Even More Fun With Film
by Iris C. Davis
Waiting
13 years to update our comprehensive film tests of 1992 might seem like a long
time to anyone who’s never suffered through this kind of torture. Imagine
shooting nearly 200 rolls of film of the same subject: a corkboard with
towels in varying colors that correspond with a grey scale. Are your eyes
are glazing over yet? Now, imagine processing all this film in ten
different developers and then doing it over, because manufacturers recommendations
are rarely related to one’s own darkroom experiences. For the three of
you who are still with me on this, imagine doing all of it with your
ex-wife!
For
those of you who don’t know us, I am a fine art photographic printer, and Chris Johnson, as well as being my
former husband, is a photographer, art educator and writer. For the 4th edition of
Chris’ book The Practical Zone System, we braved the close quarters of a
darkroom for untold hours to try and make sense of the changes Kodak and Ilford
have made to their products over
the last few years. We wanted to see if, as we suspected, Tri-X was no
longer “god’s film” and whether or not we should just hang it up and go
digital. (Obviously, this is not an option for me, as I am way too
stubborn to give up on a fine print that can only be made by getting one’s
hands wet.)
A
question I found myself asking repeatedly during our first round of film
testing in 1992 crept back into my mind during these exhaustive rounds as
well: Who tests this stuff, anyway? As just one example of the
difference between manufacturers recommendations and our “real world” results,
Ilford’s development times for PanF+ in every single developer we used were
consistently much shorter than the film needed.
PanF+ and Tmax 100 are the two finest grained films we
tested, though Delta 100 does give them both a run for their money.
As with our tests in 1992, I still can’t see a reason to shoot a 50 ASA film
when you can get grain just as
fine and 100 ASA to boot. I was stunned by the results of Tmax 100 in
HC110 dilution B. I did not expect to see finer grain and better contrast
combined with more film speed in HC110, but that’s just what we got.
Whereas in 1992 we found that Tmax 100 looked very muddy in
just about every developer except Tmax, that was not the case this time.
In fact, we got a true 100 ASA out of Tmax 100 in 4 different developers and 80
ASA in several others. Delta 100 really is almost as good as Tmax
100. It gives you a good 100 ASA in FG7 with a 9% sodium sulfite solution
and a very nice 80 ASA in Ilfotec HC diluted 1:31. And since Ilford has
shown a much stronger commitment to traditional photography recently than just
about any other film manufacturer* I am happy to highly recommend their
films. But in the case of fine grain and film speed, I still prefer the
look of Tmax 100. One thing to note about Tmax 100 is its propensity to get dichroic fog.
Tmax 100 processed in Tmax developer (not Tmax RS, by the way) is much more
likely to have this nasty stuff than any other film I’ve ever processed.
With the new results in HC110, I don’t expect this to be a problem
anymore.
We
weren’t able to get a true 125 ASA out of 125PX or FP4+ in any developer we
tested. The best 125PX ever looked was rated at 64 and processed in
Xtol. It was flat and ugly in everything else. Ilford’s FP4+ was
only marginally better. Again, almost all of Ilford’s recommended
processing times were considerably shorter than necessary for good
contrast. FP4+ does have very fine grain when rated at ASA 64 and
processed in Xtol, but again, when you can get a true film speed of 100 with
Tmax 100 processed in HC110, why give up half a stop?
Thirteen
years ago we rated Tri-X at ASA 400 in 5 of the 10 developers we tested.
In this round of testing we didn’t get a good 400 for Tri-X in one single developer. We found it
to be a very good 320 in Ilfotec HC and FG7 with a 9% sodium sulfite solution
and HC110 dilution B. The grain was noticeably finer in Ilfotec HC, but
HP5+ stole the show this time around. Certainly if you’re attached to
Kodak (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) you’ll want to choose Tmax 400 over
Tri-X. Kodak appears to be more committed to their Tmax films than Tri-X
and Plus-X. Is it just too cynical to think they’ve found a cheaper way
to manufacture these films? Whatever changes they’ve made to Tri-X and
Plus-X have not been beneficial to the working photographer.
While
Tmax 400 does, indeed, give you a good 400 ASA in several developers, there’s
just something missing. At its best, Tmax 400 just seems to lie there on
the paper. HP5+, on the other hand, looks quite good in a number of
developers. In my real world experience I rate HP5+ at 320 and process it
for 10 minutes in Xtol, and that right there is proof that these processing times should be considered
starting points for your own tests. I am convinced, however, that any
conscientious photographer will get acceptable results with the times outlined
in this book, and I’ll be happy to show you the dozens of ugly 8x10 test prints
to prove manufacturers don’t work in a darkroom anything like yours or
mine.
I
have seen mixed results with Delta 400. Our tests showed it to be a
beautiful 400 when processed in Xtol, but the film that has come through my lab
has looked consistently under-exposed. I am very surprised that Ilford’s films don’t seem to
perform any better, and often not as well, in their own developers. While Delta 400 looks quite good in
Xtol diluted 1:1 and even Perceptol used straight (rated at 400 and 320
respectively), there’s nothing at all special about the results you get in
Ilfotec HC or
ID-11. It’s also interesting to note that
Ilford is now recommending ID-11 be used straight rather than diluted 1:1 as we
did in 1992.
We
tested Delta 3200 and Tmax 3200 in just a few developers. Obviously, some developers with very
long times were out of the question for our “practical” results. We gave them both a shot in Xtol
straight, hoping for decent film speed without giant grain. No luck with Delta 3200, but Tmax 3200
gave us relatively fine grain and an effective ASA of 1600. Based on some of my own clients’
results pushing HP5+ to 1600, we tried that too. We were able to get an accptable 1600 ASA with HP5+
processed in Tmax developer at 75º for 8 minutes, and finer grain than either
of the 3200 films. While we did
get an actual film speed of 3200 ASA with the Tmax film processed in Ilfotec HC
1:31, we decided Tmax RS gave us a good 2400 with finer grain.
After
months of shooting and processing film in all these developers, comparing
shadow and highlight detail, grain structure and effective film speeds, it was
finally enough to get my teetotalling former husband to share a bottle of
champagne with me. Everything
looked much better after that.
The
complete test results can be viewed at chrisjohnsonphotographer.com.
Chris’
book is available through amazon.com.
Iris’
website is davisblackandwhite.com.
* After we were too far into
this to add any more film to our tests, Fuji came out with a refreshing press
release stating their commitment to traditional photography: Silver halide photography, which is fundamental to
photography, has advantages over digital in such areas as power of expression,
long term storage capability, reasonable prices, easy handling and a highly
established and convenient photo development and print infrastructure.
We intend to
continue our silver halide photography business and to further cultivate the
culture of photography, and in so doing, continue to support our customers and
retailers and all those who enjoy photography.