HP5 or Delta 400?
Tri-X or T-MAX?
Conventional or flat-grained?
HP5+ every time. Ilford is the tops, and tab grain looks like shit.
tmax all the way. Grandpa needs to get over trix
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 1100D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.4 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2013:10:02 21:23:22 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2801741
Delta 400 is also Ilford.
And I think it's a better film personally. Cleaner and smallerfeeling grain. Lovely mid-tones.
I tend to shoot HP5 more because I can get it cheaper but I definitely like Delta 400 better of the two.
>>2801740
Kill Delta
Marry TRI-X
Fuck HP5
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 600 Image Height 383 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:03:02 14:59:03 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 636 Image Height 406
Should I buy Fomapan 100 or Ilford FP4 for 120 film? The Foma stuff is cheaper, but maybe Ilford is better?
>>2801769
only roll of fomapan I ever bought was left unused because the adhesive on the roll was too strong to get off
>>2801748
are you using a lens as a loupe?
>>2801771
yup, old yashica 50mm. It worked pretty well actually
>>2801770
yeah, foma has pretty shit quality control, but it has better tonality than ilford imo. more grain but that's negligible for mf.
My favorite films are Tri-X and Fuji Acros 100 which is T-grain so I guess I like both types.
For whatever reason HP5 seems awful to me, I always get really ugly clumpy grain. I love Ilford for their chemicals and papers and stuff but their films just don't do it for me. I've never tried Delta 400 and I remember not getting good results from T-Max the first time I tried it but I haven't given it a second chance in a while.
Honestly I have enough Acros and Tri-X to tide me over for a long time and I probably won't bother trying anything new until Fuji inevitably discontinues Acros. That will be a sad day for me though.
>>2801845
>My favorite films are Tri-X
go home grandpa
>>2801849
It's easy and it just werks with anything and it prints and scans well and it's a classic, what's not to like? It's been around forever because it's so good that people want to keep using it, that's not a bad thing.
G R A I N
R
A
I
N
i use hp5 because of the grain. i crop pictures to get even more grain. i happen to be a grainfag.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make EPSON Camera Model GT-X770 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 14262 Image Height 1572 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 1600 dpi Vertical Resolution 1600 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2015:10:15 10:12:42 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1200 Image Height 796
>>2801857
easy grandpa
And in This Corner: Tri-X vs. T-Max
In the 1950s Kodak introduced Tri-X fi lm. At ISO 400 Tri-X was the first fast film made for general use. Even though the grain of the original Tri-X was characterized as being the size of golf balls it became an immediate success with photojournalists who had only just fi nished recording an entire World War and the Korean conflict with films rated at ISO 100 and 200. Within a short time Kodak had improved the grain size of Tri-X and over the years other improvements and tweaks were made. As a result Kodak Tri-X became the world’s best-selling black-and-white film. In the 1980s Kodak introduced T-Max tabular grain films. These films were based on “growing” flat silver halide crystals with the flat surface of each crystal facing the surface of the film to more efficiently collect light. In order to further increase the sensitivity of the flat-grain crystals to light, color-dye technology, developed through years of research on color negative and transparency films, was added. This allowed Kodak to use less silver. The result was a line of films that Kodak was able to make for less money and label as “modern” allowing them to be sold at a higher price. At first many photographers, myself included, anxious to be in the forefront of new and better film technology fell for the marketing hype. Kodak executives watched closely as the sale of Tri-X dropped precipitously and the sale of T-Max 400 soared. When sales of Tri-X reached a predetermined baseline, Kodak planned to discontinue it altogether. Unfortunately for Kodak, in a very short time photographers worldwide realized that T-Max was inferior to Tri-X...
>>2801965 continued
...The reason is that the thin, flat grains of silver literally do not have the depth of rounded pebble shape grains which enable them to record microscopic variations in contrast. In other words, the flatter the grain the less capable it is of recording micro-contrast. Almost overnight the sales figures reversed, and T-Max 400 nearly fell off the sales charts. Kodak’s response was to increase the advertising budget for T-Max. But the story does not end here. Excited with the increased profit that color dye–sensitized films could bring if only photographers would cooperate, Kodak reengineered all of their films, including Tri-X, reducing the silver content and replacing it with increased color-dye sensitization, and semi-flattening the silver grains. So, instead of a flat-grain film with color-dye sensitizers like T-Max 400, Tri-X is now a semi-flat grain film with color-dye sensitizers. (In fairness to Kodak, the same treatment appears to have improved Plus-X which was formerly noted for “mushy” grain.) The end result is that while Tri-X remains a better film than T-Max it has lost the grainy, gutsy Tri-X look so prized by photographers. It now has a homogeneous appearance with no distinct characteristics other than being a fast film with “super-fine grain.”
-- Steve Anchell: The Darkroom Cookbook
>>2801771
I use my Industar 50mm for a loupe
>>2801936
That is beautiful.
>>2801936
That's hideous, you might as well take photos on silk-screening emusion
>>2801967
Interesting. Thanks anon. Running some Tmax 400 for the first time
Why no love for Kentmere? Is it because they are cheap?
>>2802360
Kentmere is Ilford; supposedly not such stringent QC, but it's good stuff.
>>2802360
Shot some Kentmere100 today since you asked. Think I'll stick a hundred feet of it in the bulk loader.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2802605
The photo itself is very boring but the film looks great.
Do put in some more effort in the future; it clearly warrants it.
>>2802607
Hopefully I find something a little better on the roll. I won't lie, I take boring photos.
>>2802607
Everyone likes waterfalls...r-r-right?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
>>2802605
>>2802629
You shot in Disgusting Light.
Nobody likes it.
This is the best thing you photographed.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Color Space Information Uncalibrated
>>2802649
noted.
>>2802610
change your mind from taking photos "of" things, to taking photos "about" things. Try that and see if it helps
>>2802661
I'm sitting atop of a giant pile of gear. I've learned to operate it fairly well, have done pretty well with the chemicals, figured out how to get decent scans, my post processing isn't the worst in the world, but yet I haven't learned how to take a single photo that is worth a shit. I'm tired of arguing over gear. For this summer I'm going to only use my trusty Hi-Matic 9, a single film, a single developer, and I want learn how to take a decent photo. Is there any hope for me /p/?
>>2802669
there's always hope! Just come up with an idea and follow it through to its conclusion.
>>2801740
The difference in IQ is minimal. Support Ilford because they're in it for the long run.
>>2801936
If you want grain, use something like retropan. The grain is like gravel.
>>2804140
>retropan
wont use anything with "retro" in the name.
>>2804201
It's fucking terrible, but it's got more grain than most.
>>2801769
Neither. Fomapan has QQ issues, and I really can't be assed with figuring out exposure for 125iso on my weston. Yeah, you can push/pull it easy, but why would you for MF?
Delta 100 is the better choice. Have you tried panf 50? Tones are fucking awesome!
>>2802629
I'm not sure you could have made a more boring photograph of a waterfall.
You could make tits boring.
>>2805746
Doing my part to keep film alive. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>2802360
yeah i've never had any problems with it. it's good stuff.
