Best Black and White film for landscapes?

[barrylyndon]

Hi folks

I am off to the Lake District this weekend and fancy taking some photos with my newly purchased film camera (Nikon FG).

Does anyone have any suggestions for nice 35mm black and white film? I suppose whats inspired me is the Ansel Adams photo The Tetons and the Snake River (1942) and would like to take similar striking photos (even though he didnt use a 35mm for it).

Thanks!

 

[SoulfulRecover]

are you trying to shoot snap shots? Will you be using a tri-pod? Any filters?

Kind of hard to suggest something but Id go with any of these depending on what I am trying to accomplish:

Rollei RPX 25, Ilford Pan F Plus 50, Ilford Delta 100 or Kodak Tri-x.

 

[limr]

are you trying to shoot snap shots? Will you be using a tri-pod? Any filters?

Kind of hard to suggest something but Id go with any of these depending on what I am trying to accomplish:

Rollei RPX 25, Ilford Pan F Plus 50, Ilford Delta 100 or Kodak Tri-x.

+1

Except I prefer Ilford FP4 for a 100 speed film over Delta. Ilford HP5 is similar to Tri-X as well.

 

[dxqcanada]

Kodak Panatomic-X !!
Ok ... you can't get that no more ... so I agree with the above.

 

[480sparky]

...... Ilford Pan F Plus 50,............

+1.

 

[480sparky]

And you'll need to learn to edit like Ansel:

 

[Derrel]

A slowish speed film, like from 50 to 100, is usually considered a good landscape film. I shot a lot of 1980's color landscapes on ASA/ISO 64 Kodachrome, which is right on the margin as far as I am concerned...that 50 to 64 zone is just baaaaaarely fast enough for some things that move, like trees, grasses, the ocean, etc.. ISo 100 to 125 is a little bit faster, and gives some shutter speed for real-time, instantaneous exposures.

Slow speed film, like Kodachrome 25, or Panatomic-X at 32...just sooooo danged slooooow on windy or breezy days, no motion-stopping ability with smaller f/stops.

I dunno...I like 100 or 125 ISO B&W. Just for the f/stop and shutter speed pairings it allows.

 

[480sparky]

Find a second body and tote ISO 50 in one, 100 or 200 in the other.

 

[Paul-H]

PanF or FP4 for me.

 

[gsgary]

Orwo UN54 but you have to buy 100 feet

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[pendennis]

I'd opt for Kodak T-Max 100. I prefer the newer "T" grain structure. Slower films generally provide finer details, less granularity.

And, since you mentioned AA - TRIPOD - TRIPOD - TRIPOD!

If you use Tri-X, be sure to develop in Adox' Adonal. It's one of the best developers ever formulated. It's the old Rodinal.

PS - Did I mention that you should use a tripod?

 

[jcdeboever]

Tripod, shutter release cable, a spot meter, Fujifilm Acros 100.

 

[Derrel]

There really is no "best" when it comes to film. T-Max 100 does have low grain...might be appealing to those who like a smoooooooth look!

 

[benhasajeep]

I shot lots of T-max, very sharp and fine grained. But my thinking is he should shoot what he can find! If he's going out this weekend it's getting late to get some shipped in. It may be a case of what he can get. The B&W I have now is from Ultrafineonline their branded 100 iso film on 100' rolls I put in my own canisters. It's close to T-max, and you can push / pull it some. I have some of their older 125 which I don't think they offer any more. And some of their 400. I have just a few rolls of T-max left in the film stock. They claim you can push the 400 to 1600 with very good results.

 

[webestang64]

I agree with Derrel, no one film is better than others for landscape other than slower speeds to reduce grain. Now if you had a 4x5 camera, size does matter with landscape photography.

Side note, I shot Delta 100 when in Colorado shooting landscapes and they came out wonderful.