Analog film photography and cameras

This was my original set up. Most of the light box masked off, shooting when/where ambient light is lower also helps with contrast.

2 Attachments

I then made this adapter to fit a tripod head into my enlarger once the enlarged head is removed. Did intend to use this with the 5d but had been noticing the sensor was a bit grubby and it’s 5d mk1 so no live view meaning the rx100 is a lot easier to use.

3 Attachments

I had a spined black and white photo book done by them. Thought the results were good for the money tbh.

Thanks for the feedback! ✌️

Kodak Alaris announces price rises for January 2025 – but Tri-X is getting cheaper

I always wonder about Kodak B&W but Ilford is always that bit cheaper than I never bother trying it.

Cheers for sharing @M_V still have loads of 120 I've been intending to rescan for ages but haven't wanted to fork out for a proper scanner.

I am by no means a black & white specialist (probably 80% of the film I shot in my life was colour negative - used to do more b&w though, at uni, and in the following years, when I was still tank-developing at home, which I pretty much stopped doing 5+ years ago).

That being said I gotta say I did learn to appreciate the different brands / films - the different looks they had respectively.
I've always found Ilford to be a bit "brutal" / "gritty" ..in a good way 🙂
And Kodak (especially Tri-X) being more "gentle" / a bit more "elegant" in comparison.
Fuji (Neopan & Acros) were also super nice, although they never really suited the stuff I personally shot. In retrospect I regret not shooting them more though, especially Acros.

Regarding cost I honestly don't care nowadays whether it's a few bucks more or less (per roll of film), I kinda always add it all up (film, dev, scans, maybe prints) and divide by 36 - then, at a cost-per-image basis it doesn't make a big difference.
So I pay for the more expensive film if I know I'd really like that particular "look" - it's worth it 👍

To be honest it's as much about removing another variable as anything else. I'll get round to trying it eventually no doubt.

HP5 at 1600

2 Attachments

Thats amazing news that 110 film is in production again!

Was gifted a Pentax 110 kit (alloy box with pretty much every lens and accessory that was popular at the time) in basically new condition from a house guest from Singapore. Never been able to use it, but now maybe there is a chance.

Yup, my first voyage into canon SLR was 90's plastic units, eos 300 and eos 500 and a eos 3 or 5 with the eye control (only had 5 points though, thing was a tank). And honestly from every analogue camera with a TTL sensor I've ever used, they always had the best metering, only when shooting underground, sewers and mines was exposure (not the cameras fault) an issue.

Same for the early 2000s Nikons (F80 etc) - light, basically infallible meter, and still so cheap you can chuck them into a bag/use as a holiday camera without worrying about them

I’ve been nerding out on b&w film over the last two years mostly processing in Xtol and Rodinal and these are my brief thoughts on some of the films out there.

Kentmere 100/400, FP4/HP5 - baseline films. Push and pull just fine. You just get larger apparent grain with the Kentmere film and not quite the insane latitude. TriX behaves exactly as HP5 as far as I can tell.

Ilford Pan 100 - A smidge more contrast than the above. Therefore a little less suitable to push (I still shoot it at EI 200 all the time but wouldn’t go further). Poor man’s FP4.

Pan F 50 - A bit slower than box. A bit more contrast again and just kinda beautiful. Process straight after shooting essential.

Adox HR-50 - High detail. Low lattitude. High contrast. A bit of red sensitivity built-in but looks good with a yellow filter too (requires a bit more care shooting and processing than the films above). Thin negs are best. Clear base. Benefits from a prewash. Easy to scan. Cheap.

Rollei Retro 400 - very similar characteristics to HR-50 (and nothing like other ‘400’ speed films such as HP5 or TriX). Some grain. Moody shot at 400. Benefits from a prewash. Very cheap.

Tmax 100 - very, very fine grain. High detail. Pretty high contrast. Red sensitive (which I really don’t like for portraits but is good for landscapes). Needs lots of fixing and washing. For some reason is like it in 120 but in 35mm I’m not sure maybe I need to hone my times for Xtol for this to get the tonality I see others get. It’s also really expensive in 35mm.

Tmax 3200 and Ilford Delta 3200. I’ve not shot enough to say anything other than … I liked both best @EI 1000 and it didn’t look any better than HP5. Mad grain.

Foma 400 … I have 61 metres of this in my fridge but haven’t shot any yet.

Sorry for the long effortpost.

Kentmete 400/Konica Hear RF/Voigtlander 15mm/R09 One Shot

4 Attachments

Nice, especially like the group shot at the end 👍

Here's some matresses shot on Neopan 400 from back in the day, don't remember which camera / lens I'm afraid.
I've always enjoyed the, for lack of a better word, "creamy" tones / transitions of Neopan..

3 Attachments

helpful post, I did most of this and landed on HP5 as my fav, the latitude is crazy can shoot from 100 all the way to 3200.

i do shoot FP4 if its bright.

Always found Tri-X to have slightly worse latitude and more grain than HP5.

Thanks for sharing your findings!
Can't comment on the Ilford Pan, Adox and Rollei films as I haven't shot them really, but agree with all you said in regards to the T-Max films and FP4/HP5.
Reading all this takes me back and makes me question why I gave away all my b&w developement stuff 🤷‍♂️

Developer choice has more of an influence than film, huge difference in the look you get from Rodinal and Pyro.
HC110 dilution-B with a low agitation method was my favourite combo or Pyro if paying somebody else to do the D and P.

good point, I am always HC110 dilution A

Some HP5 while we're at it..

3 Attachments

I've not had an XA2 in about fifteen years but I picked one up recently for cheap and just put a roll of porta 400 through as a test. Some of the photos here... everything looking a bit under developed and I'm not sure why... old film perhaps that's not been well stored or just the dank cornish winter light and lack of any flash...

3 Attachments

A few more here

3 Attachments

Some of the photos here... everything looking a bit under developed and I'm not sure why

..looks to me like these were shot underexposed.

Assuming the ISO was set correctly on the camera my first guess would be there's something wrong with the meter 🫤

Film being old or badly stored (was it?) could also contribute to the problem, although that usually leads to dull / shifted colours rather than that grainy / frosted appearance you see here.

It's not the dank winter or lack of flash (the camera should still have exposed correctly no matter the weather, or whether you've used a flash or not).

Developer choice has more of an influence than film

Yes. Chemicals and method.