Favorite 4X5 B&W film for landscapes and scenics?

[John Wiegerink]

I know I have my favorite, but was a little curious as to what others favor when it comes to 4X5 B&W sheet film for landscapes and scenics. Also, why you picked it over others.

 

[romosoho]

I shoot 5x7, but here are my thoughts: I started out with Fomapan 200, because it was affordable, to be honest, but also gave me about 125 in Rodinal, which was my primary developer at the time. I find a speed of about 100-125 to be my sweet spot. I like its tonality and am still finishing off my last, now expired, box. I have since switched heavily to Delta 100 for all my BW work, as I really appreciate its sharpness. Some don't like the tonality of emulsions like Delta and TMax, though.

I develop now in F76+, primarily.

 

[grahamp]

In 4x5, I tend to favour Delta 100, with HP5+ as an option. I use a fair bit of Delta 400 in medium format, so there is some consistency there.

There is not a lot to gain by using faster film unless I am using a 4x5 handheld, which is where the HP5+ is useful. On a tripod an E.I. of 50 - 100 is fine.

If I am using a tripod, I may as well get the benefit of smaller grain.

With 8x10 my main choice is HP5+ or Bergger Pan 400 when it was available. Four times the area, and generally slower glass, so an extra stop or two of speed is nice.

 

[Alan9940]

In 4x5, I shoot Delta 100 or Tri-X (the latter because I have quite a bit of it in the freezer.)

In 8x10, it's primarily Fomapan 100 because it's still reasonably priced. If I can get expired TMax 400 on one of the forums, I'm like a kid in a candy store.

 

[F4U]

The cheapest, however I can snag it. I'm sure I can always make do with it.

 

[Chuck1]

I'm still hoarding apx 25 and 100

 

[John Wiegerink]

In 4x5, I tend to favour Delta 100, with HP5+ as an option. I use a fair bit of Delta 400 in medium format, so there is some consistency there.

There is not a lot to gain by using faster film unless I am using a 4x5 handheld, which is where the HP5+ is useful. On a tripod an E.I. of 50 - 100 is fine.

If I am using a tripod, I may as well get the benefit of smaller grain.

With 8x10 my main choice is HP5+ or Bergger Pan 400 when it was available. Four times the area, and generally slower glass, so an extra stop or two of speed is nice.

Bergger Pan 400 sheet film is one film I have never tried.

 

[GregY]

I've mentioned it before, if i were reduced to using one sheet film, it would be FP4+. I've used it in 4x5, & many sheets of 5x7.
Love the tonality

 

[xkaes]

I'm still hoarding apx 25 and 100

Me too!!!

 

[BradS]

I don't do much large format anymore but when I did, Ilford FP4+ was the film I used the most.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer to use 6x6 for landscapes and when I use 4"x5" instead, it am more concerned with the composition than the film choice. Obviously if a scene is going to be infrared instead of panchromatic the film choices become almost self determined.

 

[otto.f]

For landscape FP4 keeps surprising me, deep blacks without getting muddy, nice bite. Delta100 for the more subtle tonen in zones V to VII

 

[Ian Grant]

In 4x5, I tend to favour Delta 100, with HP5+ as an option. I use a fair bit of Delta 400 in medium format, so there is some consistency there.

There is not a lot to gain by using faster film unless I am using a 4x5 handheld, which is where the HP5+ is useful. On a tripod an E.I. of 50 - 100 is fine.

If I am using a tripod, I may as well get the benefit of smaller grain.

With 8x10 my main choice is HP5+ or Bergger Pan 400 when it was available. Four times the area, and generally slower glass, so an extra stop or two of speed is nice.

Another Delta 100 & HP5 user here for 5x4, Delta 100 & 400 for medium. HP5 is mainly for hand held work with a Super or Speed Graphic.

I also shoot Fomapan 200 in all formats up to 10x8.

Ian

 

[albireo]

For landscape FP4 keeps surprising me, deep blacks without getting muddy, nice bite. Delta100 for the more subtle tonen in zones V to VII

Out of curiosity, what do people mean when they mention "deep blacks" as a quality parameter for a black and white film? Does this mean for instance plenty of completely transparent areas on the negative?

Wouldn't one be able to obtain such deep blacks with any film brand/type if underexposed to taste?

 

[loccdor]

deep blacks

Good question. It's likely that different people mean different things with this.

To me, it's something like a combination of good shadow detail, with a curve that does not push exposure to the mid-tones very quickly when more light is added. Like Tri-X 400 for example: it has a "long toe".

 

[bernard_L]

Out of curiosity, what do people mean when they mention "deep blacks" as a quality parameter for a black and white film? Does this mean for instance plenty of completely transparent areas on the negative?

Wouldn't one be able to obtain such deep blacks with any film brand/type if underexposed to taste?

That would be if you would be systematically exposing under the enlarger to just achieve black in the rebate; what is advocated in some methods of film speed/contrast calibration.

I understand "deep blacks" as meaning good separation into the darkest tones. For this one needs to push those tones above the toe into the more linear portion of the negative curve. In one word "over"expose. The opposite conclusion of yours. Then expose under the enlarger to place those dark tones to your taste. And the midtones. And the highlights.

 

[retina_restoration]

FP4 and Delta 100. I never use HP5 for landscape work anymore; it's great for portraits, but it has poor high value separation compared to FP4/Delta100.
I used to use Berger Pancro 400 a lot, but it's essentially MIA and we may never see fresh inventory again. It shows up occasionally in sheet film sizes but it's always short dated or expired, so it seems old inventory is being found somewhere and released. It's too bad, because it really was a nice film in a useful speed category, although in reality, its real speed was closer to 160 ASA.

 

[Daniel Stuefer]

Just like Sirius, I usually use 6x6 rather than 4x5" for landscapes (smaller, handholdable, pretty much unlimited nr of shots). Otherwise, it's always fomapan 100 (in FX-55, box speed) or glass plates with whatever my latest emulsion is (in D-19). But now that foma Ortho also exists in sheet format... that might become my preferred store-bought stock =)

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

My choice for 4x5 is TMX-100 & D-76 1:1

My philosophy: Be generous with exposure & don't overdevelop

I didn't pick it, it picked me

(In 35mm the choices are Technical Pan & Technidol -or- TMX-100 & Microdol 1:3)

 

[Paul Howell]

Depending on the lens and shutter, my Bosch and Lomb 210 is mounted in an old shutter with a top speed of 1/100 so I use Foma 100 rated at 80 and developed in a number of developers, while with my Kodak 150, 152mm and Wollensake and Zeiss 135s are mounted in Kodak Supermatics with top speed of 1/400 I use Foma 400 rated at 320.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Depending on the lens and shutter, my Bosch and Lomb 210 is mounted in an old shutter with a top speed of 1/100 so I use Foma 100 rated at 80 and developed in a number of developers, while with my Kodak 150, 152mm and Wollensake and Zeiss 135s are mounted in Kodak Supermatics with top speed of 1/400 I use Foma 400 rated at 320.

Paul,
Do you find any emulsion zits or defects on your Foma sheet films? I had some 9X12cm Foma 100 that had several sheets that almost looked like the emulsion was thin or nonexistant in a couple of spots in sky areas. The rest of the box was fine.

 

[otto.f]

I understand "deep blacks" as meaning good separation into the darkest tones.

That’s what I meant indeed. Tmax100 also has deep blacks but is much more difficult to handle over the whole scale. For me at least.

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul,
Do you find any emulsion zits or defects on your Foma sheet films? I had some 9X12cm Foma 100 that had several sheets that almost looked like the emulsion was thin or nonexistant in a couple of spots in sky areas. The rest of the box was fine.

Over the years I have not, I know that others have had issues, some recently. I guess it is just a crap shoot. In my case I shoot Foma as it falls with in my budget and I shoot 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 sheet film as well and can use the same times as I with 4X5. I been mulling trying Cat Lab 80 as well, I bought a couple of rolls in 120 to shoot 6X9 as a test run. If I run into QC issues with Foma I will try ILford PF4 as I can get it boxes of 25. I no longer shoot Kodak as I don't want to buy a box of 50.

 

[MarkS]

Short answer; I began using a view camera in about 1981. Since I was born and raised in Rochester, Kodak film was the obvious choice, and I used TXP-320 exclusively for my personal work until around 2010. Then I ran some tests with Ilford FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD. The results were so good I immediately switched to that combination. I am perfectly pleased with it, and have no plans to change.

 

[retina_restoration]

Over the years I have not, I know that others have had issues, some recently. I guess it is just a crap shoot. In my case I shoot Foma as it falls with in my budget and I shoot 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 sheet film as well and can use the same times as I with 4X5. I been mulling trying Cat Lab 80 as well, I bought a couple of rolls in 120 to shoot 6X9 as a test run. If I run into QC issues with Foma I will try ILford PF4 as I can get it boxes of 25. I no longer shoot Kodak as I don't want to buy a box of 50.

CatLabs X80 is Fomapan. Buy either - it’s the same product.