Hi Joseph -
WRT film - I've settled in on APX100 for most of my landscape work (which is
most of my B&W shooting.) I shoot 120 format, develop in HC110 1:100. For
low contrast scenes I develop 15 minutes and agitate every 30 seconds. For
high contrast exposures I set the time to 21.5 minutes, agitate for the
first 30 seconds, then gently every 3 minutes thereafter, except for the
last few minutes where I agitate at 6 minutes, 4, 2, and 1. the latter
process produces a very low contrast negative that really captures a great
range of detail between the highlights and the shadows. In a low contrast
scene, though, the negs will come out flat using this process. Since I
shoot 6x7 120 rolls, I tailor the time and agitiation to the general
contrast levels on the roll. If they vary a lot, I would pick the exposure
I have the highest hopes for, and tailor the development to it.
I'm scanning the film, so I prefer a neg that captures as much detail as
possible, but may be too flat for use with enlargers and traditional wet
papers. I can always pump up the contrast in Photoshop, but I can;t create
absent detail.
Although I like APX 100, I would highly recommend Plus-X.
I've not been impressed iwth the T-Grained films in 120 format for my
workflow. IMO, TMax and Delta 100 don't show much advantage in terms of
grain when scanned (I do believe that is different with traditional
workflows) and don't have the crispness of the traditional grained films.
The main probelm I have with APX100 is coaxing out shadow detail. I use it
with Rodinal as well as HC 110, but the HC110 1:100 really brings out more
shadow detail. I've had poor results with Rodinal in dilutions beyong 1:50,
but with the right agitaiton Rodinal at 1:50 and APX can look very good.
And in flat light, preserving shadow detail while not blowing out highlights
is not a problem.
If you need higher speeds I'd suggest Tri-X. The new Tri-X seems to be
finer grained than the old. I use APX 400 and Neopan 400 and find both to
be quite good for ISO 400 films as well, but Tri-X would be my first pick.
For 35mm I'm not sure what to recommend. I generally don't shoot landscapes
with 35mm B&W, but almost always use Microdol-X to develop 35mm B&W film.
IMO, it does not so much reduce the grain as make it more pleasant and
consistent. But I'm using it at 1:3.
WRT filters - you probably should look hard are what you are shooting and
really spend time thinking through what the tonal characteristics are
For what you describe, my gut would be to use a #25 red filter, but that is
based on what I imagine the sand and ruins to look like. If you have brown
sand, blue sky, and some foliage the red filter will slightly lighten the
sand, darken the sky and darken the green foliage - achieving the goal of
modifying the contrast to make different colored elements stand apart.
You want to use IR film :-)
A yellow filter may achieve similar results, but I'd wonder if it would get
you enough separation between the foliage and the sand.
If I'm using a filter, I use a green X1, but my landscapes are almost
entirely foliage in many cases. If the light is shining _through_ the
foliage (backlighting it) the green filter will really lighten it up, making
and almost infrared effect. If the light is shining _off_ the foliage, you
typically have almost spectral highlights off the leaves and green light
from the areas not reflecting back - in that case the green filter evens
things out, cutting out the non-green light in the spectral highlights
(which by definition include the full spectrum of light) and letting in all
the green from the foliage.
However, a green filter doesn't darken a blue sky by much (maybe a little,
but not much)- if you harken back to Kindergarten, you may recall that blue
and yellow crayons overlaid produced green. So green is merely yellow and
blue mixed, and a green filter lets a lot of blue in. It's more like a
no-red filter.
If there is blue sky in the image a yellow filter may do almost as much to
lighten the foliage and more to darken a blue sky than green. Yellow ismy
second choice, though if there is blue sky and I want to darekn it I'd
probably use a polarizer.
Lastly - about filter factors - take them with a grain of salt and bracket.
I adjust by 2.5 to 3 stops for my X1 green filter, depending on the film
used, though the recommended factor is 2 stops. Panchromatic films are not
consistently sensitive to the full spectrum of visible light, so consult the
spectral sensitivity charts for the film you use (let me know what they mean
if you figure them out) and experiment.
HTH -
MCC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Tainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 4:10 PM
Subject: B/W Film Advice Needed
I need to photograph, in black-and-white, some landscapes in southeast Utah
with prehistoric ruins in them. The vegetation will be mainly sage (very
pale green) and junipers (darker green). The last time I shot b/w was about
5 years ago. I believe it was Tmax 400, and I found it disappointing. It
was grainy, and I had thought that these films were supposed to have less
grain. I've never tried the chromogenic b/w films.
So what do b/w shooters recommend for a low-grain landscape film with good
tonal range?
I plan to use a yellow filter as a compromise, to lighten the vegetation
just a bit and darken the sky just a bit. If I need to I'll use a split nd
filter to darken the sky further. Other filter recommendations welcome.
Thanks,
Joe
