lf-photo.org.uk

I recently made the decision to use my 5 x 4 camera for most of my photography, after neglecting it for a while, using 35mm and 120 formats. But I was very suprised to discover how much Ilford sheet film has gone up recently. Hp5+ was my favourite in 5 x 4 but I also used to use FP4+ and Delta100. It looks like I may be using Adox CHS 100 in future as it is much cheaper. I have used this before, but always felt more comfortable with Ilford films because of their quality control.
Is there a difference? I would be interested to hear what others think, and what others use.
There is also Foma, at about the same price as Adox. I have never used it in 5 x 4 format. Is the foma 400 sheet film the same as the 35mm version? I have used this and know that it is not as sharp as HP5 and has more grain. Is anyone using this film? Do these differences matter in 5 x 4? 35mm Foma 400 has a unique look which makes it very attractive for a certain type of landscape phtography, but whether it would be suitable for everything is another matter, and for preference I would really like to stick with one film from now on.
I look foreward to receiving some advice.
By the way I will be printing in the darkroom.

Alan Clark

Hello Alan,
Frankly, it's hard to beat HP5+ or Tmax film these days.
But, as the size is big, you won't enlarge the neg that much. So shooting "inferior" film may be good.
IMHO, I like the Efke 100 and the Foma 200 (not available anymore). the Efke 50 is difficult to master. These films are sold in various brands
OF course if you plan to learn to master, again, the media, buy a box of Efke or Foma film to practice. This won't cost you an arm and a leg and will provide you with decent images. Remember that the Efke film surface is easily scratched so be careful.

Hi Alan

you can do a lot worse than to chat this through with Matt at agphotography in Birmingham, he stocks all of the necessary stuff and is an enthusiast etc etc

andrew

Georges and Andrew, thank you for your advice. I will speak to Matt. And I'll continue to use Adox 100. I have used two boxes and have another one unopened. I must admit I don't see any problems with it. It seems to be as sharp as FP4 (which is maybe not saying a lot) and as grainy as HP5 (maybe not an issue with 5 x 4) and seems to work very well with Rodinal.
Maybe I should stop worrying about "quality control" and just get on with taking pictures.

Alan Clark

Alan Clark wrote:Maybe I should stop worrying about "quality control" and just get on with taking pictures

Yaayyyy!!! Now therr's a sensible suggestion

There are times when you do need to just get out there and "burn film", just for the hell of it - this is when you need cheap film. Then, one day, you will spot something exceptional - this is when you have a packet of really good film, like Delta 100 or Acros, kept in reserve for that prize winning, money earning 50" x 40" print

But, seriously, remember just who you taking the pictures for. In the end, it is for yourself, even though you will want others to see them and, hopefully approve.

All depends on what results you are looking for and what developer you use, guess there isn't a correct answer.
I don't like the look of delta/tmax and use FP4 and Tri-X just because they give me the consistent results I like.
I'm sure there are graphs galore to disprove this theory but it's what works for me.

I have just exposed & processed a couple of 10x8 sheets of Adox CHS100 & it appears OK. Since they were to allow me to 'try' camera & lens for the first time I was not too careful in handling the film, but it seems tougher than reputed to be. There is one mark on one sheet which I cannot identify - built-in? O/W a few minor pinholes from dust & lots of dust/hairs from the scanning platen! For serious prints it is going to be wet contacts. I have also used Foma 100 5x4 & that is soft in handling. Processed in D76 1:1 for ten mins. Dennis.

Thanks for the comments everyone; much appreciated.
It was nice this morning so I loaded a few film holders with Adox CHS 100 and headed up into Bransdale in the North York Moors to take a few pictures along a small beck. Just got back. I made 12 exposures which cost me about £7 for the film. Had I been using HP5 the cost would have been £18. Quite a difference!
But the proof of the pudding will be in the printing Just to make myself clear, I think Adox 100 has good qualities. I don't think it would be possible to tell it from FP4+ in a "blind print" test. I also know that the emulsion is soft. But it is only soft when it is wet, so, with care, this isn't really a problem. What worries me is defects such as pinholes. If you are scanning these can be removed in Photoshop, and I have done a bit of this with scans from Adox 100. But I have recently been given a Devere 504 enlarger, much more user-friendly than my old 5x4 enlarger, so I am planning to do much more wet printing, and I don't want to have to spend a lot of time spotting.
We will see!

Alan Clark

Alan,

You might consider Adox CHS-50; I'm becoming a fan of the orthochromatic look (almost no red response) and the grain simply isn't there; even on 35mm film there's no grain issue.

Neil

Thanks Neil,
Not tried Adox CHS 50, though I have tried the 25, in 35mm, 120 and 5x4. To be honest there is something about the look you get from it that doesn't really appeal, though I couldn't say what it is. But if the 50 is a slightly different type of film I might give it a try.

Alan

Here's a link to some examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64335830@N07/



and



are in 4*5 and I feel work rather well. No filters on this, just a seventy year old lens...

Neil

Since we met up Alan I've used a lot of Fomapan 100 & 200 in both 120 and 5x4, I was never a fan of fast films prefering to shoot LF with a slow film. These films are excellent but require less development than other makes to tame their inherrent contrast.

However I had to move to HP5 for some of my work as I have to shoot handheld, that allows 1/100th or ven 1/300th @f22 and HP% gives a stop faster true speed than the Foma 400.

Film costs are now a big issue, so for 120 & 5x4 I use Ilford films (Delta & HP5) for my main project work and Foma for more general shooting. With the 10x8 it's only EFKE and I still have some Fortepan 200.

Ian

Neil Barnes wrote:Here's a link to some examples: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64335830@N07/

Flickr doesn't allow direct linking of individual images but http://www.flickr.com/photos/64335830@N ... hotostream and http://www.flickr.com/photos/64335830@N ... otostream/ are in 4*5 and I feel work rather well. No filters on this, just a seventy year old lens...

Neil

Neil, To include an individual image from Flickr in a post use the IMG tags in your forum post as the instruction thread indicates. To get the URL for the image in Flickr, select all sizes to get a reasonable sized image then right click on the image and click properties. In the window is the URL of the Jpeg which you can copy/paste into the UKLFPG IMG tags. Voila.

Nigels wrote:Neil, To include an individual image from Flickr in a post use the IMG tags in your forum post as the instruction thread indicates. To get the URL for the image in Flickr, select all sizes to get a reasonable sized image then right click on the image and click properties. In the window is the URL of the Jpeg which you can copy/paste into the UKLFPG IMG tags. Voila.

Neil, I hope you don't mind but I've edited your post to show the images inline.

Alan Clark wrote:I recently made the decision to use my 5 x 4 camera for most of my photography, after neglecting it for a while, using 35mm and 120 formats. . Hp5+ was my favourite in 5 x 4 but I also used to use FP4+ and Delta100.

By the way I will be printing in the darkroom.

Alan Clark

If you're enlarging on silver gelatin papers, you wont go far wrong with HP5 Plus or T-Max 400. I have never been a big fan of slow films, but that's just my own preference. Slow films and ISO 100 films like T-Max, Delta and Acros would be a better choice for scanning.
My current favourite paper size for 6x7 120 films and 5x4 sheets is 11"x14" with a neat half an inch border all around, mounted and matted on 16"x20" boards.