I think this is better than digital photography...
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ก.ย. 2024
- When it comes to film stock, I'm the kind of photographer that doesn't like to change too many things. I love Ilford film and have been shooting with HP5 and FP4 since 1988. Even now, I can count on one hand how many other makes of black-and-white film I've used over the past 30 years. So when a couple of friends told me to try Fomapan films, I needed a bit of persuading. I eventually succumbed and bought some rolls.
At the same time, I also wanted to check out my Bronica RF645 camera which hadn't been used for twenty years. If you haven't seen the Bronica, it's basically a medium format rangefinder camera that shoots vertical pictures when held horizontally!! That took some getting used to!!
I loaded the Fomapan in my favourite ever film camera - the Hasselblad Xpan, and my usual Ilford HP5 in the Bronica. I then drove up the coast to shoot some seascapes.
Onto the technical stuff:
A single roll of 35mm Fomapan 100 and a single roll of 35mm Fomapan 400 were shot with the Hasselblad Xpan. Both rolls were lab developed in Ilford Ilfotech DD. The 100 roll was scanned using a Nikon Coolscan and the 400 roll was scanned by the lab with a Noritsu film scanner. Both sets of scans were left 'flat' with no adjustments in terms of contrast and exposure. Adobe Lightroom Classic was then used to adjust contrast and exposure. Dust spotting was done within Adobe Photoshop 2022.
Two rolls of Ilford HP5 120 were shot with the Bronica RF645. The rolls were also lab developed in Ilford Ilfotech DD, and scanned with a Noritsu film scanner. Again, the scans were 'flat' with contrast and exposure adjustments done within Lightroom.
If you have any questions, please leave a comment, and thanks for watching!!
~ Jeff
jeffascough.com
/ ascough_photo
Jeff, lovely set of images and what a joy seeing a professional using a light meter. I was once mentoring a student in their “Photography Degree” course and had never used a light meter!
Thanks Kevin. I think everyone studying photography needs to use a light meter, if nothing else it shows how light works. I learned on an old Western Master II. When I bought my first digital light meter, I think it was a Minolta Autometer 3, I thought Christmas had come early!! I still have a Pentax digital spot meter, a couple of Sekonic DigitalMaster meters and the old Minolta Autometer IVF in the video.
Nice video.
love your style. these are great captures
Thank you.
Lovely video . Im surprised Ive never spotted your channel before . I will subscribe ! Funny enough I think I was preferring the HP5 images . I switched to 510 Pyro for HP and usually shoot at 800 and the quality of my work has taken a big curve upwards since I switched . I use the zone imaging standard dev time and dilution and sometimes just reduce my dev from 13.5 to 12 mins . I shoot action Hasselblad 500 cm with long lenses so I need speed . I shoot a lot of surf and seascapes in pretty brutal light at times . My highlights just don't explode the way they used to thanks I guess to the staining developer. I like grain but not too much and 510 smooths things out a bit
thanks again !
I develop Fomapan 400 in Adox XT-3 and it looks just great. I use Kentmere 400 or HP5 only when I need the speed of ISO 800.
Jeff, thank you for making this video. LOVE the images!
Thanks Tim 🙏🏻
Interesting conclusion about Fomapan Jeff. That x-pan is some camera, the image at 6.18 is cracking. Great video mate.
Thanks Gary. Yes I didn’t hold much hope out for Foma but it really surprised me. Especially given its price point.
@@WalkLikeAlice Perhaps we might see a bit of wide street with the x-pan.....thinking of Walter Rothwell?
Now there's an idea!!
Funny you say how it holds up against more traditional emulsions, Foma producing film since the 1920’s. I think Foma is one of the traditional film manufacturers. Like the content 🙌. And I love Foma! Great price quality value! Ow and tip, the Foma 100 and 400 develop great in Rodinal 1:100 stand dev(but guess you know🙈) Cheers and keep up the good work🙏🏼🙏🏼
Thank you. Foma I hadn’t used before. I started my film journey in ‘88 and it was all Ilford and Kodak. I haven’t developed my own films for 20+ years. I get really bad reactions to the chemicals.
@@WalkLikeAlice I am also a (begin 80’s) film dinosaur 😂. And I started using Foma about 20 years ago as a ‘cheap’ film for my pinhole cameras. But I did like the results so much I start using it on a regular base in all my cameras. Even when I did use 4x5 cameras. The sheetfilm is great. Kind regards and know I really love your TH-cam!
Nicely put together video. I haven't shot film but it's nice to know about the Fomapan in the event I acquire a film camera at some point. Love the black & white landscapes.
Thanks Catherine. Glad you enjoyed it.
Lovely images, film really has a nice look with all that grain and tonality.
Thank you, Mark
Just fabulous images all in b&w
Thank you 🙏🏻
Nice. Some interesting brutalist inspired structures up that part of the coast path. Nice juxtaposition.
Thank you. It can look a little bleak up here!!
Back in the DARK AGES of analog when I was an in-house commercial photographer we shot exclusively Kodak products. HP5 was my happy go to film for fun. Miss it.
Over here, it was mainly Ilford - I guess the difference between countries. Kodak in the States, Ilford in the UK. Everything was developed in ID11 and printed on Ilford papers. I was fortunate enough to get invited to the Ilford HQ a few years ago. It's not that far from here. Nothing has really changed in decades there. They were able to keep going even when digital hit film hard fifteen years or so ago.
I was a little surprised by your conclusions at the end. Comparing the shots the Fomapan looks significantly more smooshed in the shadows. It looked like there is more shadow detail in the HP5 shots, throughout. That could be down to many factors I suppose (TH-cam, my monitor, a different post treatment like heavier contrast settings) but the shadow detail in the Fomapan shots wasn’t there to my eye.
Unfortunately, it’s impossible to show via the internet but there is definitely a difference. I’m a big fan of HP5. I’ve used that film more than any other, so I don’t make the conclusion lightly. For me, and it is only my opinion, Fomapan holds up to scanning better than HP5. When it comes to printing in a dark room, I would expect the HP5 to be better. Also, the RF645 yields a slightly more detailed negative than the xpan. The 65mm lens in particular is a thing of beauty.
I agree with your point.
I am finishing off my stock of Film! Digital is better! I've used film since a teenager, now 80! Film not romantic! Expensive, It always was! Yes 8x10 in Weston's time was 15c a sheet! A breakfast was same price in USA!
Fair point. It’s just more expensive now!!
I just happened on to your channel for the first time . Really great stuff and for me motivational ! I wanted to ask what kind of compensation do you use when shooting into the sun using an incident meter ? Love the look of your images . Almost day for night sometimes but they just look right . Cheers !
Thank you!! Regarding the metering, the only compensation I make is to rate certain films a little slower than the manufacturer’s speed. That gives me a little more detail in the shadows. I like to have a flat negative/scan so that I can interpret it more easily. Anything too contrary is a nightmare to post process.
Lovely photographs. Full of atmosphere and shot on BW film. What else could you ask for? Thank you.
🙏🏻🙏🏻
Nice panos from Bronica and Hasselblad. Read Forma has mixed quality control? sadly scanning is not the best for film! It needs darkroom. simply impossible for me. Developers are also involved. used last bit of HC-110 Kodak and it was lousy. Age? Moving back to Rodinal Blazinol here in Canada. 1st results were way better on Kentmere.. No more Kentmere in stock by me, so HP-5+.
I think scanning adds something different to the mix. Platon is a great example of that. His scanner has contributed largely to the look of his pictures. A proper scanner is important though. Not this nonsense of shooting negatives on a copy stand with a DSLR. That’s not scanning.
Great video. Do you develop the negatives yourself or use a lab?
We use a lab :)
2:02 this loss of highlight tone in sky
Perhaps you should get your monitor calibrated and try again 🙄
Hi which Lab do you use to develop your Ilford HP5 films?
I’ve used Harman (Ilford) in the past with mixed results. These were developed by AG Photo Lab in Birmingham and I was very happy with the results.
I have the same issue with HP5 and it is driving me a bit crazy to be honest. I didn't know if it was how I develop (HC110 by the book) or my scanner (Epson V600) but all images have a very bad quality (35mm). I still don't know if it is the film or something else but It feels like shooting with a 0.5 megapixels Leica. I'm definetly going to try Fomopan since HP5 gets me a lot of ugly grain in the proccess
Are you using the Epson software or something like Vuescan or Silverfast?
@@WalkLikeAlice I’m using Silverfast and also the lomography scanning mask
I went from Silverfast to Vuescan. I just think it works better with b/w scans. Have you sent a neg to a lab for scanning? If it’s still poor, then it’s a film/processing issue.
I preferred Tri X over HP5, do they still make it?
Tri-X is ridiculously expensive these days and doesn’t scan as well as HP5. That’s why I don’t use it.
@@WalkLikeAlice I don't think I will ever go back to film, though I do miss the darkroom at times.
@@iaincphotography6051 cost to much
Too much loss of dark tone for foma pan if pull shoud be good?Ilford is better.
I don’t agree.