Four Film

The Plan.

This is the first time I have four different manufactures of black and white film in 120 format in stock. To mark the occasion I'm going to compare them to see if there is a noticeable difference between them. This comparison is not about which is the best film to use but to do with creativity and what each emulsion may bring to the party. Choosing a film in the first place is very subjective, you can ask as many questions as you like and look at loads of pictures that are the product of it's exposure but you will not truly know how it looks until you use it for yourself. FP4 was the first roll of film I chose to use and has remained my favorite ever since. At the time it was a close run thing with Kodak's offerings.

The protagonists are, of course Ilfords FP4+, Fomapan classic 100, Adox CHS 100 and Rollei retro 400s.

FP4+ has been the main stay of my median format work and therefore I know how to get the best out of it. The Rollei 400s and Fomapan classic are the two out of the four that are unknown quantities when it come to exposure and development. So to a certain extent the results will also have a first impressions flavour. Not always the best way to judge a product. I have used the Adox before in 35 mm format so I have an idea what to expect and in that case was not favourable but I will not let that taint the use of its bigger brother. I am also aware when loading Adox film it needs subdued lighting as it fogs easily in bright conditions. The Fomapan classic when processed with certain combinations of fix and developer can be susceptible to pinholes appearing in the emulsion but then I have had this with FP4+ in the past.

All the pictures will be made on a Bronica SQAi. I will not be replicating the same twelve views across all the films. I prefer to make pictures when the opportunity arises. They will all be exposed at box speed and developed in ID11 and processed as normal, then printed on an RC paper that will be chosen at the time of printing. I decided to keep things simple and use materials that I have a good understanding of, making it easier to tell how well the two unknown films have been exposed and developed.

All we need now are the exposed and developed film. The links below will take you to the follow up posts.



The links below are the follow ups to this post.
The developed film

The prints

Dogs Dinner.

Well not quite, a dogs water bowl! There is no chance of it falling in his dinner because his head is in the bowl before it hits the floor. The film was more likely to become a chew.

I noticed that two film containers were sitting on the kitchen table. Thinking they were empty I picked them up to throw away, to discover that they were not. I opened one and out dropped a roll of exposed colour film. Butter fingers here managed to drop the roll of film! The consequence of these finger fumbling, was splash! straight into the dogs water bowl. My wife said that she had not seen me move that fast since my superman days. I need reminding, what superman days?

After a bit of dancing around to shake the water out, it was off to the local supermarket for development. An outlet we had not tried before. The film was also long out of date - nearly a decade. If it had not been for the fact I was on my way out I would have blacked out the darkroom and removed the film for drying. These things always happen when you're short of time.

As it turns out the water had destroyed nearly half the frames on a film of twenty four. The up shot of this was we only had to pay half the normal fee. There was also colour shift on some of the prints. This I put down to the water damage.

Am I disappointed? No! Not really, but I am with myself for the butter fingers, but not with the results we have, as neither of us could remember who, what, when or which camera was used in the first place. The big disappointment is with the quality of the processing and paper used.