Best 400-speed B&W 35mm Film?

[FilmOnly]

I will be taking a brief trip to NYC, and I want to be prepared. I have used Kodak CN 400, Tri-X, and Ilford Delta 400. Each of these seems to have its own set of characteristics, though there are some similarities. I like the sharpness of CN 400, but the gray tones of the traditional b&w films. Overall, I tend to like a shaprer film that will provide good shadow detail.

The main issue for me, however, has been the sky. I have yet to find a b&w film that does not white out the sky. I loathe whited-out skies, and I purposely avoid shooting into the sun or other situations that make for white skies. I am currently trying Rollei Superpan 200, as that was recommended as a good alternative (here on APUG). I have not gotten back any results with this film, and so I do not know yet if the skies will be white.

Anyway, what would be a good choice for 400-speed? I am against using any of the darker yellow filters, as they tend to darken (and change) things too much. I am trying a light yellow filter (a number 6, I believe). I have seen a little improvement. Is b&w a medium that simply fails to reproduce sky tones very well? I welcome any comments. With regard to my trip, I will be doing mostly street shooting in Manhattan.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Have you tried Ilford XP2? What a fantastic film. It is quite different from CN400. I attached a high-contrast example taken in Wales a few years ago. Is that B&W enough for you?

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, Ralph...no, I have not tried XP2. I can think of at least one or two other users that have recommended it to me. It is rather pricey (I think the highest of all 35mm b&w films of which I am aware). I suppose this is why I have yet to try it. Perhaps that will change...

 

[Leighgion]

I recall you bringing up this sky concern up before, but I don't remember if you showed any samples? I haven't really found this to be at issue personally, so it's hard to offer input to offset it.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ralph,

What are your current impressions of quality comparing XP2 Super to conventional black & white films?

Tom

 

[mopar_guy]

The main issue for me, however, has been the sky. I have yet to find a b&w film that does not white out the sky.
I am against using any of the darker yellow filters, as they tend to darken (and change) things too much. I am trying a light yellow filter (a number 6, I believe). I have seen a little improvement.

A polarizer will darken the sky if used at right angles to the sun. Yellow filters will alter the overall contrast balance of the scene by darkening blues and lightening yellows.

 

[2F/2F]

White skies are an issue of luminance range in your composition far more than they are an issue of film selection. It is what you shoot more than it is what you shoot it with. This being said, the 400 speed films with the qualities you are looking for (T-Max 400, Neopan 400, Delta 400) are also some of the hardest to use in wide-luminance-range compositions, due to their contrast in the high tones. If you are ok with its desaturated color neg-like look (which is nice, but totally different than a "normal" b/w film), XP2 might be the ticket.

 

[ntenny]

I think blowing out the sky is far more likely to be an issue of exposure than of film choice. The sky is almost always quite a bit brighter than whatever you metered off, especially if you're street shooting in urban canyons that tend to be shadowed by buildings, and it tends to blow out.

As you've noticed, a yellow filter will help; an orange one has a stronger effect, red stronger still, and infrared generally renders black skies. Of course the tonal rendition as a whole gets less natural throughout that same progression. Unless you want to start using graduated ND filters---which is going to be hard if your horizons are funny-shaped---I think you're making a mistake to write off colour filtration as a tool for dealing with this problem.

-NT

 

[jpberger]

I agree with ntenny and 2f/2f, most of the b+w films are close to being truly panchromatic-- I've noticed that even supposedly old fashioned plus-x holds cloud detail against a blue sky without filtration. You'd need to be shooting something like efke for it to be a big issue. It's easy to forget sometimes that the sky is occasionally grey and featurless from time to time-- it's only blue and full of fluffy clouds once in a while, especially this time of year. The new T-max 400 is a truly fantastic film that defiantly doesn't need k2 to keep the sky under control. Excellent results with xtol 1:1. Also consider shooting tri-x at 1250 with an orange filter and developing with diafine-- you'll get basically normal contrast and grain despite the speed and you're skies won't blow out unless you really try.

 

[brianmquinn]

I have not gotten back any results with this film, and so I do not know yet if the skies will be white.

From this statement I assume you have a lab develop your film. If that is correct it could be part of the problem. Many, if not most, send out services overdevelop B&W film. This will lead to loss of highlights. If you send your film out I suggest you try and order a pull process of one stop. Meaning set your meter to half (200 instead of the box speed of 400) and have the lab pull it (develop it less). The overall print will have less contrast and the sky will usually look better on sunny days sunny day. Also if you want a dark sky try a red filter.

 

[FilmOnly]

Leighgion: no, I have not shown any samples. I do not have a scanner. I appreciate you contributing to this tread. I have tended to agree with your perspectives.

2F/2F puts forth an interesting argument, and XP2 may indeed be what I will need. In both color and b&w, I have gotten away from the saturated (i.e "vivid") films, and have been replacing them with more natural films. To me, the vivid films look neon and fake. 2F/2F: could you provide more discussion in regard to the "what you shoot" aspect? I ask because this is a tricky matter. I say this because I do not have this problem with color film--that is, I can shoot a blue sky (even with no clouds...or chem trails), and still get some tone, some blue. It is b&w that seems to present its own specific problem.

With regard to pull processing: I have thought about doing this, but have yet to ask the lab to do it. I have not asked because I am not sure if the lab is overdeveloping, as a number of shots also show dark shadows (along with the white sky). Can you imagine the result if I had metered and exposed for the shadows? Actually, is this proof of over-developing? Also, is there a canceling effect with pull (or push) processing?

 

[2F/2F]

What I mean by the "what you shoot" is basically the range of brightnesses in your composition. If you are exposing for something that is in the shade, and the sky is also in the composition, the sky will be about four stops overexposed, simply because of the difference in brightness between it and the shaded areas. Warm filtration won't help you, as it will also darken the shadows, and effectively lower your EI (not to mention that the sky is not always blue). If you say you need a fast film, I think that you really mean it, and that it makes no sense to slow it down with filtration. Color neg film has inherently low contrast, so it can capture a wide range of brightness (and color neg paper has inherently high contrast, to match this). That is why you are getting some blue. Also, it may be easier for your eyes to pick up a slight bit of blue hue in a print than it is for them to pick up a slight bit of tone in the sky in a black and white print. Also, C-41 is a standardized process, while the b/w film process is highly variable situation to situation. It may be that your film is being over developed by your lab.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I think the film that will work best for you is Plus-X. I think it is just what you are looking for except that it is not a 400 speed film. You may want to look into push processing it if you really really need to. I have never done this yet.

 

[FilmOnly]

2F/2F: this makes complete sense--thank you. This is exactly what I have been seeing. I had been thinking it may be a matter of contrast. I know that I am sometimes in that three to four stop contrast differential. Thus, XP2 may provide the solution?...

 

[2F/2F]

XP2, basically being a low-contrast color neg film without color dyes, acts like a color neg film, and will help in contrasty compositions...but the real solution is to avoid contrasty compositions if you can...and/or take manipulative steps to lower the contrast (overexpose/pull, fill flash, stand development, or other low-contrast development methods, etc).

 

[2F/2F]

I think the film that will work best for you is Plus-X. I think it is just what you are looking for except that it is not a 400 speed film. You may want to look into push processing it if you really really need to. I have never done this yet.

I disagree entirely, and do not understand the line of thought that gave birth to this suggestion. First of all, it is too slow for what the OP wants. Then, it is contrastier than most 400 films, and pushing it will increase the contrast further...which is exactly what the OP does NOT want to do here. The only thing that might be a worse suggestion is to use an even slower film, like Pan F, Efke/Adox 50/25, or Rollei Pan 25.

 

[timk]

It's a common problem, which is generally fixed with filtration. I haven't used any black and white films that give acceptable results with a blue sky unfiltered. All of the shots I've taken like this require the sky to be burnt in to get cloud detail.

The problem is that most black and white film is more sensitive to blue than other colors so the blues are often over-exposed.

Normally I'd recommend a yellow, dark yellow, orange or red filter depending on how dramatic you want the sky to be. In this case since you don't want the filtration to effect the other colours in the scene a polariser might be the go.

 

[mopar_guy]

Points to consider for filter use

There is more than one way to look at contrast filter use for black and white film.

Scenario 1: Regular film with no filter. Meter the subjects in the scene to be photographed as well as the sky to come up with an exposure. If as you say, the sky is the most important part of the composition, and the sky is white (blown out), then you are over-exposing the scene. Use a faster shutter speed or a smaller aperture. If you are using incident metering, rate the film at a higher exposure index. The fly in the ointment is that other parts of the scene may be too dark (shadow density too high).

Scenario 2: Use a compensating filter (yellow, orange, red) to darken the sky (blue areas) and use the appropriate filter factor. For instance a yellow filter may have a filter factor of 2.0. with the filter on the lens, you would give more exposure. A yellow filter will darken blue and lighten yellow. To compensate, give more exposure. Some photographers say that using a yellow filter to darken the sky and then giving more exposure puts the sky at the same value as original and will lighten yellows. That leads us to--

Scenario 3: Use a compensating filter (yellow, orange, red) and ignore the filter factor (that is use the same exposure as no filter). With a yellow filter, yellows are unchanged and blues will be darker.

Scenario 4: Use a polarizer to cut down the amount of light in the sky. Also cuts down the reflections in things like glass or water.

If you think about this as a problem that relates to the brightness values in the scene, Exposure used and how you apply filters, you should be able to come up with a solution that works for YOU. Don't be afraid to experiment with a method that you are not currently using.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Leighgion]

I agree with the trend of the discussion thus far that white sky is most likely either an exposure range and/or development issue than a film choice issue. While I'm not long into B&W film shooting, I've developed every bit of my own since day one and even as a beginner, I was paranoid of overdevelopment.

Went rooting around in my own stuff for examples of B&W film with sky. Actually don't have that many, but here's some that illustrate the possibility of tonal range overhead.

Neopan 400 (35mm) in D76 1+1

Tri-X (120) in D76

Tri-X (35mm) in D76

I'm generally found of filtering to bring out more sky contrast, but these three examples are unfiltered and the later two were shot on days with hazy sky and little to no defined cloud. While you should by all means try out XP2 if you want, I wouldn't look to a film as the one great answer. You'd likely do a lot more for this issue in your B&W photography by taking up the baton of home development. When you control the development, doing a couple simple things gives you a lot of control over contrast.

 

[mopar_guy]

One other thing to remember is that making an image is a two part process. Part 1, the Negative. Part 2, the Print. If the sky in your negative is exposed properly (highlight detail OK) and the shadows on the negative are too dense, you can always burn in the shadows (assuming there is adequate shadow density in the negative). This is also an important part of contrast control.

 

[FilmOnly]

I should just give up photography. I have taken numerous outdoor b&w shots, and have yet to produce a sky even close to any of the three posted by Leighgion. The sky in the first shot is especially nice.

I understand that doing one's own developing can make for a definite advantage. I have yet to try because I do not want to spend time being exposed to chemicals, and I doubt I would even have the time to do it. Taking pictures takes up quite a bit of time.

 

[Leighgion]

Dude, you are not allowed to give up on B&W photography based on my casual shots that I posted to be encouraging.

Far as B&W chemicals go, it's not so bad. They're not great for you, but there's far more toxic things and a couple simple precautions effectively cut your practical exposure to zero.

 

[timk]

I don't believe it's a matter of exposure, if you under-expose then you run into problems with shadow detail and you still have the two extremes to worry about and instead of saying "my sky doesn't have enough detail" you'll be saying "the trees are black", making it no easier to print, in fact I would prefer to sacrifice some sky in order to maintain detail and tonality in the rest of the image. Under-exposing will make it easier to print the sky, but doesn't really address the problem. In most cases the negative is recording detail in the sky (evident if you burn in the sky you will usually get some cloud detail).

unfiltered: white clouds and blue sky look the same on most B&W film. The purpose of filtration is to make the blue darker when compared with the white.

So potentially 2 problems - the differentiation between white clouds and blue sky, and over-exposing the clouds/sky.

More often than not, it's the former that causes the issue. Your exposure should be based on the main subject matter, so if you're exposing a picture of sky with little foreground then maybe exposure will fix it. If you're exposing a scene with sky in it, then may not solve your problem.

 

[keithwms]

The best?

Neopan.
Xtol.
Any questions?

I am currently trying Rollei Superpan 200, as that was recommended as a good alternative (here on APUG). I have not gotten back any results with this film, and so I do not know yet if the skies will be white.

I suppose that I was the recommender. I think you will like what you see. If you do not then filter slightly. I think I have a cypress over water in my apug gallery which was shot on superpan with a red filter.

 

[ntenny]

unfiltered: white clouds and blue sky look the same on most B&W film.

I agree with most of what you said, but this just isn't true. It's kind of true with orthochromatic films, but with modern panchromatic films it isn't even close. Most of us can probably point to images to show the fact. (The attached image was shot on Efke 25, a "barely panchromatic" emulsion that's under-sensitive to red by modern standards, with a prewar triplet lens and no filter.)

But of course it's true that blue skies easily *lose* the differentiation from the clouds, often with an exposure that's "correct" for a foreground subject. The saving grace of my picture below is that the sky pretty much *is* the subject, and the sun was behind me so that the landscape was illuminated enough to keep some detail. Also, I got lucky, which is always the hard part.

-NT