Best 400-speed B&W 35mm Film?

[RalphLambrecht]

I wonder whether the people who are developing your film are over developing it. One of the few times I had film developed in a 1-hour lab, it was quite over-developed. Developing yourself really isn't difficult, dangerous or time consuming. You don't need a darkroom for just film development.
If you dive in and try developing yourself, this would have been my suggestion:
http://www.amazon.com/Diafine-Black...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1259597898&sr=1-2

It's a two bath compensating developer, meaning higher exposed areas will run out of developer first and stop developing and hence won't wash out as soon. It's hard to mis-use, and it lasts forever. As a bonus you have to rate your film up to twice as fast to get the right exposure for it.

Think the other suggestions on the thread are good too.

A last suggestion that is often given is 'experiment': shoot the same scene with all the suggested options and see which one is best

Graham

Diafine is a B&W developer. It's no good for XP2, which needs a C41 process for development. Rating XP2 at 250 is quite normal for people who like some extra shadow detail, which to me, is more important than film speed.

However, I can share your experience with overdevelopment in 1-hour labs. They do follow 'standard' processes, and these are too long for my taste as well when it comes to B&W film. That's why I do all my darkroom work for the last 40 years, with the exception of XP2. I use it too rarely to make use of the chemicals before they need to be discarded.

 

[Schlapp]

Try something like Foma 400 in Rodinal 1:100 for a couple of hours. Get all the detail you need in the sky and lots of grain. Can look fantastic

 

[eddym]

I agree with you, because I love darkroom work, but it can't be universally true, otherwise, Helmut Newton should have given up photography too, and that would have been a great loss.

If he had tried to get by using a 1 hour lab to process and print his negs, he probably would have given up, too!

 

[Anon Ymous]

Try something like Foma 400 in Rodinal 1:100 for a couple of hours. Get all the detail you need in the sky and lots of grain. Can look fantastic

That's quite interesting actually, because all of the Fomapan films seem to have the lowest spectral sensitivity at lower (blue) wavelengths and all of them peak at the red end. Can't elaborate more on that though, I haven't used any of them.

 

[Leighgion]

I agree with you, because I love darkroom work, but it can't be universally true, otherwise, Helmut Newton should have given up photography too, and that would have been a great loss.

Don't forget Cartier-Bresson, who was frank about having no interest in the photographic process, only in taking his shots.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Don't forget Cartier-Bresson, who was frank about having no interest in the photographic process, only in taking his shots.

Helmut and Henry had luxuries we'll never be able to afford!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That's quite interesting actually, because all of the Fomapan films seem to have the lowest spectral sensitivity at lower (blue) wavelengths and all of them peak at the red end. Can't elaborate more on that though, I haven't used any of them.

That's what you get with every film when you measure spectral sensitivity with a wedge spectrogram at 2850 K (tungsten).

 

[Anon Ymous]

That's what you get with every film when you measure spectral sensitivity with a wedge spectrogram at 2850 K (tungsten).

Ah, I missed that fact, mea culpa!

 

[Chazzy]

Don't forget Cartier-Bresson, who was frank about having no interest in the photographic process, only in taking his shots.

I've never understood this attitude, although I know that many photographers leave their darkroom work to others—for example, wedding photographers shooting several rolls of color film at a time. But for me, photography is largely about the craft, and I am interested in the process behind the images that I look at. I also resent the attitude that only the final image matters (this seems to be a very common attitude in the gallery world) and that technical questions are out of place. Wouldn't it be nice if more photography books mentioned details such as what film was used and in what format?

 

[FilmOnly]

I agree, Chazzy, as I would find these details very interesting (and useful).

 

[Eric Rose]

I have to agree with Ralph's assessment of XP2. I just returned from Mexico and shot mainly XP2. I chose this film due to the high contrast situations I knew I would be faced with. On the low contrast days I shot FP4 rated at 64 asa and semi stand developed in pyrocat-hd.

The XP2 negs turned out beautifully and I can't wait to get into the darkroom with them.

 

[Gim]

I quit sending out B/W film for processing in the late 60's because they looked like crap when they came back. I figured I could do better than that by developing them myself...and I did. Go for it.

Jim

 

[moouers]

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).

I agree...a lot of the contrast problems can be solved by doing your own developing. You don't even need a darkroom...just a changing bag and film tank and chemicals. Developing isn't expensive...learning printing, on the other hand...

When I tried my first few rolls of B&W I had a local lab process it. Most labs that do B&W use machines with rapid developers that blow the highlights to pure white far before the shadows even have a chance to come out and play (at least at the labs I tried). I had the same problems the OP is describing until I developed my first roll of film. The difference was night and day. You can further correct contrast problems in the printing stage by dodging and burning and other means.

Until you're ready to embark on a developing journey, I'd follow the advice of others that have already posted. Use polarizing, yellow, orange, or red filters; use fill flash when necessary; pull film from 400 to 200 ISO and have them develop accordingly; avoid bright sunny midday skies in too much of the scene when you're trying to expose for a brick building in heavy shadow.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've never understood this attitude, although I know that many photographers leave their darkroom work to others—for example, wedding photographers shooting several rolls of color film at a time. But for me, photography is largely about the craft, and I am interested in the process behind the images that I look at. I also resent the attitude that only the final image matters (this seems to be a very common attitude in the gallery world) and that technical questions are out of place. Wouldn't it be nice if more photography books mentioned details such as what film was used and in what format?

Fully agree. 'Only the final image matters' is often an an excuse for not be willing to learn the fundamentals of photography. Without the journey there is no destination.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fully agree. 'Only the final image matters' is often an an excuse for not be willing to learn the fundamentals of photography. Without the journey there is no destination.

Until recently, I did not have the space for a darkroom. Spending time at APUG took care of that.

 

[2F/2F]

My problem right now is that I have loaned away bits and pieces of my home darkroom to friends and students. A safelight here, a proofer there, bottles and trays, my extra enlarger, etc. Due to a lot of personal distraction, and a whole ton of traveling and shooting, I had been letting it sit for several months, and it made me ill to see that, when these other people wanted to get up and printing. I have been on a processing binge as of late, and need to get it back together so I can proof the stuff I have been developing. (I still have hundreds of rolls and hundreds of sheets left to process, however........)

However, I can still process film, with very little equipment, supplies, and space. As I see it, there is no excuse for a b/w shooter not to be able to process their own film. The setup is quick, the equipment is cheap, and the chemicals are safe. The hardest part is the clean drying situation, and while not as ideal as a dedicated drying cabinet, a steamed-up bathroom can certainly take care of that. (This is all I use at home now.) Just shoot digital or XP2 if you are that fearful/lazy/disinterested/whatever. If you are not taking command of your film process in at least some way, there really is no benefit over shooting digital, IMO. The reason to use film is not simply that it is a superior medium just because it is film...it is that you can make it a superior medium if you choose to put in the effort.

 

[removed account4]

I've never understood this attitude, although I know that many photographers leave their darkroom work to others—for example, wedding photographers shooting several rolls of color film at a time. But for me, photography is largely about the craft, and I am interested in the process behind the images that I look at. I also resent the attitude that only the final image matters (this seems to be a very common attitude in the gallery world) and that technical questions are out of place. Wouldn't it be nice if more photography books mentioned details such as what film was used and in what format?

hi chazzy

i know where you are coming from.
but a lot of (commercial) photographers don't have the time or energy
to spend time in the dark when they need to be out shooting
for clients ( wedding, portrait or commercial ).
time spent processing, proofing, printing is time that can be better spent
shooting a job, especially when they have a working relationship with
a printer who can help them process and print everything.

there is a huge difference between art and commerce,
and while on one hand it is great to work on a print from beginning
to end, often times people on the commerce side won't get paid enough
to do that ( even if they WANT TO ). clients don't have the money
and the photographers often times, don' t have the time.

there is always an exception to every rule ...

 

[df cardwell]

a lot of (commercial) photographers don't have the time or energy

finding the jobs to shoot is the full time job,
and you squeeze in the time to shoot 'em !

HCB was well heeled, but he was a working photojock most of his life
(except when he was busy escaping from german prison camps !)
so it was only proper to send the film off --- he got what he wanted from a special lab in Paris.

One can work with a great lab (like Elevator) and achieve your vision,
and to do that, you get an education along the way. But it doesn't hurt a bit to learn what's going on in the dark !

 

[2F/2F]

There are plenty of reasons for commercial photographers to not do their own darkroom work. It just does not make business sense most of the time. My last comments were directed at amateurs, hobbyists, beginners, and the like. However, I believe that for best results, even commercial photographers who have everything done by pro labs need to have a handle on what sorts of manipulation can be applied with processing and printing.

Unfortunately, even the main pro lab around here hires people who know less about film than I do...and I don't even know a ton. It can be very hard to talk to them regarding special instructions, and near impossible to get any technical details. I don't really like the lab IME, but they can get the job done (though it is never easy), they are fast, they have good hours, and I have no other real choice locally at this point in photographic history. It is quite sad. Most smaller labs have gone under or been swallowed, and most great darkroom technicians have retired, found other work, or passed away. I am small potatoes at A and I in this huge, media-oriented city, so I feel I have a hard time getting exactly what I want there.

 

[zenrhino]

If you like to soup your own, I'm a huge fan of Neopan 400 souped in DD-X. The tonal range is just fantastic and the grain is there but not distracting.

 

[df cardwell]

Neopan 400 is designed to give great shadows and midtones,
but unlike some other films, gently lowers the highlights.
If you have to over expose a sky, for instance, Neopan's vision will render the sky a little darker than
any other 400 film. This isn't freakish or anything, just helping a pal out of a jam.

It does this with any developer. But with careful work, DDX (or Xtol) will let you shoot at dusk
and give you plenty of shadows without putting the highlights out of reach.

 

[boilerdoc]

The XP-2 is superb for high contrast and the Tmax 400-2 is superb for everything else. Those filters really do help so don't rule them out. At least a #11 yellow. Some folks I know just leave one on all the time for their B&W ...
Steve

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The XP-2 is superb for high contrast and the Tmax 400-2 is superb for everything else. Those filters really do help so don't rule them out. At least a #11 yellow. Some folks I know just leave one on all the time for their B&W ...
Steve

Tmax-400 and #8 yellow, or XP2 is my combination.

 

[FilmOnly]

I just got back some prints I shot with Ilford Delta 400. I cannot remember if I used the light yellow (Nikon Y44...which is a #6, I believe), but there was better sky detail/tones. This was my first developed and printed roll of Delta 400, and I am rather impressed. I think I have found my 400-speed b&w film.

With regard to the sky issue: if I had to guess, I do not think I was using the yellow filter yet with these shots (I bought it recently). I do think I recall overexposing by a half-stop (for shadow detail). As ususal, I metered with my hand-held Sekonic. Thus, I gather my shots with Delta 400 could only get better (using the filter). I have two more sizes of light yellow filters (B+W) on order. They are backordered, and so they should arrive in a couple of weeks.

I like the gentle character of Delta 400. It seems to be free of any harshness.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Yellow filter. Do not overexpose or over develope.

Use a spotmeter on the sky and set exposure so it is no more than 2 stops above middle grey. You will probably under expose foreground under many conditions.

Then you think about two bath developers or overexpose and underdevelope to cut contrast.

Paper flashing in the darkroom will help to grey a white sky.

Grad filters or burning are a very last resort for me.