advertisement


Rolleiflex

firestorm said:
Cliff would like to know your opinions on b&w films. In particular Kodak TMAX-100 b&w, Fuji Neopan ACROS 100 and Ilford Pan 50. I used to use something called id11, although I never got it to work well with the Ilford 50, too contrasty. It worked well with the Neopan 400 I seem to remember.
Cheers
Click to expand...

If you need some more expert advice on B&W films and chemistry then the best bet is to ask one of the guys who do it all the time - eg Mentalp, Sideshowbob or Cesare. I did used to do a lot of developing and printing back in the 80s but only got back into it again this year, so my expertise, such as it is, is limited to Rodinal and XTOL. I don't know ID11 at all.

I have processed Neopan in Rodinal and XTOL and I have processed 400TX (aka Tri-X) in XTOL including push processing. I haven't tried Acros or Pan-F 50 in my own tank, but I have had good results with Acros and Pan-F using Genie to do the processing. Provided you stick to the correct times and temperatures you should be OK with any B&W film in XTOL

From what I understand ID11 is, like XTOL, a powder based chemistry that you have to mix yourself, whereas DD-X and Rodinal come ready mixed. When I got some XTOL I had to find myself an appropriate bottle to store the mixed stuff and a big bucket to mix it in and a funnel. Pre-mix is easier when you don't have a lot of space to work or places to store stuff. I'll post some Acros and Pan-F examples shortly.

cheers
Cliff

PS the combination of Kodak Tri-X and XTOL is pretty much bomb proof, and would be my choice now that Neopan is no more ...
and I find this pretty sad since I have preferred fuji to kodak overall in both colour and b&w stock for over 25 years ...
 
firestorm said:
Cliff would like to know your opinions on b&w films. In particular Kodak TMAX-100 b&w, Fuji Neopan ACROS 100 and Ilford Pan 50. I used to use something called id11, although I never got it to work well with the Ilford 50, too contrasty. It worked well with the Neopan 400 I seem to remember.
Cheers
Click to expand...

id11 is alright, but it's not where it's at these days. Xtol is the current favourite, and it is very easy to use, and gives really great results on older film designs, and modern fancy delta/acros style films.

You seem to be interested in 100 speed films. Acros 100 is probably the one I prefer most, but i also like ilford delta 100. Pan F is nice, and can be pushed to 100 without any noticeable change in character to my eyes.

400 speed films, Tmax, HP5 and Neopan 400 are the ones i've used. I've tended to shoot HP5 by choice, but the price earlier this year was really high, so I grabbed 100 rolls of neopan 400 which i'm experimenting with at present. I'm enjoying the experience, but will probably revert to HP5 as I like the grainier look and higher edge sharpness it seems to give.

In general, i'd suggest 400 speed for a medium format camera, especially if like me you are generally hand held. You'll be limited to very large apertures with 100 speed film in lots of light conditions and this may not be a look you are after. Once you add a colour filter you tend to loose a stop or two of light and 100 gets decidedly slow for handheld use. The trade-off in quality at 400 isn't something i usually find to be a problem - there is so much detail you aren't going to worry when you are waving medium format amount of film about.

Ian I think prefers Tmax, and again you can push this to ISO3200 and above without worrying too much. As I said, there is so much dynamic range in these films that you can pretty much under/over expose by a stop or two and get something back.
 
Ian uses Tri-X. I'm not sure I'd agree you can push it to 3200 and not worry about it - the increase in contrast is noticeable even at a one stop push, certainly at 1600+. Obviously there are both artistic and practical reasons for pushing it, and X-tol is a good developer for keeping this in check to a degree, but subtle toning can be lost when push processing.

T-max 100 is my favourite 100 speed film. It works very nicely with Rodinal as it is such a fine grain film, you can have the high acutance without so much trade off in uber-grain. There's something I really like about the mid-tones, and if you have enough light it can give excellent results.
Acros 100 is my second favourite 100 speed, but it's higher contrast and can be a bit too B&W for me.
 
Anex said:
Ian uses Tri-X. I'm not sure I'd agree you can push it to 3200 and not worry about it - the increase in contrast is noticeable even at a one stop push, certainly at 1600+. .
Click to expand...

I think you can control the amount of contrast at the developing stage by using a kind of stand developing technique (extended time, fewer inversions - basically subject to a bit of experimentation)
 
Thanks for the feedback guys.

My last exp in the darkroom was in the early 90s, mostly Neopan400, Ilford FP4 and Pan F 50. All in 35mm. I used to push the Neopan to 1600 and get the reportage grainy and sharp look. FP4 was easy to use and develop. The PAN 50 was great, but I found it difficult to develop.

So with more film real estate (120) , I can use a higher speed film, where grain shouldn't be a problem?

I like the tones, tonal graduation and dynamic range from film. So something that excels in those areas would be great.

In that case, Something like Kodak TriX 400 would be a good start ?
I'll have a go at using xtol to develop it and I'll use my flatbed to scan it.

Also I found that the Rolleiflex doesn't fit on my tripod. I wonder if there are adaptors available...
 
cliffpatte said:
I think you can control the amount of contrast at the developing stage by using a kind of stand developing technique (extended time, fewer inversions - basically subject to a bit of experimentation)
Click to expand...

You can, but unless you need high ISO, why bother? You can get the mids with normal film speeds and shorter, higher agitation processing.

Firestorm: you can't go far wrong with Tri-X. X-tol will give a very smooth look. I prefer Rodinal with Tri-X too, but it only needs inverting about once over a 20 minute period, else it'll grain right up on you. Rodinal is ace for the lazy developer, such as myself.
 
Patrick,
does it give me a 1/4 inch mount ?

I've got a manfrotto, so Manfrotto 200PL-38 should work, as the thread on the Rolleiflex is 3/8 inch I believe.
 
Don't you just want one of those screw in adaptors which take it from 3/8 to 1/4? It's like a threaded screw with another thread on the inside
 
I've just got some Rollei Fuji 400H shots scanned on an Imacon scanner, giving around 7,000px per side. Unbelievable amount of resolution there. Will be getting some ~60cm prints made soon.

The Hastings Print Shop has also just beautifully printed a Rollei Pan F and a Holga Tri-X shot on fibre paper for me - again, just so much there.

Completely amazing little cameras.
 
Arf.

I would recommend sticking with one or two films and one developer to begin with. Xtol is my choice for everything, but you have to mix 5 litres, so if you aren't going to be shooting lots of film to begin with I'd get a 1 litre bottle of DD-X first. It mixes one-shot 1+4 with water, and gives good results with most films. As for film choice, my favourites are Acros at ISO 100 and Tri-X at 200 - 3200. Tri-X is very forgiving film and good to experiment with, it has wide exposure and developing latitude and scans very well. It's not especially cheap though.
 
cliffpatte said:
maybe I "need" a Rollei too ;-)
Click to expand...

I can't believe what I'm reading - you mean you haven't got one in your collection ? I'd thought curiousity would get the better of you by now :D

Theres a rarer Rolleiflex with a F/2.8 lens, mine is the common f/3.5 ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top