter for highlights because you can then recover shadows in post process.  For film, you meter for the shadows because film can retain highlights details better. Color film stock generally prefer to over expose about 1-2 stops to get a certain color pallet.

Not sure what else I can say other than just have fun!!


----------



## jcdeboever (Jun 11, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> And a question for all who've posted ----Where do you get your film????? I searched every store in town -Zilch, Nada. Non existent anymore, so I'm assuming online is the only source now?


CVS, Walgreens always have Fujifilm 24 exposure 135 color, or at least in Michigan. I buy mine from B&H normally.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 11, 2017)

Lucky for me I work in a brick/mortar camera store here in St. Louis. We do offer shipping and have a good variety of films available. 
And my Walmart's carry Fuji color film as well.


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 11, 2017)

webestang64 said:


> Lucky for me I work in a brick/mortar camera store



Lucky indeed. Just last year Ritz the closest brick & motor store (50 miles one way)  expanded so despite the distance I was trying to patronize them. Then a couple months ago without warning they closed. Now I think there is another privately owned store 75 miles one way, but I don't know how big it is. Otherwise it's a 120 mile one way trip to Atlanta. Sad really, because I can remember the quientessential local camera store in most every town of any size. We had one here that had been in business for two generations. Not only a source for equipment and supplies but a never ending source of information on all things photography.


----------



## cgw (Jun 11, 2017)

If there's an upside to the mass extinction of mini-labs, it's the uptick in quality among surviving labs. Higher volume pays for more rigorous attention to chemistry monitoring/replenishment common among pro labs of yore. The downside, for me, is nothing local, an hour's drive, and a 5 day wait for C-41+b&w, 135+120. But prices aren't totally extortionate and process/scan quality is nice. It's the new reality and it's not altogether uncomfortable.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 12, 2017)

I get my film locally (three shops in town sell) or B&H online. Depending on what Im looking for, maybe ebay. 




Ysarex said:


> Dave Colangelo said:
> 
> 
> > smoke665 said:
> ...



https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/


----------



## Dave Colangelo (Jun 12, 2017)

SoulfulRecover said:


> https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/



Existential crisis: do settings even matter


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 12, 2017)

Dave Colangelo said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> > https://petapixel.com/2015/08/10/how-much-can-you-overexpose-negative-film-have-a-look/
> ...



I guess if you have a nice enough scanner and software, maybe not? haha.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 12, 2017)

SoulfulRecover said:


> I get my film locally (three shops in town sell) or B&H online. Depending on what Im looking for, maybe ebay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now try the test the way I did it -- full high contrast sun with dark shadows.

I can do a flatly lit low contrast subject too like they did in that article. Here's 9 stops in flat light:










So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad as they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.

Joe


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 12, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> > So yes I'm starting to hurt there, but not nearly as bad they are in that article (9 stops). And again this is an APS class sensor and not FX which would be better still. Film does not have more exposure latitude than digital. It's no longer the 1990's.
> ...



I never said it has more latitude at all. Just pointing out that someone had done a test similar to the one you did but with film


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 12, 2017)

SoulfulRecover said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > SoulfulRecover said:
> ...



Apologies -- I had first responded to the earlier post that did make that claim.

Joe


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jun 12, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> SoulfulRecover said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



No problem. Id love to see someone mimic your test and see how well the film holds up. Im curious if its based on the scanners abilities or the films.

I can easily say that my little canoscan scanner sucks and anything that is even close to being over exposed is gone. Zero shadow recovery as well.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 12, 2017)

SoulfulRecover said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > SoulfulRecover said:
> ...



The scanner has a whole lot to do with it -- huge. And that also begs the question what if you're really back in a darkroom making projection prints. Can you squeeze the same amount of detail from a negative loaded into an enlarger?

The day I got my hands on a serious scanner for the first time is a day I'll long remember. It was 1993 and I wrangled some grant money to purchase a Leaf scanner -- don't remember anymore but the thing cost many thousands of dollars. So I'm learning to use it and playing around with it and I finally realize, Oh Sh*t!! I can pull a lot more tonal data from a neg with this thing than I could possibly projection print with conventional burning and dodging techniques -- one of those eureka moments. I was like a kid in a candy store digging through boxes of old negs that I had long given up on. This image for example I was never able to projection print successfully.





So film takes on a new life in a hybrid environment when the film image is scanned and processed digitally.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 12, 2017)

In harsh daylight where you have mixed of bright and dark areas, film does a better job with transitioning between light and dark areas IMHO (at least on  35mm and 120mm).  The transition doesn't look as abrupt.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 12, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> In harsh daylight where you have mixed of bright and dark areas, film does a better job with transitioning between light and dark areas IMHO (at least on  35mm and 120mm).  The transition doesn't look as abrupt.



That's just a function of the skill of the photographer. A modern digital sensor records more usable data than film. In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing more is better than less.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 13, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> That's just a function of the skill of the photographer.



In that case, I am an AMAZING photographer with my medium format film camera!!


----------



## smoke665 (Jun 13, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> Load up your favorite color film stock



You specifically referred to color in your exposure latitude comparison. Would the same apply to B&W film?



Vtec44 said:


> I shoot medium format film



Could the advantages you see in film over digital have something to do with the medium format? I have to wonder if you were to compare the 645Z to your film 645nii, if you would notice as much difference in the transition areas?


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 13, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Load up your favorite color film stock
> ...



Pretty much, but b&w is more accessible to processing manipulation than color -- we can get a little more. The long accepted king of all film when it comes to taking the biggest bite out of a range of tonal information is Tri-X. A modern color neg stock will come in a close second. There's a lot of variability in the claims made because it's so hard to nail down the parameters and so often the testers are biased and their thumbs are all over the scales. One of the biggest problems hashing all this out is with the concept of measurable versus usable. In the digital realm for example you can take the figures from DX0 labs of sensor tests and OMG! we live in the age of miracles where digital cameras can record 15 and even 16 stops. DX0 rates the Nikon D810 sensor at 14.8 stops. Those are ridiculous figures that have no place in the world of usable. Bill Claff rates the D810 at 11.6 stops of usable data (Hasselblad X1D on top at 12). Bill Claff's site Photons to Photos is where photographers need to look for good data. Bill rates my Fuji X-T2 used in the above example at 10 stops. At 9 stops in the example above I'm clearly scrapping the barrel bottom.

Coming up with a usability rating for film is a lot trickier. As noted above there's the projection versus scan issue. Projection printing a neg gives you a lot less data to work with than what you can get from a scan. If you're using a scan then you really are working a hybrid process. And as noted above the scanner will play a huge role. Are you using a 6 figure drum scanner that's shining lasers through the film or are you using Soulful's Canonscan 9000 -- where do we set reasonable parameters for usable? That said, I've seen folks in labs with 6 figure hardware claim Tri-X will bite off 17 stops. That's just as ridiculous as the DX0 figures for sensors. *As photographers taking photos we need usability figures not lab tests.* The most reasonable figure I've seen reported and that rings true with my experience is that Tri-X exposed at a reduced EI and scanned with a very capable ($$$$) scanner can deliver 11 usable stops. Color neg stocks are going to range in about 3 stops below that with that very capable ($$$$) scanner -- *usable*.

Bump the scanner down a notch and what most of us have access to commercially is a usable tonal range from color neg scans around 6 to 7 stops. Which is what prompted my original entry into this thread. Those of us using an above average lab and getting custom scans done by a technician willing to work with us can do better but that's not your $1.00 scan.

My access to scanners over the years has been variable ranging from a $20,000.00 Flextight to consumer market desktop scanners (depends on what access I have to what campus at the time). Since Soulful mentioned the Canonscan: I've managed to do pretty well with hardware of that caliber by running multiple scans and then combining them in PS. There's no way a scanner like our average desktop models is going to grab the kind of tonal range that's potentially recorded in a color or b&w neg in a single pass. But a scan for the shadows and a 2nd scan for the highlights combined in PS will often do the trick.

Joe


----------



## Vtec44 (Jun 13, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Could the advantages you see in film over digital have something to do with the medium format? I have to wonder if you were to compare the 645Z to your film 645nii, if you would notice as much difference in the transition areas?



Probably.  Most color films have about 13 stops of DR, my D800 has about 14 stops.  From what I read, it depends on the manufacturing method, sensor and film size, etc.  I'm not really a technical person and shoot film mostly because of the skin tone color rendition on film.  I just prefer film over digital in that area.


----------



## Ysarex (Jun 13, 2017)

Vtec44 said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Could the advantages you see in film over digital have something to do with the medium format? I have to wonder if you were to compare the 645Z to your film 645nii, if you would notice as much difference in the transition areas?
> ...



Those DR figures are engineer/machine test figures. They in no way correlate with the day to day activity of photographers using cameras to take photos. Eg. Bill Claff lists the DR capacity of the D800 at 11.4 stops: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting You can go on the Internet and find any crazy thing. Reliable DR capacity info is here: Photons to Photos

Joe


----------



## bhop (Jun 16, 2017)

limr said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL I used to buy Tri-x 400 in the 100' rolls.
> ...



You keep mentioning how HP5 is cheaper than Tri-X, which.. isn't the case.. It's at least a dollar MORE per roll, on every photo site, (or around the same price)  Do you get some kinda hookup or something?

Personally, i'm a Tri-X fan. I prefer the contrast over HP5 and feel it scans better, especially in the shadows.


----------



## limr (Jun 16, 2017)

bhop said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > smoke665 said:
> ...



This is just B&H: Roll Film | B&H Photo Video

HP5 is $58.95 for 100' and TriX is $119.95 for expiration date of July 2017, and $128.77 for fresh. For a single roll, HP5 is more expensive but not by a dollar. It's $5.19 and TriX is $4.95.


----------



## webestang64 (Jun 17, 2017)

limr said:


> For a single roll, HP5 is more expensive but not by a dollar. It's $5.19 and TriX is $4.95.



Compare to us here in St. Louis, smaller store less volume. HP5 $6.86, Tri-X $6.62.


----------



## bhop (Jun 28, 2017)

limr said:


> This is just B&H: Roll Film | B&H Photo Video
> 
> HP5 is $58.95 for 100' and TriX is $119.95 for expiration date of July 2017, and $128.77 for fresh. For a single roll, HP5 is more expensive *but not by a dollar*. It's $5.19 and TriX is $4.95.



... well, I did say (or around the same price) as a disclaimer, as opposed to 'half the cost' as you'd mentioned, however I didn't realize you were talking 'by the feet', in which case that does seem way cheaper.


----------



## sniper x (Jul 2, 2017)

I love Tri X and am going to try Ilford HP4 as well. I also am getting back into shooting film again because I just found my like new Canon A1 and got the Bronica ETRS back out of the closet since I have four backs, and four nice lenses. I wish now I still had my old Canon F1HP and the plethora of fine old FD primes I use to have for it and my A1.


----------



## Cork (Jul 2, 2017)

Interesting the earlier discussion of DR for film and digital, but I really could not care less whether digital is "superior" in any way to film.  I have a fine digital camera and I do use it, but for me the real thrill of photography comes when I am using my old XD-11 with my wonderful old Rokkor lenses.  I'm sick of screwing around with computers for my photography.

I used to be a Tmax fan years ago, but now I like the look of Tri X.  Based on this thread I'll be checking out the Ilfords...


----------



## sniper x (Jul 4, 2017)

Cork, I just got a ten pack of Tri X today and also used to shoot almost nothing but TMax. I really love the look of Tri X for street photography. And in medium format I like to use it for the Ghost town trips here in New Mexico.


----------



## Cork (Jul 9, 2017)

sniper x said:


> Cork, I just got a ten pack of Tri X today and also used to shoot almost nothing but TMax. I really love the look of Tri X for street photography. And in medium format I like to use it for the Ghost town trips here in New Mexico.



I may begin carrying two bodies again so I can have both color and B&W loaded.  

I took some chromogenic Ilford on a street photo shoot in south Dallas a couple of months ago; I liked the "sepia" rendition (which can be corrected if I want) but the low contrast was not what I sought... Tri X sounds like a much better fit.  Classic film.


----------



## sniper x (Jul 9, 2017)

I also found one of my old 35mm film EOS bodies and will also carry it when I break out the A1 or Bronica using Tri X and have it loaded with either Velvia or Fujichrome. Still have a bunch of both in 35mm and 120 in the cooler! For some odd reason the A2e shoots Velvia so well! I'd like to take both bodies out on street shoots.


----------

