..8x8 in. or thereabouts. It's large enough to show the tonal abilities on an MF camera. Nowhere to store/display anything much bigger.As a side note, Tri-X (and certainly HP5) prints very easily in my opinion. Grain is small enough in 120 to be a non-issue, but gives a nice texture to the prints. 400 ISO is fast enough to allow the use of filters as well as the relative low-speed medium format lenses.
What size do you intent to print, by the way?
At that size a print from a 120 film will be grain free. I'd go for HP5+. A very forgiving film in terms of processing with a lot of latitude in speed terms and cheaper than D400. OK price may not be your primary concern but why pay more if the "more" that another film gives you will not be apparent at 8x8?..8x8 in. or thereabouts. It's large enough to show the tonal abilities on an MF camera. Nowhere to store/display anything much bigger.
..8x8 in. or thereabouts. It's large enough to show the tonal abilities on an MF camera. Nowhere to store/display anything much bigger.
You can easily expose FP4+ at EI200 and develop accordingly....if FP4 was faster then i'd be happy. So, like FP4. Not a film that is over fussy with regard to exposure. Developers i have are ID 11 and FX 39 (started to use when i had some TP120). Negs will be printed and not scanned.
I'm a long time user of TMY. Re: box speed of FP4, maybe a dumb question, are you certain of your thermometer (s) calibration?...if FP4 was faster then i'd be happy. So, like FP4. Not a film that is over fussy with regard to exposure. Developers i have are ID 11 and FX 39 (started to use when i had some TP120). Negs will be printed and not scanned.
AGREETriX 400 isn’t modern but it’s absolutely magnificent in 120 format.
I agree that Tri-X is fantastic in both med. format and 135. No complaints. But it is sort of modern because it was changed in the early 2000s. Back then, both Tri-X 400 and Professional 320 were available in 120. I don't know how this current version is different other than being finer grain.TriX 400 isn’t modern but it’s absolutely magnificent in 120 format.
I agree that Tri-X is fantastic in both med. format and 135. No complaints. But it is sort of modern because it was changed in the early 2000s. Back then, both Tri-X 400 and Professional 320 were available in 120. I don't know how this current version is different other than being finer grain.
..you'll loose shadow detail and produce a contrastier neg. That's not what i want.You can easily expose FP4+ at EI200 and develop accordingly.
in my experience ,this calls for HP5+..you'll loose shadow detail and produce a contrastier neg. That's not what i want.
Since the micro-image properties are less important in 120 format at the modest printing size i will be making, consideration moves onto other factors such as which 400 ASA film will be closest to 'box speed' in either ID 11 or FX 39? Maybe no real difference, though some users may have experience. Answering questions about tonal rendering would, i'm sure, provide a bewildering range of opinions.
I've never heard of this Ultrafine Xtreme before, nor have I seen it for sale at any of the usual UK suspects. Is it a US-market only product?
Most agree that Ultrafine extreme is made by Harmont, same as Kentmeyer 400 and and 100, but for whatever reason only Ultrafine (Photo Warehouse) seems to have it 120 size.
Quite possibly because Maco/ Rollei sell it as RPX 100 & 400.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?