35mm Film for Landscapes (B&W only)
Old 01-03-2020   #1
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
35mm Film for Landscapes (B&W only)

On a road trip around Arizona in the spring I plan to do some landscape photography and, for various reasons, I'll be taking 35mm rather than the MF that I'd prefer.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on suitable films that are currently available. I have some FP4+ and Foma 100 Classic in the freezer but maybe something finer grained would be better. Years ago I used Pan F developed in Perceptol but haven't used the 'Plus' version. Is this still a good combo or is there something else that's worth considering? Your thoughts please!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #2
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,992
It is totally dependent on your vision and taste.

I have done my landscapes with foma 400 mega grain. And I have done it in lith.
One print is in USA, one in Australia.

We don’t have to dye hard over Adams prints. But if it is, check if new Ilford film is available.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #3
Sarcophilus Harrisii
Brett Rogers
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,749
Although Delta 100 is sharper, the extremely fine grain of Pan F Plus in many developers means it's still capable of high resolution. But it does like to be developed fairly promptly. A few weeks is usually fine but it's not a film to leave in a camera for six months as its ability to preserve a latent image is poor.

In terms of resolution it's hard to go wrong with Pan F Plus, Delta 100, FP4 Plus, TMAX 100 or Acros 100 not to mention several other types. I haven't used Acros II, yet, but have no reason to think it will be any less sharp than its predecessor.

Given the resolution of all of the above can potentially be excellent I'd suggest you consider the sort of tonality you prefer, when processed in the developers you are likely to use. For the most part I stick to ID-11 and any of the films I've mentioned can be processed in that at 1 + 3 dilution, Ilford's own stated combination for maximum sharpness from its various developer options.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #4
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,110
You haven't told us if you will take a tripod. If yes, you can also consider the document type films if you're after grainless, high resolution pictures. On the other hand if you want to shoot hand held and use pol, orange or red filters, you might even want to use iso 400 films.
Personally I'd either go really fine grained or fast (and perhaps a bit grainy). FP4+ doesn't really appeal to me, it's so middle of the road - you could have similar resolution and level of grain with T-max 400 and two more stops for more dof, filtration and flexibility hand-holding also when not in full sun, or you could have finer grain and higher resolution at the same speed with one of the flat grain films. Or you could have more grain and character with tri-x or something like Foma 200 (I haven't used 100 yet). OTOH if you have a stock of fp4+ and fomapan 100, you probably like them...?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #5
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
 
Moto-Uno's Avatar
 
Moto-Uno is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: The Wet Coast
Posts: 1,704
If anywhere near Sedona , you might want a few rolls of colour too , Peter
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #6
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,324
As others have said, it's totally dependent on the look you want to achieve. FWIW, when I was in Arizona a few years ago I shot TriX with an orange filter everywhere (and a few rolls of Ektar in MF, but that's not the issue). On another trip to SW Colorado I ended up with HP5+, mostly with a green filter. Most recently, I shot unfiltered TriX in New Mexico. Three different looks for sure - I can post samples if you like.



A little guidance on what kind of a finished product you're looking for would be helpful.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #7
CharlesDAMorgan
Registered User
 
CharlesDAMorgan is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,373
I love Tmax400 which can be pulled to 200 with excellent sharpness (Perceptol 1:2 for 10 minutes) shot at 400 or 800 with the same development and without serious grain, and pushes beautifully up to 1600.

If you have a tripod etc the 100s you suggest have a lot of character too.
__________________
De-gassing progress:

Leica M2, Nikon D700, Bronica RF645, Leica CL, Summicron 40mm, Rolleicord Va, Hasselblad 500 CM Zeiss Planar, Leica 50mm Summicron V3, Hasselblad PME51 metered prism, Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta 534/16 & Ensign 820 Special - all gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #8
Erik van Straten
Registered User
 
Erik van Straten's Avatar
 
Erik van Straten is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,861
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #9
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
You haven't told us if you will take a tripod.
And more importantly, if you will use it. 35mm begs to be hand-held! At least for some shots. I like to keep my speeds up to at least 1/125 for most shots, and 1/250 when possible. Any slower than 1/60, and that's when the tripod comes out. So I generally don't bother with films slower than ISO 100. I would favor Delta 100 in that range. I also like Eastman 5222/Double-X, at ISO 250 or so. The latter just has the right look, to my eye. And Delta 400 or Tri-X when more speed is needed. These are the B&W films I stick with. Well, I also have a few rolls of Plus-X, but when they are gone, they are gone. I wish Kodak would bring it back.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #10
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,250
You haven't said whether you plan to scan or print in a darkroom. I would also be helpful to know how big a print you plan to make and whether you crop or print as shot. Almost all the landscape I've done in our farming community has been with either Tri-X or HP5+ and developed in either X-tol replenished or, in recent years, D-23. They all scan well and provide conventional prints up to 11X14 that suits me. There's a great quote you should remember "He was Ansel Adams. You're not." Unfortunately, a senior moment keeps me from attributing it correctly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #11
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcophilus Harrisii View Post
Although Delta 100 is sharper, the extremely fine grain of Pan F Plus in many developers means it's still capable of high resolution. But it does like to be developed fairly promptly.
Thanks, I've heard that Pan F likes prompt processing, which I could do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #12
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
You haven't told us if you will take a tripod.
I'll probably take a tripod but never use it
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
If yes, you can also consider the document type films if you're after grainless, high resolution pictures. On the other hand if you want to shoot hand held and use pol, orange or red filters, you might even want to use iso 400 films.
Personally I'd either go really fine grained or fast (and perhaps a bit grainy). FP4+ doesn't really appeal to me, it's so middle of the road - you could have similar resolution and level of grain with T-max 400 and two more stops for more dof, filtration and flexibility hand-holding also when not in full sun, or you could have finer grain and higher resolution at the same speed with one of the flat grain films. Or you could have more grain and character with tri-x or something like Foma 200 (I haven't used 100 yet). OTOH if you have a stock of fp4+ and fomapan 100, you probably like them...?
Yes, I do like those two films but I'd like to be able to make larger prints without intrusive grain.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #13
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moto-Uno View Post
If anywhere near Sedona , you might want a few rolls of colour too , Peter
Thanks for the tip but I do all my colour stuff with digital now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #14
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
As others have said, it's totally dependent on the look you want to achieve. FWIW, when I was in Arizona a few years ago I shot TriX with an orange filter everywhere (and a few rolls of Ektar in MF, but that's not the issue). On another trip to SW Colorado I ended up with HP5+, mostly with a green filter. Most recently, I shot unfiltered TriX in New Mexico. Three different looks for sure - I can post samples if you like.

A little guidance on what kind of a finished product you're looking for would be helpful.
Thanks but I like my landscapes to have a touch of grain but not be grainy, so faster films are out (except TMY2 or Delta 400, neither of which I'm very keen on).
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #15
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob-F View Post
And more importantly, if you will use it. 35mm begs to be hand-held! At least for some shots. I like to keep my speeds up to at least 1/125 for most shots, and 1/250 when possible. Any slower than 1/60, and that's when the tripod comes out. So I generally don't bother with films slower than ISO 100. I would favor Delta 100 in that range. I also like Eastman 5222/Double-X, at ISO 250 or so. The latter just has the right look, to my eye. And Delta 400 or Tri-X when more speed is needed. These are the B&W films I stick with. Well, I also have a few rolls of Plus-X, but when they are gone, they are gone. I wish Kodak would bring it back.
As per my reply to the earlier post, I will do the routine of taking a tripod and then not bothering with it. I've tried Delta 100 but somehow didn't like the look when compared to FP4+ or Foma Classic. Lucky you having some Plus-X, my all-time favourite.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #16
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
I'll probably take a tripod but never use it

Yes, I do like those two films but I'd like to be able to make larger prints without intrusive grain.

Then, as you must have figured yourself, your pick out of the Neopan, Delta and T-Max 100 films is probably the ticket! I do like the tmx except for its tendency to give Newton rings also from the emulsion side, will try Delta 100 at some point.
Of course you could shoot something slower hand-held, but you won't get the dof most people want in landscapes, and difficulty to shoot anything not in full sun.

I'd always also take some 400 speed film, I need it even in sunny locations, I'll still take pictures at dusk and in the shade and want some dof.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #17
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
You haven't said whether you plan to scan or print in a darkroom.
Scan with Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 Mk.1
Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
I would also be helpful to know how big a print you plan to make and whether you crop or print as shot. Almost all the landscape I've done in our farming community has been with either Tri-X or HP5+ and developed in either X-tol replenished or, in recent years, D-23. They all scan well and provide conventional prints up to 11X14 that suits me.
I'm looking to print slightly larger than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
There's a great quote you should remember "He was Ansel Adams. You're not." Unfortunately, a senior moment keeps me from attributing it correctly.
As I'll be taking landscapes with 35mm that's one illusion I probably won't be under
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #18
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by retinax View Post
Then, as you must have figured yourself, your pick out of the Neopan, Delta and T-Max 100 films is probably the ticket! I do like the tmx except for its tendency to give Newton rings also from the emulsion side, will try Delta 100 at some point.
Of course you could shoot something slower hand-held, but you won't get the dof most people want in landscapes, and difficulty to shoot anything not in full sun.

I'd always also take some 400 speed film, I need it even in sunny locations, I'll still take pictures at dusk and in the shade and want some dof.
Thanks, you're right about hand held so I guess I'll finally have to get to use that tripod that I've lugged around for all these years! This would also open the door to the Pan F+ in Perceptol that I've been thinking about...
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #19
Bingley
Registered User
 
Bingley's Avatar
 
Bingley is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 5,787
For 35mm landscape photography, my go-to films are TMax 100 and FP4+, although I've also had good results with Fomapan 200.

I particularly like TMax 100 because of the detail, fine grain, and long tonal range. Very pleased with the results over the years. I develop in HC 110 dil. h.

I shot a bunch of rolls of FP4+ this past summer and was also pleased with the results. I metered the film at 250 and developed in Diafine.
__________________
Steve

FS: Pentax MX, Voigtlander Ultron 40/2.0 SLII in Pentax K-mount, Takumar 100/2.8 and 35/3.5 lenses: See my ads in Classifieds

M3, M2, R2A, IIIc, IVSB2, & T, and assorted LTM & M lenses
Minolta XD11, Pentax ME Super, and assorted MD Rokkor and Takumar lenses, Rolleicord III, Rolleicord Vb, Rolleiflex Automat MX-EVS

My Flickr
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #20
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,534
35mm b&w landscape ... hm, it can be done, but is obviously an odd choice. I recently tried:





  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #21
Beemermark
Registered User
 
Beemermark's Avatar
 
Beemermark is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 1,828
Ilford Pan F+. You shouldn't have much problem not having enough light unless your fastest lens is 5.6 or slower. Even with filters you're looking at 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8. I think Pan F+ has a better contrast range depending on developer than other films besides zip grain.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #22
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 70
Posts: 1,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingley View Post

I particularly like TMax 100 because of the detail, fine grain, and long tonal range. .
I’d second this for 35mm landscapes, for the same reasons, though I use other films for other things. Though I like Pan F+ as a film, I prefer TMax 100 for landscapes, if limited to 135 format. Just a personal preference for the “look” in normal development.
Large format with any film is better still, but...

Would also put in a word for FP4+ as long as it was developed in PMK or similar for sharpness and long tonal range, though you would see some grain in 135.

Not the normal way of thinking, but Ektar 100 or Provia 100F both make superb black and white conversions, fine grained and sharp, which work well with landscapes, Ektar having good shadow detail as well.Then you’d automatically have the option of color on the same shot. No law says you have to use black and white film to get a nice black and white landscape.

Medium or large format so much nicer for landscapes, though, but I understand.
__________________
Larry

“It is about time we take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.” Elliot Erwitt
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #23
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,400
PanF+ is my favorite for landscapes in bright light, shot that and ORWO UN54 in Austin last spring, didn’t want for a tripod once. I find the ORWO can be a little more forgiving of slightly underexposed shadows. UN54 in Perceptol 1:1 or PanF+ in DD-X 1:4 is my vote.

Travel well!
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #24
agentlossing
Registered User
 
agentlossing is offline
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 51
I don't think the Foma 100 you have would be that grainy, I like their 100 a lot better than the 200. Delta films seem pretty fine and have lots of tones as well. I speak from limited experience however, and I've only developed with DF96 which isn't the finest resolving method. But I found Delta 400 to look a lot nicer than HP5+ in terms of grain and Foma 100 to be cleanest overall in good light out of what I've done.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-03-2020   #25
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
 
titrisol's Avatar
 
titrisol is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: RDU / Quito / LaLa Land
Age: 49
Posts: 1,321
FP4+ is a great film, specially if you develop it in a fine grain developer

The other option is TMAX100 or DELTA100 develped in XTOL or DDX
__________________
When I think back of all the crappy pictures I've taken, it's a wonder I can see at all......
APX It gives us the nicer grays/It gives the cleanes whites/Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah/I got a nikon camera/I love to take a photograph
MAMA DON'T TAKE MY APX AWAY........
Sorry Paul Simon


My gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2020   #26
Deardorff38
Registered User
 
Deardorff38's Avatar
 
Deardorff38 is online now
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 955
Lawrence, Arizona has lots of strong light & i've had my best results with FP4+ (35mm-5x7") in Pyrocat HD. I've had finicky results with PanF and have been happier to trade longer tonal scale for a bit of sharpness loss. Have a great trip!
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2020   #27
Ste_S
Registered User
 
Ste_S is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence View Post
On a road trip around Arizona in the spring I plan to do some landscape photography and, for various reasons, I'll be taking 35mm rather than the MF that I'd prefer.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on suitable films that are currently available. I have some FP4+ and Foma 100 Classic in the freezer but maybe something finer grained would be better. Years ago I used Pan F developed in Perceptol but haven't used the 'Plus' version. Is this still a good combo or is there something else that's worth considering? Your thoughts please!
If the size of the gear is the problem, consider a medium format folder. Something like the Zeiss Ikon Nettar is great for landscapes if the focal length works for you
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-04-2020   #28
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
 
Rob-F's Avatar
 
Rob-F is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Show Me state
Age: 79
Posts: 6,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by presspass View Post
There's a great quote you should remember "He was Ansel Adams. You're not."
So there's no point in, nor hope of, doing quality work? I don't see Lawrence trying to be Ansel Adams with the question he's asking. I think he just wants to do the best he can.
__________________
May the light be with you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #29
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deardorff38 View Post
Lawrence, Arizona has lots of strong light & i've had my best results with FP4+ (35mm-5x7") in Pyrocat HD. I've had finicky results with PanF and have been happier to trade longer tonal scale for a bit of sharpness loss. Have a great trip!
Thanks! I'm particularly looking forward to visiting the Center for Creative Photography in Tuscon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #30
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 68
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemermark View Post
Ilford Pan F+. You shouldn't have much problem not having enough light unless your fastest lens is 5.6 or slower. Even with filters you're looking at 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8. I think Pan F+ has a better contrast range depending on developer than other films besides zip grain.
Living in London in winter and I forget that in other places there is such a thing as light
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #31
retinax
Registered User
 
retinax is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemermark View Post
Ilford Pan F+. You shouldn't have much problem not having enough light unless your fastest lens is 5.6 or slower. Even with filters you're looking at 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8. I think Pan F+ has a better contrast range depending on developer than other films besides zip grain.

To me, 1/50 @ 5.6 or 8 wouldn't be enough for hand held landscape pictures to be printed large, both in shutter speed and aperture, certainly not with a 50mm or longer, maybe just so with a wide. And that is assuming you only shoot in full sun, which might happen in a desert climate if you do strictly open landscapes and no general travel, architecture etc. photography. But even then, you'd certainly want to take pictures close to dusk and dawn, when the light is softer and also less intense...
Of course it's all a matter of priorities. I totally get not wanting to use a tripod, and in that case 35mm makes sense. This is RFF after all. For landscapes, I place higher value on getting sufficient depth of field and safe shutter speeds than on low grain. I'd rather have a grainy landscape than a motion blurred one, and sometimes simply require f/11 for dof. Then, I will want to take pictures with at least parts of the scene in the shade, which can be more than six stops under the sunny 16 exposure. Therefore I'd use at least ISO 100 film. But if you're happy to, for example, go for limited dof in the shade, a slow film could of course work for you.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #32
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
T-Max 100 and a good developer (and a tripod)

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #33
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 2,004
I'm not really any kind of expert on B&W films, but I think Ilford FP4 Plus works quite well for a 35mm landscape film.
This was FP4 Plus, shot with my Pentax MX and Pentax 24/2.8

__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #34
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,534
Why would you need a tripod in sun-flooded Arizona?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #35
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Why would you need a tripod in sun-flooded Arizona?
Gee, maybe for the times/places/situations where the sun isn't shining full-on, and/or when needing apertures, using filters, etc. necessitating a slower shutter speed and to make sure there is no camera motion at borderline handhold-able speeds?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #36
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,534
I dunno: even if there is full cloud coverage, you will have f/8 @ 1/125s, and even if you use 2-stop a red filter or a grad filter, you still have f/4 @ 1/125s.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #37
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,362
Yeah nah, the light isn't Sunny 16 dawn till dusk. I shot a lot of 35mm and 120 in AZ a few summers ago and I absolutely needed a tripod for a lot of it, if I wanted to ensure enough DOF and/or no camera vibration. Of course you don't need it 100% of the time.

I shot a lot at f/8 and 1/15 in the shade or evening.

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #38
chipgreenberg
Registered User
 
chipgreenberg is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 155
Nice Colton!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swift1 View Post
I'm not really any kind of expert on B&W films, but I think Ilford FP4 Plus works quite well for a 35mm landscape film.
This was FP4 Plus, shot with my Pentax MX and Pentax 24/2.8

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-05-2020   #39
presspass
filmshooter
 
presspass is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,250
If you can get a copy, the late Barry Thornton's Edge of Darkness has a great discussion of grain and sharpness as it affects black and white film landscape photography. Cutting to the chase, he contends, and shows the results of shooting with a 400 iso film vs a slower film. He found the higher speed film gives better results. Much of his work was 120, but he did use and show results from 35mm.
  Reply With Quote

Best compromise
Old 01-05-2020   #40
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 58
Posts: 2,874
Best compromise

I agree, FP4+ is an excellent choice for landscapes *and* general photography.
The increase in grain can be minimal, depending on development.
The extra film speed will allow you to shoot handheld in normal daylight.

My preference for mixed photography is something I can expose @ ~ EI 200.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:51.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.