I think a test in 35mm is called for 👍

Thanks Ricardo.

Thanks Richard 👍

You can’t go wrong with either film Adrian, I’ve used all sorts over the years but cannot find fault with the look of either FP4+ or HP5+.

Thanks Jeff and enjoy shooting the Delta and Velvia in the Blad 🙂

Thanks Simeon.

I think it would be more marked in a darkroom print at 16x20” Koen and also if I shot 35mm.

Thanks Philip, it surprised me how close they were.

It was a little surprising but then again the scanner has a lot of influence on the results and I think an optical enlargement is in order next time.

Glad you liked it Terry.

Thanks Adam 😀

😀

Thank you Kristijan 👍

There’s much more of a difference with colour films but traditional B&W is very good at ISO 400.

Thank you Victor 👍

Thanks Michael. I’d also rather use a slow film than apply ND filters and it is also a good film in dull conditions to boost the contrast.

It is remarkably good for a film that has a reputation for being grainy, I think the smaller formats will show a greater benefit with Pan F.

You’re welcome Gürhan.

FP4+ has lovely tonality and a bit more contrast than HP5+ but I really miss the extra two stops of speed on windy days.

Thanks Charles, pinhole if great fun and I agree that the smaller negatives do not suffer due to a little grain.

Thanks Bernard, it would be a great film for portraits.

I’m also of the opinion that most B&W films are broadly with most of the difference down to exposure and development. The Ilford range has always offered great choice and whenever I’ve enlarged 35mm negatives from the 1960’s they’ve looked terrific.

Very true 👍

It is a tricky film Michael and I have also had mixed results in the past. I generally prefer 400 speed films for landscapes and have yet to use one I don’t like.

Fair point about the scanner but I used it to show the typical quality a home user can expect. Both films would show an improvement with the likes of a Flextight or Coolscan.

Thanks Paul.

It is a very good film Shamik but not good enough (in 120) to move me from HP5+, partly due to the issue of shutter speeds 😕

Certainly with the bigger formats it makes less sense to use a slow film. I have found in 4x5 and 8x10 that HP5+ is perfect unless I want a lot more contrast which favours FP4+.

Pan F is not available in 4x5.

I'll be interested in using Rollei RPK 25 in 4x5!

S Baines Pan F is not available as large format sheet film.

Thanks Robin. I find the v700 to be very good with HP5+ unlike some dedicated scanners such as my old Coolscan V. Pan F isn’t too bad unless you have dense areas such as bright skies and they can be more difficult than the faster film. I’ve found the Minolta to be pretty good but then again I have the earlier non LED version.

@@SteveONions Thanks Steve. It wasn't just me imagining the difference then.

For you maybe Martin, others might like to have some context behind the test.

A great combination Cameron, I’ve often used it at 1:1 and also like the look of it developed in 510 Pyro. It’s such a versatile film that if no other options were available I could live with it for every situation.

Thanks Graham.

Thanks Laura. It’s rare that we get enough light to use slow speed films, 400 is typically needed in the UK.

Hi Chris. I really did need a small aperture to get the leaves in focus due to how close I was working to the subject. Had I backed up slightly I would have been able to open up slightly and get a faster shutter speed but even the HP5+ exposure was just quick enough to freeze any motion. I will often use f/11 or f/8 for long shots with little foreground interest and the lens performance here is uniformly superb. I admit that I rarely use open apertures in the landscape and perhaps I am missing opportunities by doing this. Thanks for posting.

I think HP5+ has almost perfect tonality and the grain pattern is very appealing. A fairer test would be to compare them in 35mm format where the finer trained film has a better chance of showing the virtues of smooth tones.

Steve O'Nions Yes I agree, would be an interesting test in 35mm. Have you shot with Fomapan before ?

I used the 100 on 4x5 and 400 on roll film. Quite a grainy but also classic looking film that needs careful handling when wet if you don’t want scratches.

Steve O'Nions I’m not brave enough to develop my own film yet, I get my lab to do it. I’m using Rollei infrared at the moment. Nightmare to handle too !

I love Rollei infrared, shot some in 120 on Saturday but I admit the 4x5 is like handling rice paper.

Hi Ray. I typically use ID11 or HC110 and prefer to base exposures around box speed. I always add an extra frame at +1 or even +2 to ensure a choice later but if the first frame has sufficient shadow detail I’ll use that one. This works best for scanning where a thin negative is easier to work with unlike the darkroom when I want more shadow detail.

@@SteveONions Thanks for that Steve. I tend to develop in Ilfotech HC or my own 2-bath, and I concentrate on shadow detail. I'll try a thinner neg for scanning.

Typically yes Ken, I’ll always make at least one overexposed shot.

Cheers Michael 😀

Nice one, sharp snail and blurred foliage 👍

@@SteveONions Thanks for another excellent video.

Yep, the old trick of pointing the body where you want to be when you click, then twisting to pan the speeding . . . errrm . . . snail from before that point, clicking at your chosen position and then following through, past the chosen point of exposure. Of course, there may be different snail species which slither at different speeds (much like the well known African and European swallow conundrum) and this would also need to be considered . . . Possibly one of those astronomical-telescope steering-systems would have the right angular speed to automate the panning. ;)

Hi Johan. I will use coloured filters but sparingly. I like to use yellow with blue skies and sometime orange or red too but they also have an impact on shadows. The green is interesting but very close to the look of yellow and it is more dense so slower shutter speeds.

@@SteveONions Thanks for sharing your thoughts on filters! I've have to practise more, learn about when and when not to use color filters. /Johan

It was a Zone 3 Christian, I always meter an area with significant shadow and place this at -2 stops. As a safety measure I take another frame with an additional stop of exposure just in case my metering was wrong and also to cover me if the film is damaged later.

@@SteveONions great! Thank you again and keep up your excellent work

Pretty much any B&W film can be made to perform well given the right exposure and development and all side by side comparisons are a compromise at best. The medium speed films are more forgiving in nature and can give good results without too much effort whereas slower materials need a lot more care and attention, as your tests have shown.

Totally agree Olivier, in 35mm Pan F is wonderful and I should redo the comparison with my Nikon system. Thanks for commenting.

It does indeed David, the eye needs something to latch onto.

I do indeed allow for reciprocity with the Ilford films, the longer exposures were almost twice the metered reading.

It is certainly flexible Charles and can be adjusted quite a lot in development but it is still inherently more contrasty than either FP4+ or HP5+.

It was pretty close Marvin and I think the scanner has made quite an impact on the final results. I’ll probably redo the comparison but with 35mm film where Pan F really shines and possibly make the enlargements in the darkroom too.

Thanks Diz. I like slower films in 35mm at times and will do another test at some point.

Me too 🙂

Thanks Roi.

I generally prefer B&W Ruud but often for early and late in the day images I feel the need for colour.

They are both negative Philip and the scanning process inverts them. You can also digitise them with a camera but you then need to invert them manually.

I’ve never tried it Jeff, it has interested me though so I may buy a few rolls.

Hi James. I am currently using film scanners but also experimenting with my Panasonic G9. The later is definitely sharper but I’m still trying to decide if I like the look and workflow better than the scanning approach.

@@SteveONions I shoot 35mm. It seems to me that it may be difficult to eliminate parallax problems using the camera as scanning tool. At one time I bought a Pentax 6 x 7. It was too big to carry it around. So I sent it back. My compliments to you for using large format. Enjoy your discussions...tally-ho. You know that you are a true film nut when you admit that the developing chemicals are a joy to sniff.

Thanks James, I also find medium format a bit much to lug around for long walks.

You’ll be absolutely fine with Ilfosol 3 or any other general developer, I typically use HC-110 because it is highly concentrated and lasts a long time.

I also like to work handheld with 35mm David. For large format I can whole heartedly recommend HP5+, it will give you more manageable shutter speeds when using tiny apertures.

Most films will work well if used properly Kerry and processing has a lot to do with the final look too.

That’ll be ‘A Bridge too Far’ 😀

I agree, a rerun in 35mm is on the cards 👍

I’ve tried the 100 and 400 Jonny, I quite like the old fashioned look they have but the surface is very delicate when wet. The 4x5 is excellent value too compared to Ilford.

@@SteveONions Thanks for answer. I do have one more question (this one is more on the topic of this vlog). Have you experimented with contrast control of your negatives with push&pull? I believe the contrast control is the main intention of Ansel's zone system. By putting the shadows into the zone, which won't get affected by p&p and putting the highlights to the zone which will get affected by p/p the most (and calculating the desired effect), you should able to use the whole latitude of the film no matter the dynamic range of the scene. This would be most useful with b&w large format photography, like this exact vlog. Do you think you'd experiment with that? I'd be really curious about the results.

I do on occasion manipulate films by changing exposure and development times but do not follow a strict Zone system approach. It is only really possible with sheet film unless you have multiple backs for your medium format camera and dedicate each to a specific contrast level. I was discussing the zone system with an Ilford master printer some years ago and he stated that multi grade papers had largely made it redundant - his prints were superb and he always developed his films to the same time and temperature. I will push film in dull weather and add development time and similarly (occasionally) pull a film and reduce development but if you are working with a digital scan it isn’t that important. If you are making darkroom prints it is a lot more important to tame the contrast at the time of capture.

Delta is a very good option Marvin, I use it a fair bit in 35mm, sharper than Pan F too in my eyes.

Your PanF is expired. You probably can't read the "Ilford Pan F Plus markings etc" along the borders of the developed film neither. With Pan F specifically, you really need to use fresh stock and develop as soon as possible after exposure.

@@node547 Thanks for the reply, but in both cases is was brand-new fresh stock. It was also developed within 24 hours of exposure.

That is strange, I know Pan F likes to be developed quickly but you have clearly done this. Has it ever affected any other films?

@@SteveONions No, just Pan F. I normally shoot either FP4 or Delta 100, developing with all Ilfotec chemicals (DD-X, Ilfostop, Rapid Fixer and Ilfotol) and using the manufacturer's guidelines. I've found other examples online of people having the same problem with Pan F but no definitive causes/solutions. One suggestion was that it could be caused by over-fixing, which could've made sense with my first roll, but I eliminated that the second time by using fresh fixer and exact timings. Perhaps in future I might try again with a different developer.

I have heard that the emulsion of Pan F is very delicate and easy to damage so maybe a different developer or tank would be worth a try.

Thanks Kamel.

@@SteveONions you're welcome sir

I also expected a bigger difference but the scanning could be partly responsible for this. A darkroom print would be a better test. Regarding FP4+ I can definitely recommend ID11 which seems like it was made for this film (and HP5+).

@@SteveONions It's just came to me, Steve, - I usually scan my 35 mm with Nikon d 800 E with the devise called Nikon ES-1(or 2 variety) Slide Copying Adapter. And with that I really saw difference between those Ifords, I think ;)

I am currently experimenting with digital camera scanning too and there is a considerable difference in sharpness. I need to do more before deciding which way to go.

@@SteveONions Good! Many people say that this method is comparable with drum scanning. Nikon d850 already has some features in the menu for this, such as converting negatives into positives right in the camera.

The results may well match a drum scan and I have also done a little experimentation with exposure blending on velvia slides.

😀

Not at the moment David, I will in the future when I have developed my website further.

😀

The canal is near Tiverton (Tarporley) Joshua.

I would Terry. Now I have my darkroom fully functional I can do better comparisons 👍

😀