Best 400-speed B&W 35mm Film?

[MattKing]

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.

FilmOnly:

If you look at the first shot posted by Leighgion, you will note a couple of things:

1) the foreground is fairly dark - if I had to guess, I would say that the exposure was chosen to emphasize the patterns in the sky; and
2) it was shot with a very wide lens - so wide, that the corners curve, and the brightness dims out toward the edge of the frame, which also tends to emphasize the patterns in the sky.

I point this out to emphasize that exposure is often the factor that most influences the appearance of the sky. Very often the sky is brighter than the rest of your subject, so it can be easy to overexpose it.

There is one other factor that I haven't seen much reference to. Film is reasonably sensitive to light in the near UV range, and whenever there is a fair amount of dust in the air, there is often a lot of UV scatter. That UV scatter tends to hide detail in skies (where the UV is higher).

I have a suggestion for you - take some cloud pictures. They have an honoured history in the annals of photography.

By cloud pictures, I mean pictures looking up, without any foreground. You should make a point of experimenting with your exposure (the standard meter will suggest an exposure that is one or two stops too dark) and take careful notes of what your meter recommends when it is pointed at the sky, pointed at a subject which includes part of the sky, and what range of exposures you actually used. You could also make the same tests with a UV filter, a polarizer, and some of the coloured (yellow, orange, red and green) filters too.

If possible, try to do this on a day with both blue sky and clouds - a sunny day right after a rain storm is the best for atmospheric dust.

With all the permutations and combinations you could easily use up a couple of 36 exposure rolls, especially if you supplement the shots with some that do show foreground, but if you try a range of combinations, and keep good notes, you may learn a lot.

Have fun.

Matt

P.S. the following shows lots of detail in the sky, but really that only happened because I adjusted the brightness of this scan to show detail in the pier and the sky, and then burned the signs in heavily:

 

[johnnywalker]

The simplest and best solution for me is to use a yellow #8 filter, which is supposed to correct most black and white film's over-sensitivity to blue and make the negative close to what your eyes actually see. From a post or two above it seems not all black and white films have the over-sensitivity to blue problem to the same extent, so you could try one of them. I'd try it with and without the filter though, before your trip.

 

[Leighgion]

FilmOnly:

If you look at the first shot posted by Leighgion, you will note a couple of things:

1) the foreground is fairly dark - if I had to guess, I would say that the exposure was chosen to emphasize the patterns in the sky; and
2) it was shot with a very wide lens - so wide, that the corners curve, and the brightness dims out toward the edge of the frame, which also tends to emphasize the patterns in the sky.

I point this out to emphasize that exposure is often the factor that most influences the appearance of the sky. Very often the sky is brighter than the rest of your subject, so it can be easy to overexpose it.

The lens used in both shots is a Nikon 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, which is wide as wide can be on 135 format among my gear. I don't feel though, that in this case that light falloff was a major factor. The sun was riding the horizon and sinking away, thus providing a lot more tonal range in the sky than exists in daylight, especially with the handy scattered clouds. In fact, I shot this from a different part of the boat just a few minutes after, which even with the sun in frame shows range in the sky:

I agree that it can't be overemphasized how much more important exposure is to getting tonal range in the sky than film, but development methodology is also very important. The shots from the ferry were done in D76 1+1, which yields negatives of considerably lower contrast than straight D76. Not my cup of tea for normal use, but very handy for reigning in certain scenes.

 

[Craig Swensson]

Originally Posted by 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.

What Mattking suggests, I was going to reply with same but left it, yeah get out witha couple of rolls and just experiment with cloud/sky as main part of your framing, bet you surprise yourself

 

[timk]

I know this may be a pointless test, and sorry if I've stated the obvious here.


I've just noticed it's a nice sunny day with blue sky & clouds (Melbourne, Spring time, sunny day with clouds, late afternoon), I went outside with an OM-4 (using the spot meter) and took some readings.

So for those who like to see the raw data...

------------------------------------
100 iso, 1/125 sec, unfiltered

White cloud highlight = F/16
Blue Sky = f/11
Grey Cloud = f/11
Driveway in shade = f/2
Grass in shade = f/1.2

the scene has a 7 stop range
the sky on it's own has a 1 stop range
------------------------------------
100 iso film, 1/30 sec, Red 25A filter

White cloud highlight = F/16
Grey Cloud = F/11
Blue Sky = F/5.6
Driveway in shade = F/2
Grass in shade = F/0.8

The scene has an 9 stop range
the sky has a 3 stop range
-------------------------------------

In the latter example, Red filter has extended the range of the scene by 2 stops (by a factor of 28%)

It's also dramatically separated the Clouds and sky (by a factor of 200%).

The tonality of the sky in the first example would be more limited because it only has a 1 stop range of contrast, the second example has a 3 stop range of contrast so there is more separation of tones and a more dramatic looking image would be the result.

It doesn't really matter if I under-expose, there is still going to be 1 stop of contrast, it will just be shifted down the range of the negative. If the contrast of the scene has exceeded the limitation of the negative then you'll have issues, but this is not always the case. The example I gave has a 7-9 stop range, which is within the working range of HP5+ (around 10-11 stops from memory, possibly more).

Now, another way to get around your problem is to use a very contrasty film. A film with a 3 stop range will produce magnificent results in the former example if you're just photographing sky...

Anyway, these results are typical of a Red filter, it dramatically increases contrast, it gives you an 'extreme' sky with un-natural rendering. Yellow - Yellow/Orange - Orange - Red is the progression with the yellow filter giving more subtle effects and the red = extreme.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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.

Try to explore the other 50% of photography. You spend your entire time taking pictures? It's not about quantity. If I make one GOOD photograph a year, I'm happy!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph,

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

Tom

Tom

Define quality.

 

[2F/2F]

Tom

Define quality.

Exactly.

I would rather hear about qualities of the film than hear someone's idea of what quality sans criteria is.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Image quality in terms of sharpness, tone reproduction and grain etc. compared to standard ISO 400 black & white films.

 

[FilmOnly]

Wow, what a wealth of information since I last checked. I truly appreciate the advice and comments. There are a number of issues here that I must wade through. I like the idea of experimenting with various sky shots. I am a little skeptical of this though, as I think contrast is perhaps the main issue. I have been exposing for the sky, but areas of shade (as one poster noted) become areas of black blobs. I use a hand-held light meter, and meter for the overall brightness of the scene (i.e. not in an area of shade, as these areas tend to make up only a small portion of the scene).

At this point, I will not give up b&w quite yet. I would like to see some good results, though. I could not agree more: I, too, prefer quality to quantity.

ntenny: I thank you for the beautiful shot. You are an artist. You have captured reality.

Before I forget: in taking shots of the Christmas tree in NYC, I can already see my results (only because this is how things have gone with b&w): black tree, white ice, nearly white sky...waste of film.

Also...I have already noted that I am using a hand-held meter, and so my problem has nothing to do with an in-camera meter being fooled by brightness. In fact, if that were the case, it could only help, as the in-camera meter would "tell" me to close down (because of the bright sky). This could only help the sky, as the blue (or darker clouds, as the case may be) may be darkened a bit against any white. The result here, though, would make for even blacker shadow blobs (if that is possible).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Image quality in terms of sharpness, tone reproduction and grain etc. compared to standard ISO 400 black & white films.

Let's take them one by one:

sharpness: A term worth a book on its own, meaning many things to many people, confused by many with max resolution by some with grain, probably more like acutance, but I define it as the resolution at 50% MTF. Sorry for the soap box, but it was necessary to illustrate that to me sharpness is more an issue of lens performance and subject contrast. That doesn't mean that there are sharper films than others, but I'm used to Tmax and XP2 is not less sharp than that.

tone reproduction: There is the big difference. XP2 has overexposure latitude until the cows come home. Think of it as N-3 development at all times. It will catch those bright skies and force them into the usable negative density range, no problem but at a price! Everything else in the scene will be of low contrast too. So, XP2 is for high-contrast scenes and no good for low-contrast scenes. Also, the midtones may require a high-contrast filter in the darkroom, and shadows and highlights may need some dodging and burning, but it is easy to do, because no negative densities are excessively high. My sample picture in the second post was done that way.

grain: With regular B&W film, grain is found in midtones and highlights. With XP2, this is reversed to midtones and shadows. Since human vision is more sensitive to tonality differences in the highlights, shadow grain is rarely an issue, and therefore, XP2 comes across as a really fine-grain film. My 11x14-inch prints from MF negatives show no visible grain.

Hope this helps a little. By the way, I shoot XP2 at 250 ASA and have a commercial lab develop it with standard C41 processing.

 

[FilmOnly]

Ralph: why do you shoot XP2 at 250? What prompted you to avoid the box speed? I gather you have the lab develop it normally (i.e. without push or pull)? Also, with regard to shooting at 250, this really does not assist me with regard to 400-speed b&w film. For only 1/3-stop difference between, I may as well just use 200 Superpan.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph: why do you shoot XP2 at 250? What prompted you to avoid the box speed? I gather you have the lab develop it normally (i.e. without push or pull)? Also, with regard to shooting at 250, this really does not assist me with regard to 400-speed b&w film. For only 1/3-stop difference between, I may as well just use 200 Superpan.

Shadow detail, but I shoot all films at 2/3 stop below box speed for the same reason. You may have different requirements and shoot it at 400.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ralph,

Thanks for the response, I'd like to find a film that provides flexibility in high contrast and uncertain (without spot meter) metering situations, and it sounds as though XP2 Super could be a useful tool. Otherwise, I tend towards the 'Delta' or 'T-max' films, and do not have issues with these when spot metering.

Tom

 

[FilmOnly]

Ralph: I had a hunch that you are after shadow detail. I think this is wise, as I find dark blobs (i.e. shadows) about as offensive as white skies. In a number of scenes, I can avoid neither.

 

[Leighgion]

Ralph: I had a hunch that you are after shadow detail. I think this is wise, as I find dark blobs (i.e. shadows) about as offensive as white skies. In a number of scenes, I can avoid neither.

Well, you'd hate some of my shots with pushed film and heavy filtering then.

Even the films with the widest dynamic range aren't going to capture what your eyes see. Having the give up the shadows or the highlights to some degree is just a fact of life. This actually is one of the strongest arguments to take control of the rest of the process, as development and printing (or scanning as the case may be) can all be tuned to help compensate.

If your target is static, there's also multiple exposure and compositing trickery that can be done.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I am very very fond of Neopan 400 in 35mm size. It seems to handle skies fairly well, however if I "WANT" dark skies, I always use a light red filter, or polarizer depending on lighting conditions. That is they way to ensure dark skies.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am very very fond of Neopan 400 in 35mm size. It seems to handle skies fairly well, however if I "WANT" dark skies, I always use a light red filter, or polarizer depending on lighting conditions. That is they way to ensure dark skies.

... unless it's overcast.

 

[keithwms]

I like xp2 well enough. My two main issues with it are: (1) when you factor in the contrast that most will want, its speed is nowhere near 400... it's more like 200-300; and (2) it is annoying to me not be able to use the same film across different formats. I use hp5+ in everything from 35mm to 11x14... but xp2 is only available in 35mm and 120. No xp2 sheets, not even 4x5. I find it very hard to build a relationship with a film that is available only in rolls; there are things rollfilm gear simply cannot do. It could be a very promising LF film... too bad. As a result, if I did want performance akin to xp2 in a b&w film that I could use across all the formats, I think I'd just go with a staining developer on one of the standard, less expensive, nonchromogenic films.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Half the fun of black & white photography is using toxic chemicals!

Steve

 

[Graham06]

Ralph: I had a hunch that you are after shadow detail. I think this is wise, as I find dark blobs (i.e. shadows) about as offensive as white skies. In a number of scenes, I can avoid neither.

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

 

[df cardwell]

If you use shampoo, or vinegar, you've pretty much run the gamut of evil you'll encounter in a darkroom.

Even MY darkroom.

The Neopan 400 + Xtol combination is excellent: lots of shadow detail and a nice shoulder that will hold even over exposed skies in check.

.

 

[Leighgion]

Half the fun of black & white photography is using toxic chemicals!

Does this mean Rodinal has more fun, since it's more toxic?

 

[eddym]

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.

Actually, if you are not willing to process your own film and print your own negatives... then yes, you might as well give up black and white photography, at least. Most of the art of B&W is in just that: the processing and printing. If you want to produce photographs that someone else will process and print, then you should probably shoot color slides.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Actually, if you are not willing to process your own film and print your own negatives... then yes, you might as well give up black and white photography, at least. Most of the art of B&W is in just that: the processing and printing. If you want to produce photographs that someone else will process and print, then you should probably shoot color slides.

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.