B&W film comparisons & samples

[jp498]

I've tried a handful of different films for 120, including 100 speed options. My style of 120 shooting is handheld without a tripod, and invariably, I'd end up in some situation when 100 speed wasn't fast enough or required a too narrow aperture for the subject. I'd also sometimes get confused about which film was in the camera (100 or 400?). I've settled on one film. Tmax 400. If I truly need a slower film, I have some filters I can use to cut down the light.

It's as grainy as a 100 speed film, but with the added speed. It's finer than tri-x. It can have different results with different developers. It's very versatile with different developers and isn't easily characterized by flickr or a single photographer's opinion.

The downside is it takes longer to fix, and is more "responsive to changes in development", meaning sloppy developing procedures don't produce consistency.

 

[segedi]

You may find this useful:
http://filmdev.org/

 

[brian steinberger]

If it scans (flatbed, whatever) well then it will print well.

I have to disagree with this. I have negatives that I accidently under-exposued horrendously and as long as there is some density the scanner can do an amazing job recovering the image. On the other hand I also have negatives I've overdeveloped and are just about bullet proof, and again the scanner does a great job. Both of these types of negatives would be a nightmare to print in the darkroom. So if you are going to be printing in the darkroom you do need a decent negative to start. One way I like to judge my negatives is against a simple piece of white paper. The back of photo paper works great. Are the negatives too thick? Are they mostly thin? Can you see details in the negatives or just areas of black? Are there alot of clear areas with no density? This will tell you alot. Another way is putting the negative against a newspaper. You should be able to just read to the type through the densest areas of the negative. Once you get an enlarger and can make contact sheets it will be much easier to achieve an ideal negative.

 

[sbelyaev]

http://rangefinder.ru/articles/39/1/LFI_%96_test_pyatnadcati_cherno-belyx_fotoplenok

 

[markbarendt]

Adam,

Grain is a relative thing, even the newer Delta and TMax 100's have grain, at 5x7 the prints will look very smooth maybe even close to digital but, printed 24x36 inches grain will be easily visible in print.

So once you define the print sizes you like best you will be able to print it and see it in real life and make informed decisions.

 

[brian steinberger]

So true Mark. I mostly print at 7x7". At this size I much prefer the grain on Tri-x to FP4. BUT, I also print 10x10" and hope to print 15x15" soon. For this reason I try to shoot FP4 as much as possible. And I'm also thinking down the road if I ever move to or have to move to scanning FP4 will give better results than Tri-x. But I still shoot alot of Tri-x simply because it's fast. It's all in what you need to get the results you want.

 

[markbarendt]

When I shoot B&W from time to time in 6x6, I'll use Tri-X.

All the same considerations apply but 6x6 changes the equation a bunch from 35mm.

 

[cliveh]

My vote, for what it’s worth is consistency. I know people on this site like to experiment with different developer formulations, but I don’t. For many years now, with 35mm, I have used FP4 and develop in D76 at 1:1. Not my mix of D76, but the one made by Kodak. I don’t use a light meter for 35mm and I honestly can’t remember when I last developed a film that I was not happy with.

 

[markbarendt]

It's all in what you need to get the results you want.

Yep, purposful design normally starts with the end in mind, in our case a print, or vision of a print, then we work backwards to the scene.

I think even Ansel promoted that idea.

 

[TareqPhoto]

Great, i just wish or hope to get an enlarger sooner or later.

I remember last year that i attended a workshop about darkroom, the most parts of it was with printing, the developing part was nothing just any developing, but i remember once during it that i printed 2 frames, both came out fine but one of them....AMAZING, i can see and feel the sharpness, and i shocked to know that the film was TMAX 400, i remember i did developed it with TMAX developer at home, not with Ilfosol 3 that is available in that workshop, but that print came out amazing perfect as i want after several adjustments steps.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Oh, YAY! My two centavos.

Hey, the best way to get an unbiased (read: not spun by a film manufacturer) comparison is to, well, just do it. TriX is hard to beat. And there will be as many opinions on the subject as there are photographers who have them. The most important thing here, though, is that you will be profitting from the end findings. What better motivation than to have those findings come from you. Besides, it's an awesomely fun way to burn a lot of film in the name of research.

My personal opinion on this matter. In the words of Sam Snead "It's like what they say about the homliest girl at the dance. You gotta dance wit' who ya brung."

Boils down to, unless it is for research sake or if TriX ain't workin for ya, why change? It's a great film.